Basic Theories of Representative System

Abstract

In constitutional studies and political science, the “Representative System” is an old topic for discussion with a long history. Although the term “Representative System” in the modern sense has been in use only for centuries, its theoretical origin and political practice can be traced back to the distant classical era. Unfortunately, the reflections upon the “Representative System” within disparate theoretical frameworks are still far from being thorough and sufficient.

In constitutional studies and political science, the “Representative System” is an old topic for discussion. Although the term “Representative System” in the modern sense has been in use only for centuries, its theoretical origin and political practice can be traced back to the distant classical era. Unfortunately, the reflections upon the “Representative System” within disparate theoretical frameworks are still far from thorough and sufficient. Therefore, in the systematic study of problems related to the representative system, the first step is to clarify the concept of the “Representative System” itself because the so-called basic theories of the “Representative System” are actually elaborations on this concept. Specifically, discussions on features, functions, and principles in the process of its organization and activities elaborate on the concept of “Representative System”.

1.1 Some Concepts of Representative System

Fundamentally, the representative system is no more than a basic form of democracy, so democracy is the logical starting point for the study of the representative system.

1.1.1 Democracy and Democratic Forms

Karl Marx once pondered, “What is democracy? It must have a meaning, or it would not exist. It is all a matter, then, of finding the true meaning of democracy.”¹ The word “democracy” has its origin in the Greek vocabulary demokratia,² which means “the power of the people” or “people as the masters of the country”, to be more exact, “the rule of the majority”, or, as Lenin put it, a state where the minority is subordinate to the majority. Herodotus pointed out in The Histories that the characteristic of democratic politics is that political affairs should be “determined by the public”³; Thucydides expressed the same idea in the History of the Peloponnesian War and he argued, “[Our constitution’s] administration favours the many instead of the few; this is way it is called a democracy.”⁴ In Politics, Aristotle divided the main types of polities according to the number of people in power, and pointed out that democracy refers to the rule of the majority. People in the modern age have varied understandings and interpretations of democracy, but they all affirm the traditional view that democracy refers to the rule of majority.⁵ Therefore, the fundamental purpose of democracy is to guarantee the interests and political rights of the majority, and to recognize the will of the majority as the supreme will. Of course, for various reasons, democracy as the rule of the majority does not mean that the majority of members of the society directly become the rulers. The rule of the majority only means that the governance of the minority is carried out with the consent and authority of the majority, and is effectively constrained and supervised by the majority. Accordingly, the major problem to be solved by democracy is how to deal with the relationship between the governance of the minority and the interests and rights of the majority.

Democracy’s historical origins reveal that the interrelation between governance of the minority and the interests of the majority is determined by the power distribution generated by the economic base and property rights relations. As a form of governance, democracy originated in clans. Of course, such so-called democratic forms of governance here are not the democratic system in the sense of a nation, but merely refer to a way of equally managing public affairs on the basis of the primitive public ownership, naturally established with people enjoying the equal labor right, that is, what Engels called, the “naturally developed democracy”.⁶ With the emergence of social division of labor and private ownership, the inequality of people’s labor and property ownership arise, which leads to the antagonism between governors and laborers, and thus the primitive equal social relations are replaced. Similarly, the social management power held by governors is substituted by the state political power controlled by the ruling class (i.e. the so-called separation of the state from the society). As a result, the fundamental opposition of the ruling and ruled classes in terms of political and economic interests determines that the power of state governance can only belong to the class and stratum in possession of social property, and cannot be equally distributed among all social classes. More specifically, the distribution of state power is exclusive to the ruling class. Therefore, “Democracy is the unity of opposites between equality and inequality in terms of power.”⁷ This unity of opposites implies that the ruling class in possession of the means of production will realize and consolidate its rule in the form of possession of power, while the ruled class will accept or resist being ruled in the form of possession of its corresponding power. In reality, the opposition between “consolidation” and “resistance” in democracy is the conflict between power and right. Therefore, what democracy concerns is, to some extent, the relationship between the governance of the minority and the interests of the majority, and as a matter of fact, it is also the relationship between power and rights. As Lenin pointed out, “Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state.”⁸ In other words, democracy is the main approach for the majority to exercise the state power to determine, control and supervise the minority. It deals with three aspects of state power, namely: its source, constraints and attribution.

The existence of the class differences and unequal power distribution have determined that the practice of democracy in nature is the tool of class rule, be it bourgeois or socialist democracy. However, the realization of this nature is guaranteed by various effective forms of democracy. That’s to say, the governance of a state by the ruling class is bound to be manifested through certain democratic forms, in other words, the class content of democracy must be realized through certain a democratic form, and democracy is thus an organic unity of both content and form. Therefore, in spite of divergent views on the issue of democracy, there is the consensus that the realization of the democratic content relies on the democratic form, in addition to the common view on the nature of democracy, i.e. “majority rule” or “people being the masters of their country”. According to Dialectical Materialism, everything is the unity of the opposites between content and form. Content without form, or form without content, does not exist in the real world. The same is true of democracy, which also includes both content and form. The democratic content refers to the class attribute of the democracy and the degree of democratic realization; the democratic form refers to the systems, organizations, structures, institutions, measures and methods fit for the democratic content, generally including direct and indirect forms of democracy. While  it is generally believed that the democratic content only refers to the class attribute of democracy, I’d like to clarify here why the degree of democratic realization must be attributed to the democratic content as an integral part. The class attribute is an important component of the democratic content, which emphasizes to whom this democracy belongs mainly from a qualitative perspective. However, the connotation of democracy is far more than the ownership of the political power, but concerns all aspects of the national and social life. What’s more, the existence and development of democracy are determined by such social and historical conditions as the politics, economy and culture. In other words, these objective conditions fundamentally confine various performances of democracy. Therefore, if the democratic content excludes the realization degree of democracy, it will not only be reduced to an abstract generalization, but also affect the accurate examination of democracy and the exploration of the approaches and methods for the development of democracy.

Looking into the theories and practices of democracy both in China and other countries, one will find some flaws in dealing with the issue of the relationship between the democratic content and form: the bourgeois democratic theories lay particular stress on the role of the democratic form, believing that the internal and economic content of democracy will be naturally realized so long as the formal and political form of democracy is achieved. This view not only reverses the relationship between the content and form of democracy, but also covers up the nature of the bourgeois democracy. Nevertheless, the socialist democratic theories often overemphasize the content of democracy while ignoring the form of democracy. Xu C. D. and He H. H. noted, “it seems that the study of state issues can only involve the nature and class dictatorship instead of the form and organization of the political power”.⁹ There is a misconception that the proletariat “does not haggle over the form”. If anyone studies the democratic form and focuses on the democratic procedures, he will be criticized as “beating around the bush on the issue of form” and even labeled as a “bourgeois formalist”. Xu and He further noted that the idea that the proletariat “does not bother about the trifling things of form... is both biased and extremely harmful”.¹⁰ Likewise, we could not do better in the construction of democracy if we could only recognize the decisive role of the content but fail to see the role of form in promoting or hindering the content or even the decisive significance of form under certain circumstances. The correct approach is to take the two aspects into account with equal emphasis and make timely adjustments according to various objective historical conditions.

In my opinion, at the present stage in China, the improvement of the democratic form is the key to the development of the socialist democracy. For one thing, the construction of the democratic form in China has long been neglected, which in turn has hindered the superior performance of socialist democracy. For another, it is also the requirement inherent in the development of the socialist democracy. The proletariat, in the process of seizing and building the state power, has undergone two phases in terms of democracy: the proletarian and the socialist democracy. In the former phase, the proletariat should aim at achieving the goal of people being the masters of their own country and full acquisition of the political and economic dominance, etc., i.e. realizing the content of socialist democracy. Although the content and form are often inseparable, the fulfillment of the content will lead to the accomplishment of the form at the same time. It is during this phase that the development of democratic content should be the main focus. However, once the content is determined, the quality of democratic nature, which may develop with the changing of the objective situations, will maintain a considerable stability. Therefore, the development of the democratic content can only involve the enrichment, improvement and perfection of its nature. What’s more, the transitional attribute of the socialist society determines that the development of socialist democratic content can only be extended from the state-form of democracy to the non-state form of democracy. Therefore, the development of the socialist democratic content appears to be more definite and stable, while the diversity and imperfection of the socialist democratic form definitively result in complexity that requires urgent understanding and exploration of the form most suitable for the content of socialist democracy.

1.1.2 Indirect Democratic Form and Representative System

There are two forms of democracy: direct and indirect. The form of direct democracy refers to the ways and methods in which people participate in the decision-making of the important state affairs in person. Generally speaking, the practice of direct democracy in a jurisdiction must meet the following requirements: First, it should be a small jurisdiction with a small population. As the direct democracy emphasizes the direct management of state affairs by the people, it is necessary to convene an assembly attended by all citizens to jointly handle the state affairs. Given a large territory and a large population, it is extremely difficult to practice direct democracy. Second, transportation should be well developed. A developed system of transportation is the basic requirement to guarantee that citizens can gather rapidly, attend the assembly of citizens and participate in the decision-making of the state affairs. Third, the state affairs should be simple. The complexity of state affairs is bound to exceed the bearing capacity of the assembly of citizens. Therefore, the practice of direct democracy is to be also restricted by the political factors in addition to the aforementioned geographical ones. Fourth, the citizens should be well-educated because the major task for the citizens in the direct democracy is to directly participate in law making. However, if citizens are poorly-educated, the assembly will be rendered incompetent for its function. That is why the direct democratic form is mainly adopted at the stage of the primitive democracy. As the forces of history push social progress,¹¹ the limitations of the direct democracy show up gradually, and the indirect democratic form thus comes into being. The form of indirect democracy refers to the ways and methods in which people participate in, decide and manage the major state affairs through their representatives. The indirect democratic form, which is created for remedying the defects of the direct democratic form, holds a dominant position relative to direct democracy in both capitalist and socialist societies later in the process of democratic development. Moreover, although direct democracy tends to increase the development of democratic form, the two forms of democracy are sure to coexist for a relatively long period of time. Additionally, as the direct democracy focuses more on the ideal aspect and neglects the practical level, on the contrary, the indirect democracy works the other way around,¹² the combination of the two can maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. In this sense, the expansion of the direct democracy will not offset the existence of the indirect democracy, but only the focus will change with the political, economic and cultural conditions.

Besides, one thing must be clarified. Academics and the general public believe direct democracy means that the state power is exercised by citizens in person, while indirect democracy means that the representatives elected by the citizens exercise the state power instead. This view is not absolutely correct. Ancient Athens, for example, was generally believed to have practiced direct democracy. Although the ecclesia (assembly of citizens) held the supreme power in the executive, legislative and judicial areas, its duty in practice was only limited to deliberation, such as reviewing and approving the decision of declaring a war, while the executive power was entrusted to the consuls (executive officers), and judicial power was delegated to courts. Modern Switzerland is another example. It is generally considered that direct democracy is practiced in the country. However, its executive power belongs to the executive committee and the judicial power is entrusted to courts at all levels. Only the legislative power is directly exercised by the citizens. Obviously, neither the executive power nor the judicial power is exercised directly by citizens whether in the ancient or the modern ages. Therefore, the criterion to distinguish the difference between the direct and indirect democracy is only based on the form of exercise of the legislative power.

Although the indirect democratic form and the indirect democratic system have many connections, for instance, both of them belong to the indirect democracy and are counterparts of the direct democracy, but they are not the same things. Their differences mainly exist in their connotations and in the process of their production. In my opinion, the indirect democratic form appears prior to the indirect democratic system, in other words, the indirect democratic system is the outcome of the development of the indirect democratic form to a certain historical stage. In terms of connotation, the indirect democratic form mainly focuses on the indirect ways and methods, and its denotation may be one way and one method or two ways and two methods, that is to say, its denotation is wider; the indirect democratic system is a unified system comprised of a series of indirect democratic forms, thus its denotation is narrower. It is inappropriate but not completely wrong that the representative system under study in this book is often considered as a form of indirect democracy. In fact, the representative system belongs to the category of the indirect democratic system, and it is the main content and form of the indirect democratic system. In a certain sense, the representative system has obviously become synonymous with the indirect democratic system in the modern democratic practices.

1.1.3 Comparison of Several Conceptions of Representative System

• (1) Conceptions of Representative System by Bourgeois Scholars

The bourgeois scholars have many conceptions of the representative system. As far as I know, they are mainly as follows:

The first conception is that the representative system is equal to the establishment of the representative organ. In Principles of Constitutional Law, the renowned Japanese Constitutional scholar Minobe Tatsukichi noted that the representative system involves “the election and re-election of the parliament of citizens periodically by the people being represented as an institution speaking for the will of the people”.¹³ Some others hold that the representative system is just establishing a parliament as an institution representing the public will. The parliament is superior to the government, and all the important state affairs are to be first reviewed and approved by the parliament before they are executed by the government.

The second is that the representative system is the fundamental way for people to control the government. John Stuart Mill argued in his book Considerations on Representative Government, “The meaning of representative government is, that the whole people, or some numerous portion of them, exercise through deputies periodically elected by themselves, the ultimate controlling power, which, in every constitution, must reside somewhere. This ultimate power they must possess in all its completeness. They must be masters, whenever they please, of all the operations of government.”¹⁴

The third is that the representative system is the indirect representation system. S. Reed Brett, the British constitutional expert said, “…for the idea of representation had not yet emerged—the idea, that is, that one man could represent another, or a number of others.”¹⁵ Others believe that the representative system can be defined as a system or a process where certain representatives, with evident consent of part or all of the citizens, impose their influence upon the government or the legislative power, and the effects are taken by the ones being represented.

The fourth is that the representative system is regarded as a kind of polity. Encyclopedia Britannica defines the representative democracy, with which representative system has become synonymous as “a form of government where the citizens exercise the same right not in person but through representatives chosen by and responsible to them”.¹⁶ According to Encyclopedia Americana, “Representative government is the form of political rule in which the major laws and executive decisions in a state or community are made by a small number of persons who are believed to represent in some way the population or important parts of it.”¹⁷

Although the conceptions mentioned above have all stressed the basic feature of indirectness of the representative system, their common defects are obvious: First, they fail to reveal the nature of the representative system except the mere descriptions of the phenomena and activities of the representative system in political practice. Second, they fail to comprehensively and completely generalize the content of the representative system other than defining it from one aspect or angle or another.

Still other points require classification. First, there are connections as well as differences between the representative system and the representative organ. Neither can be equated. Actually, the representative system is the abstraction and generalization of the representative organ system with the representative organ as the core, while the representative organ is a specified and structured representation of the principles and contents of the representative system. Second, the representative system is merely an approach to the realization of the interests and desires of the ruling class and its allies, but not a fundamental means for people to control the government in general,¹⁸ because the government itself is the prime indication of the representative system. Third, the representative system connotes both “representing” and “deliberating”, so it cannot be understood as the general meaning of “representing”, as in “an individual representing the others or the majority”. Fourth, the polity differs from the political system. The representative system is only the important content of the national political system, rather than the polity of the country. Fifth, theoretically, the representative system as a concept centers on the “indirect form”, that is, a proportion of people representing the rest or the few representing the majority in the decision making of the important state affairs. As for its class attribute, it is given by its people. To put it another way, the class attribute of the representative system is determined by the purpose of the class or stratum who employs the system, its political and economic status. However, any study of political theory, if divorced from the real political life, will not only fail to reach any scientific conclusions, but also will not contribute to the development of the political practice. Therefore, revealing the nature of the representative system should be the core concept of its study.

• (2) Conceptions of Chinese Scholars Concerning Representative System

There are generally four common conceptions of the representative system held by Chinese scholars:

The first conception is that the representative system, also called “parliamentary system” or “congressional system”, is a political system implemented in the capitalist countries, where the parliament is the center of the national political activities and the government is responsible to the parliament.¹⁹

The second one is that the representative system is the parliamentary system in a broad sense, where the parliament is formed by the elected members, exercises the legislative functions and supervises the government to a certain degree according to the principle of the separation of powers.²⁰

The third is that the representative system refers to the system in which the capitalist countries divide constituencies across the country and elect members to form the parliament so as to carry out the power of legislation and supervision in the name of the voters.²¹

The fourth is that the representative system is “a form of indirect democracy. It has two characteristics: the first is that the members and representatives of the representative organ are elected by universal suffrage and have a certain term of office. The second is that the representative organ possesses the legislative power and occupies an important position in the system of state organs”.²²

It should be mentioned that the above conceptions basically avoid some defects of those proposed by the bourgeois scholars. However, I think there are still some points to be noted. Firstly, the counterpart of the representative democracy can only be the direct democracy instead of the socialist people’s representative system, so it is biased to think that “the representative system is virtually the bourgeois parliamentary system”.²³ Secondly, the discontinuity in the content and nature of democracy exists to some extent, but there is a certain inheritance in the form of democracy. Thirdly, the denotation of a concept is determined by its connotation, so we cannot demarcate the denotation before defining the connotation, otherwise, the preconception is bound to affect the scientific nature of the concept.

1.1.4 The Concept of Representative System

Lenin pointed out, “...the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, ...can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development.”²⁴ Although the aforementioned conceptions of the representative system have certain drawbacks, we should be clear that they are all brought about by the different standpoints, methods, and perspectives of the researchers that propose them. Therefore, the representative system, on the basis of the above analysis, can be defined as a system in which the ruling class of a state elects a certain number of members who can reflect its interest and wills from different classes, strata and groups to form a representative organ for deciding and managing the major state affairs in terms of political, economic, cultural, and social life according to the principle of subordinating the minority to the majority. In this sense, this definition has not only refrained itself from the formalism of other definitions, but has also avoided the parochialism and the subjectivity on the issue of the representative system. Moreover, it has not only clearly revealed the nature and purpose of the representative system, but also comprehensively and systematically summarized its content. From this definition, we can understand that both the capitalist parliamentary system and the socialist people’s representative system are only manifestations of different forms of the representative system.

Based on the definition above, the representative system can be divided into three main components in terms of its internal structure: the system of representation, the organizational system and the dispute resolution system of the representative organs. The integration of the three forms an organic whole. Here I’d like to elaborate on these points.

First, the system of representation. The system of representation is the core of the representative system, and the latter does not exist without the former. Since the concept of “representative” is used on different occasions in the social and political life, it is of great importance to clarify the connotation of the term “representative” as it is used in this book.²⁵ Here, the so-called “representative” is limited to the members of the representative organs elected according to law, such as members of parliament (MPs) or people’s deputies. The system of representation refers to the system concerning the representatives’ election, identity, status, obligation, supervision, recall, authority protection, operation and functions.

Second, the organizational system of the representative organ. The representative organ is the materialized framework of the representative system, and is the organizer and leader for the actual operation of the representative system. Therefore, the internal structure of the representative organ, the organization of its institutions, the obligations and authority of the institutions, and their mutual relations, etc. are closely related to the operation of the representative system.

Third, the resolution system of the representative organ. The representative system not only needs the representatives and the representative organ, but also calls for the representative organ to perform its functions and powers and carry out various work according to law. Thus, the representative organ is required to establish a comprehensive and effective dispute resolution system by making ‘rules and regulations’ so as to guarantee the representative organ fully exercises its functions and powers.

1.2 Basic Features of Representative System

The basic features of the representative system refer to the most important features of the representative system, as the basic system of state governance, manifested in its organizational structure and in the status and role of the whole state system. Generally speaking, the representative system is characterized by “representing the deliberation”, including both “representing” and “deliberating”. The basic features are as follows.

1.2.1 Representation

The core feature of the representative system lies in the concept of “representation” in modern sense, which is different from the virtual concept that the king is the representative or delegate of the people in the Middle Ages. That is to say, in order for representatives to hold the state power, there must be a system of guarantees that actually ensures the nature of representation. In modern and contemporary bourgeois parliaments, at least the members of one house are elected, which is an institutional guarantee for “representation”. Even in systems where the monarch possesses some representative quality, members of the lower houses of parliaments possess the quality to a much greater extent. In the socialist representative organs, all the representatives are elected. Therefore, election of representatives is the primary feature of the representative system.

1.2.2 Indirect

Closely associated with the feature of representation mentioned above, the indirectness indicates that the people do not manage the major state affairs directly. Since representation is the core feature of the representative system, which is a necessary intermediate link for the activation of the representative organ in order to give full play to the functions of the representative system, under the representative system, the people can only participate in the management of the country indirectly. Therefore, the indirectness is also one of the basic features of the representative system and an extension of representation as well.

1.2.3 Organizational

The representative system is a generalization and abstraction of a series of organizations and institutions with the representative organs as the core. In other words, the representative system is of significance only when the representative system is materialized into various organs and organizations. As stated above, the representative system is different from the representative organ, however, the former loses its intrinsic value without the latter. Because the representative system has its organizational feature, in order to give full play to the representative system and apply it scientifically and effectively, the key is to grasp its entities, namely, its various institutions and organizations. Only when all kinds of representative organs and organizations operate healthily and properly can the representative system function effectively.

1.2.4 Hierarchical

The representative system, in a sense, refers to the system of the representative organs at all levels of both central and local governments, that is to say, the representative system is not only an abstraction of the central representative organ system, but also the local ones. Therefore, it is the multilevel nature of the representative organ system that lead to the hierarchy of the internal composition of the representative system.

1.2.5 Accountability

Although the representative theories have failed to settle whether representative organs serve the function of “delegate” or “trustee”,²⁶ none denies that both the representatives and the representative organs must be accountable for their own behavior, but their only differences lie in for what and to whom they should be accountable. The “trustee” conception of representative organs holds that the representatives must be accountable for the overall interests of the country, while the “delegate” conception holds that the representatives must be accountable to the voters of their constituencies. Therefore, the representative politics is in a sense a politics of accountability, and in turn accountability constitutes the feature of the representative system.

1.3 Basic Functions of Representative System

The basic functions of the representative system, i.e. the basic roles of the representative system in the social and political life, result from its establishment, improvement and practical operation by people. Classical theories posit that parliaments can do everything except make men women or women men, and that the functions of the representative system can be summarized as those of representation, unification and government-supervision, but theoretically, the representative system is created to provide the abstract power holders with specific ways to realize their power with the changing social and historical situation. Therefore, the most fundamental and core function of the representative system is to allocate the state power in the form of representative system. Specifically, the functions are: resolution, reconciliation, oversight and education.

1.3.1 Resolution Function

In terms of purpose, the organization of the representative organs and establishment of the representative system legitimize the status and powers of their subordinate institutions and organizations and properly solve various problems in the national and social life through their effective operation. As Tomoaki Iwai puts it, “‘to endow legal status and legitimate qualification’ is the most important function of the parliament in the democratic countries under the rule of law today.”²⁷ Thus, “resolution” is one of the most basic functions in the operation of the representative system, which Birch defines as the function to endow the government with a particular kind of legitimacy.²⁸ In both its literal meaning and political practice, “resolution” entails “deliberation” and “decision”, the two closely related but distinct parts. The so-called “deliberation”, i.e., discussion or negotiation, is a process of drawing on collective wisdom and absorbing all useful ideas. It is also the basis for and prerequisite to a “decision”, while a “decision” without “deliberation” entails loss of democracy, which easily leads to dictatorship. What’s more, John Stuart Mill takes “deliberation”, which fully reflects various opinions of the people, as a basic function of the parliament. He believes that politicians can find sound evidence for their policy making by observing the balance of power relations between those opinions displayed in the parliament. Consequently, when someone accused the parliament of being “a place for mere talk and bavardage”, Mill argued:

There has seldom been more displaced derision. I know not how a representative assembly can more usefully employ itself than in talk, when the subject of talk is the great public interests of the country, and every sentence of it represents the opinion either of some important body of persons in the nation, or of an individual in whom some such body have reposed their confidence. A place where every interest and shade of opinion in the country can have its cause even passionately pleaded, in the face of the government and of all other interests and opinions, can compel them to listen, and either comply, or state clearly why they do not, is in itself, if it answered no other purpose, one of the most important political institutions that can exist anywhere, and one of the most foremost benefits of free government. Such ‘talking’ would never be looked upon with disparagement if it were not allowed to stop ‘doing’.²⁹

And such extensive deliberation provides the conditions for the formation of a correct decision. In this regard, Aristotle pointed out, “Now any member of the assembly, taken separately, is certainly inferior to the wise man. But the state is made up of many individuals. And as a feast to which all the guests contribute is better than a banquet furnished by a single man, so a multitude is a better judge of many things than any one individual.”³⁰

Here the term “decision” refers to decision-making or policy-making, which is the logical result of “deliberation”. ‘Deliberation’ without “decision” is truly nothing but “mere talk”, as meaningless as a vibration of the air. Thus, Rawls pointed out that “the authority to determine basic social policies resides in a representative body selected for limited terms by and ultimately accountable to the electorate. This representative body has more than a purely advisory capacity. It is a legislature with lawmaking powers and not simply a forum of delegates from various sectors of society to which the executive explains its actions and discerns the movements of public sentiment.”³¹

1.3.2 Reconciliation Function

Unequal economic status and power allocation inevitably result in the contradictory movement between power and rights. Where interest differences are very popular and interest conflicts are extraordinarily complicated, the contradictions between power and rights are mainly manifested in three ways: (1) the contradiction between power and rights of different groups within the ruling class; (2) the contradiction between the power of ruling class and the rights of the ruled class; (3) the contradiction of rights among different strata and groups within the ruled class. From a philosophical point of view, there are a variety of solutions to these contradictions. However, reconciliation is the best way to resolve contradictions that need to be handled without undermining the existing social order, because managing contradiction entails a progression from basic solution to thorough solution, and reconciliation only involves the basic solution of contradictions; secondly, since contradictory factors can co-exist in unison in certain conditions, it is advisable to find common ground of mutual constraints so as to create such conditions to bring all those factors into a harmonious state through negotiation; thirdly, all aspects of contradictions can be transformed into one another under certain conditions, thus there must be an intersection that promotes mutual transformation, and reconciliation moves the “intersection” under given conditions in order that the nature of contradictions can be transformed without breaking the original unity of contradictions. Therefore, I believe that reconciliation is an important means to deal with the contradictory movement between power and rights under the premise of maintaining the basic stability of political and legal order in modern countries. In view of its organizational structure and actual operation, the representative system also has a significant function of reconciling various social contradictions.

First, in terms of the member composition of representative bodies, the existence of interest differences and interest contradictions prompts different classes, strata and groups to participate in and exert influence on the political life of the country to satisfy their own desires and realize their own interests. Since the representative body plays an important role in the political life of the country, being elected as a “member” or a “representative” is the best way to achieve the aforementioned purposes. In spite of the differences between countries with different class natures in the process of representing the different interests of the country and society—members of the representative bodies in capitalist countries mainly come from different interest groups and strata of the propertied class that only represent a small portion of the population, while members of the representative bodies in socialist countries come from various social classes and strata of the society that account for 98% of the population—they share something in common in terms of reflecting their respective interest differences, reconciling and solving their respective interest contradictions, and the only difference lies in that the members in the capitalist countries tend to only represent a part of the society and those in the socialist countries can represent the whole society. Lipset pondered the principal problem for a theory of democratic system, “Under what conditions can a society have ‘sufficient’ participation to maintain the democratic system without introducing sources of cleavage which will undermine the cohesion?”³² Judging from the member composition of representative bodies, the representative system is the basic form to solve such a problem. Just as Easton pointed out, “The differences among diverse groups may be shielded from aggravation by building into the system additional expressive structural means that give the groups an opportunity to attempt to resolve their differences, if at all possible, under acceptable ground rules. A major device for this purpose is to be found in all kinds of representative structures…”.³³

Regarding the operation of the representative system, since representative bodies are composed of interested representatives from different classes, strata and groups, their main task throughout the process of their activities is to reconcile conflicts of interest, solve various contradictions and properly handle the relationship between the overall interests of the country and the partial interests of the members or representatives. Whether it is a joint government of several classes as in the United Kingdom, or that of several parties as in France, or even that of only one ruling class in a country, reconciliation of contradictions between interests is one of the basic functions of the representative system. As Easton points out, “It may well be, as the constant success of representative democracy in reasserting itself in France testifies, that without the integrative character of representative institutions, the divisive forces in France might have won out”³⁴; “Nevertheless, effective political expression for a demand, through the processes of representation, at least provides the satisfaction that an opportunity has been presented for trying to bridge the gap among differences.”³⁵ In real political practice, the function of reconciliation is mainly manifested in two aspects. First, it reconciles the contradictions among different representatives and different state organs. Generally, the contradictions among different representatives and different state organs are usually internal contradictions within the ruling class, which are actually the contradictions between power and rights. Although there are no fundamental disputes within the ruling class, the differentiation of interests and the imbalance of power distribution among different strata and groups will inevitably lead to internal contradictions and conflicts. In order to maintain the stability of political and legal order, the representative system has to bring its reconciliation function into full play. Second, it reconciles the contradictions between the government and the people, which are also the manifestation of the contradictions between power and rights. Specifically, the contradictions between the rule of the minority and the interests of the majority. Therefore, such contradictions in capitalist countries are antagonistic but non-antagonistic in socialist countries. Regardless of the nature of the contradictions, the reconciliation function of the representative system remains the same. On the one hand, through communication channels provided by the representative system, the government is able to adequately understand the public will and interest to draft policies accordingly, and thereby win citizens’ support and approval for the specific policies. On the other hand, these channels, which function like safety valves, enable entrusted citizens to vent their grudges.³⁶ As what Ralph Miliband pointed out, “The essence of parliamentarism is that it provides a buffer between government and people. It accords to the people the right to elect their representatives to engage in many forms of political activity; but it also binds the people to let their representatives bear the burden of sustaining or opposing the government of the day.”³⁷ However, in the political practice of the capitalist countries, the reconciliation function contains profound class motives in that the bourgeoisie are clearly aware that they can effectively restrict citizens from participating in the political life of the country on the one hand and manipulate the state power via representatives on the other hand by means of the reconciliation function of the representative system. Montesquieu noted, “The great advantage of representatives is, their capacity of discussing public affairs. For this, the people collectively are extremely unfit, which is one of the chief inconveniences of a democracy.” Montesquieu also criticized the direct democracy in ancient Greece, “One great fault there was in most of the ancient republics, that the people had a right to active resolutions, such as require some execution, a thing of which they are absolutely incapable. They ought to have no share in the government but for the choosing of representatives, which is within their reach.”³⁸ When expounding the tradition of the Swedish representative system, Stan Lucan noted, “Now peasants have their own representative institution, which obviously relieves the pressure of demanding further expansion of power.”³⁹ Therefore, fundamentally speaking, the bourgeois representative system aims to consolidate the dominant position of the bourgeoisie, while in contrast, the practice of the representative system in a socialist country aims to properly manage the relationship between the government and the people in order to truly ensure that the people as the masters of the country.

1.3.3 Oversight Function

John Stuart Mill maintained that the parliament cannot directly intervene in the legislative, executive and judicial activities, and that it should focus on the function of oversight and control rather than that of governance. He argued:

Instead of the function of governing, for which it is radically unfit, the proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable; to censure them if found condemnable, and, if the men who compose the government abuse their trust, or fulfil it in a manner which conflicts with the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office, and either expressly or virtually appoint their successors.⁴⁰

Mill’s father, James Mill also pointed out that representative democracy is the only guarantee against oppression and the only means of supervising the rulers.⁴¹ In theory, the representative system, with its representative bodies as the core, is the fundamental system for expressing and facilitating the popular will. In the political life of modern countries, the concept of “the popular sovereignty” has been deeply rooted in the minds of the people, so the will and interests of the people are bound to become the center of the political life of the country. Since the representative body is also an institution of public opinion, it has the power and responsibility to supervise the state organs to ensure the realization of the popular will, both in countries typical of “parliamentary supremacy” as in the United Kingdom and in the socialist countries in which the representative institutions are the highest organs of state power. Even in countries with a typical system of “separation of powers”, since legislation is the main activities of the representative institutions and the laws are the essential codes of conduct for all institutions, organizations and individuals, their work of expressing the public opinions and safeguarding the popular will is largely performed through legislation and oversight of law enforcement. In this regard, the former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson pointed out:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct.⁴²

In essence, the representative institution’s supervision and control over the government guarantees supervision and control of the government by the people, so as to provide a way to keep political leaders openly accountable for their actions on the one hand, and to offer a mechanism for non-violent replacement of leaders on the other.⁴³

In addition to the function of supervising the government, the representative system also implies the supervision over the representative institutions by the people since a representative institution is an agency of popular will as mentioned earlier. Are the public’s opinions truly reflected by the representative institutions? To what extent has the popular will been achieved? The answers to these questions can only be obtained through the supervision and examination of the representative institutions by the people. Given that the “members” and “representatives” are elected by the people, the people directly supervise the representative institutions, and then indirectly supervise the government through the representative institutions, which constitutes the supervision system of the representative system. Theoretically, the effective operation of the supervision system can guarantee the status and role of the people as masters of the country. In this regard, Henry B. Mayo believes that the representative system, as a political system, is democratic to the extent that decision-makers are under effective popular control.⁴⁴ However, in the political practice of capitalist countries, such a supervision function is far from what has been theorized.

1.3.4 Education Function

Were one to discuss the function of education only in a general sense, I think there would be no need to elaborate on its function in study of the representative system. However, the representative system is the core of modern democratic politics, whose effective operation requires the participants to have certain qualifications, therefore, a brief discussion of education is necessary. When Montesquieu criticized the direct democracy of ancient Greece and advocated for the representative system, his basic rationale was that the average people were neither well trained and nor equipped with qualifications to manage state affairs. For the same reason, politicians and theorists in modern capitalist countries have also used lack of education as an excuse to prevent the people from participating in the political life of the country. Nevertheless, both Montesquieu and some later bourgeois spokesmen only saw what democracy asks from the people while ignoring the fact that democratic politics itself provides an ideal opportunity to improve the people’s political competence and to develop their political character, a fact noticed by some other sensible thinkers. John Stuart Mill asserted that the representative government should be made to have both educational and utilitarian functions.⁴⁵ He argued that one of the important reasons why the representative government is called an ideal political system is that, through the process of political activities, it can educate the people, develop their own potential, improve their knowledge and moral standards, build up their good character, promote their personality and thus enhance their sense of commitment towards the country. The people’s concern for and participation in the public affairs not only nutures positive attitudes, encourages autonomy and creates a better tomorrow, but also allows the people to realize political participation through the representative system, which will both promote them to go beyond the small circle of their personal lives to become members of a community and transcend their selfish mentality to become concerned with the public’s interests. Compared with the autocratic political system that only requires the people to obey, the representative system that allows participation better promotes the social progress and improve the individual character of the people. Ideally, the best way to achieve these ends would be for everyone to participate in government affairs in person, though it is extremely difficult to achieve this in real life due to the constraints of social and historical conditions. Therefore, the representative system remains the best form of political system.⁴⁶

On the other hand, Max Weber regarded the parliament as a training base for political leaders. He classified parliaments into two basic types. One is the so-called “symbolic” parliamentary system, which is weak in power and neither produces talent nor trains political leaders; the other is a strong one, under which the government is created by the parliament and is directly responsible to the parliament. And the main function of the parliament is to serve as a base for attracting and training future political leaders.⁴⁷ Undoubtedly, what Weber describes is also an important part of the educational function of the representative system.

In addition to the four functions mentioned above, the representative system also has the derivative function, which is actually an extension of the resolution function. The representative organ, composed of elected members or representatives, is entitled to make decisions on major political affairs including economic, cultural and social issues of the country. That is to say, by resorting to legislative activities, the representative organ expresses the will and interests of the ruling class in terms of politics, economy, culture, social life and other aspects in the form of law. Therefore, as a basic system of managing the country, the representative system can organize and build up a series of other systems to govern the state affairs in all fields by means of legislative activities. In this sense, the representative system has a derivative function since a series of other systems can be derived from it.

1.4 Basic Principles of Representative System

1.4.1 General Principles

The general principles of the representative system refer to the principles that must be followed in the process of establishing, improving and operating the system, and are universally applicable to both the capitalist parliamentary system and the socialist people’s representative system. Although these principles are applied by different classes in different countries so as to reflect different nature, they are affirmed in political theories and legal provisions by all the countries that carry out the representative system without exception. Specifically, the general principles of the representative system are as follows: popular sovereignty, universal suffrage, the rule of law, majority resolution, procedure and publicity.

• (1) The Principle of Popular Sovereignty⁴⁸

Popular sovereignty means that the vast majority of people in a country have the supreme power to rule the country, that is, the principle of sovereignty. It is a democratic principle put forward and confirmed by the bourgeoisie in the process of bourgeois revolution against the feudal autocracy. From the perspective of historical development, the principle of popular sovereignty is the fundamental guiding ideology of the representative system. Although this principle was not directly proposed as the representative system came into being in Britain, the principle of “parliamentary sovereignty”, guiding the establishment and operation of the British parliamentary system, is actually designed to protect the interest of the emerging bourgeoisie, i.e. the so-called people’s interest, therefore, its basic thrust does not differ from the principle of popular sovereignty. With the establishment of the capitalist relations of production and consolidation of the bourgeois regime, popular sovereignty and the representative system have competed to become significant parts of the bourgeois democracy, where the two are integrated perfectly in form. However, it is the privilege of capital that essentially determines this integration mainly serves the interests of the propertied class.

• (2) The Principle of Universal Suffrage

As previously mentioned, the fundamental feature of the representative system is that representatives must be elected. Therefore, without elections, there can be no representative system. In this sense, we can say that the election is the foundation of the representative system. The so-called principle of universal suffrage here refers to the principle of universal right to vote. In general, the universal right to vote means that there are no extra qualifications for obtaining the right to vote other than age, citizenship, mental illness and legal deprivation of the political rights, and hence the principle of universal suffrage is practiced.

Universal suffrage was a key focus of the struggle for human rights and the slogan of the bourgeoisie against the feudal privileges in modern history. Under the feudal autocracy, officials were appointed by the feudal lords. In the first draft of The Civil War in France, Karl Marx used the term ‘hierarchical investiture’ to describe the system in which the feudal lords in the Middle Ages conferred vassals land, priesthood and official positions. The distinctive feature of this system was that people from the lower classes were completely at the mercy of the ecclesial and hereditary feudal lords from the higher classes. Under the monarchy in some western countries in the Middle Ages, there existed some sort of feudal hierarchical system of representation, yet in the “Estates General”, the nobility and clergy enjoyed privileges while “the third estate” including peasants, artisans and bourgeois were completely deprived of rights or had them strictly restricted. For this reason, the representative assembly in the feudal society is fundamentally distinct from the bourgeois parliamentary system based on universal suffrage. In Chinese feudal society, there were also systems of so-called “selection of talents” and “recommendation of officials”, which were designed to discover talents to serve the feudal lords, but they have nothing in common with the universal suffrage in a democracy. At the end of the feudal period, with the development of the capitalist commodity economy, the bourgeois revolution broke out under the slogan of equal rights. The slogan reflected exactly the needs of the capitalist commodity economy.

In the 1640s, British bourgeoisie brought up the issue of universal suffrage, but it did not come to fruition at that time. In 1832, Britain reformed its electoral system and lowered its high property qualifications. In July 1837, the London Working Men’s Association launched the Chartist Movement, which Lenin called as the world’s “first broad, truly mass and politically organized proletarian revolutionary movement.”⁴⁹ Later, according to the Representation of the People Acts of 1918 and 1928, men and women alike enjoyed the equal right to vote in Britain. By 1948, equal suffrage based on the principle of “one man one vote” was implemented. In 1969, some amendments were made to the Representation of the People Act, stipulating that all British citizens over the age of 18 had the right to vote according to law.

According to the political practices in capitalist countries, whatever features it has, the bourgeois revolution has gone through a long and tortuous process of development in terms of the establishment of the universal suffrage and the implementation of the principle of universal suffrage. And the moment the bourgeoisie initially took control of state power, they turned their spearhead to the principle of universal suffrage and denied working people the right to vote. Afterwards, owing to the repeated struggles of the laborers, the bourgeoisie on the one hand had to abolish some overt restrictions and allowed the citizens to enjoy the suffrage in form, while, on the other hand, they actually undermined the principle of universal suffrage through more covert and circuitous means such as qualification restrictions, constituency division, and ballot calculation. In this way, the principle of universal suffrage, though created by the bourgeoisie, could only guarantee the suffrage of the rich as matter of fact under bourgeois parliamentary system. Just as Engels put it, “the propertied class rules directly by means of the universal suffrage.”⁵⁰ And only in the socialist countries, where the people have truly become masters of their own countries and privileges are effectively eliminated, can the genuine democratic universal suffrage be possible.

• (3) The Principle of Rule of Law

The rule of law, in contrast to the rule of man, refers to a way in which the ruling class institutionalizes and legalizes the state affairs according to the democratic principles, and manages them strictly in accordance with the law. It is an important principle advocated by the bourgeois enlightenment thinkers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For instance, John Locke, the British political philosopher, proposed that the governments “are to govern by the promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favourite at court, and the country man at plough”.⁵¹ Thomas Paine, the American political theorist, also expressed the similar view that in absolute governments the king is law and in free countries the law ought to be king. His core concepts are the rule of law, equal justice under the law, and opposition against any organization or individual enjoying privileges beyond the law. These views played a crucial role in the battle against feudal autocratic privileges, as well as in the establishment and maintenance of bourgeois democracy including the universal suffrage system and the representative system. After the victory of the bourgeois revolution, the capitalist countries generally implemented the spirit of the rule of law in political practice, and in their view, constitutions themselves demonstrate the implementation of the rule of law because they generally stipulate that all are equal before the law.

There are two questions to be clarified here. First, is the rule of law one of the fundamental principles of the representative system? The answer is affirmative. If the principle of universal suffrage is the foundation of the representative system and the principle of popular sovereignty is its fundamental guideline, then the rule of law is its fundamental guarantee. Only when the representative system is confirmed in the form of law and protected by legal means from interference and sabotage of any organization or individual, can the representative system operate smoothly. This is true for the capitalist parliamentary system, as is it for the socialist people’s representative system. Cao P. L. et al. theorized that the principle of the rule of law in Britain is a bridge between the “parliamentary sovereignty” in law and “popular sovereignty” in politics, and a shield between the rulers and the ruled.⁵² Second, can socialist countries follow and apply the principle of the rule of law? The answer is also affirmative. In the past 70 years of the socialist revolution and construction in China, the building of democracy and the rule of law has not yet been established. An important reason is that the principle of the rule of law has not been strictly observed and effectively applied. Ironically, there are still some people in theoretical circles who regard the principle of the rule of law as something bourgeois, and they believe that the emphasis on the principle of the rule of law will lead to the bourgeois conception of the supremacy and omnipotence of law, and thus will negate the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and the guidelines, principles and policies of the Party. In this regard, I’d like to make the following points clear. First, the rule of law has proven to be the best means of governance in the history of mankind thus far. Although one must deny and criticize the essence of the bourgeois principle of the rule of law that mainly serves the privilege of capital, one can certainly build the socialist principle of the rule of law of our own. Secondly, we can affirm the “supremacy of law” while discarding the “omnipotence of law” advocated by the bourgeoisie, in that the “supremacy of law” is actually the inner core of the principle of the rule of law. Furthermore, the “supremacy of law” is different from the “omnipotence of law”. The latter stresses the absolute function and role of law, exclusive of other factors, while the former refers to the high status of law and does not exclude others. Thirdly, observing the principle of the rule of law and adhering to the supremacy of law are not in conflict with the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and the leadership of the Party. Because it is under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and the leadership of the Party that the Constitution and laws in China are formulated, and their contents are the standardization of the guidelines, principles and policies of the Party, to follow the principle of the rule of law and to adhere to the supremacy of law are consistent with the leadership of the Party and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism. Fourthly, the social ethics, conventions, etc. are also codes of conduct that people follow, but their status is under the law, and thus only the law enjoys supremacy.

In a word, the rule of law is the fundamental principle of the socialist people’s representative system and also an important principle in building the socialist democracy and legal system. Moreover, the socialist rule of law should be more comprehensive and thorough than the current capitalist one.

• (4) The Principle of Majority Decision

The essence of democracy is to draw on collective wisdom and make decisions based on the opinions of the vast majority. Therefore, in the process of deliberating and deciding on the state affairs, the representative bodies should first go through an extensive discussion and negotiation among deputies and then reach a resolution according to the opinions of the majority via voting. This is the principle of majority decision of the representative system.

In primitive societies, people had no notion of majority decision making, so they often resorted to force or even duel whenever they couldn’t reach a consensus through negotiation. Therefore, achieving unanimity by force was the ultimate solution to conflicts in primitive societies. Later on, people came to realize that violence was harmful to both the winner and the loser. Consequently, alternatives to violence were suggested: one way was shouting, whereby the opposing sides shouted and whoever shouted louder than the other would win; and the other was lining up, whereby the parties stood in lines and whichever line longer than the other would prevail. This kind of decision by the number of people rather than duel is the origin of the majority rule. The principle of majority decision was adopted early in ancient Greece. In Sparta, for example, the five ephors were elected by majority vote. Similarly, there are also sayings in ancient Roman Law, “What the majority decides must apply to all.” and “What is done by the majority of the popular assembly is regarded as what is done by all.” So, the Senate voted on bills according to the majority. In this way, the principle of majority decision become a legal system.

The Germanic people adopted this principle mainly under the influence of the Roman law. Villages in northern Italy selected their chief by way of majority decisions, and many European countries followed suit thereafter. The Magna Carta, issued by the British King in 1215, stipulated that the 25 barons present at the meeting at Runnymede should be subject to the decision of the majority regardless of any disputes.⁵³ In 1356, the Roman Emperor Karl IV (or Charles the Fourth) issued an edict declaring that in the election of the prince electors and the emperor, the one who got the most votes would be elected. Since then, the principle of majority decision has been widely adopted in all countries around the world and still remains an important democratic principle.

Then why should the principle of majority decision be adopted? Due to differences in viewpoints, interests, knowledge, environments, morals, etc., people are unlikely to reach a consensus in times of disputes, which would give rise to majority opinions and minority opinions in most cases. Normally, there are two solutions in deliberating and deciding on an issue among people: one is to decide according to the opinion of the majority and the other is to reach a unanimous consensus by all. If the principle of unanimity were followed in decision making, the minority is very likely to control the majority, because one single objection would overthrow the whole resolution. In this way, it is neither reasonable nor fair that the decision-making on the state affairs according to the opinions of the people would result in the minority controlling and dominating the majority. And this is probably the reason why the principle of majority decision is accepted and taken as a crucial principle of democracy by all countries in modern times. So, what can be called a majority and what is the standard for establishing a majority? Usually, that which is approved by 1/2 or 2/3 of the attendance is the standard of majority.

Nevertheless, one should be clear that implementing the principle of majority decision does not reject the respect for the opinions of minorities. John Stuart Mill had his say early on, “Man for man, they would be as fully represented as the majority. Unless they are, there is not equal government, but a government of inequality and privilege: one part of the people rule over the rest: there is a part whose fair and equal share of influence in the representation is withheld from them.”⁵⁴ The leader of the British Labor Party, Clement Attlee once argued that democratic politics is not only the rule of majority, but also the majority rule plus due respect for the rights of the minority.⁵⁵ This is also valued by Proletarian theorists and Marxist classical writers. As Rosa Luxemburg once wrote, freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party—however numerous they may be—is no freedom at all… all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when freedom becomes a special privilege.⁵⁶ On this subject, Lenin once stated:

Lastly, the entire experience of the post-Congress struggle compels us to give thought to the juridical position of the minority (any minority) in our Party. That experience shows, we are convinced, that it is necessary to include in the Party Rules guarantees of minority rights, so that the dissatisfactions, irritations and conflicts that will constantly and unavoidably arise may be diverted from the accustomed philistine channels of rows and squabbling into the still unaccustomed channels of a constitutional and dignified struggle for one’s convictions.⁵⁷

• (5) The Principle of Procedure

The principle of procedure refers to the legal procedures and rules to be followed in the establishment and operation of the representative system. In the practice of the representative democracy, only when all activities are carried out in accordance with certain procedures can the election of members or representatives and the exercise of functions and powers of the representative bodies be guaranteed in a normal and orderly manner, and thereby bring various functions of the representative system into full play. Without stable and complete procedures, not only will the representative system not work, but even the establishment of representative bodies is problematic. Given the legal provisions and political practice, the principle of procedure of the representative system is mainly reflected in two aspects: one concerns the process of members’ or representatives’ elections, and the other is the process of the deliberative activities of the representative bodies. The former is usually stipulated by the electoral law, while the latter is expressed by rules of procedure.

The election of members or representatives plays a fundamental part in organizing a representative body and establishing a representative system. Under the hierarchical system of representation in the Middle Ages, the selection of “representatives” was entirely designated by the monarch or hereditary, so there was no legal generation procedure at all. Whereas, in modern democratic political life, members and representatives must be elected through a fixed procedure. The reason why deputies are called representatives of popular will and representative bodies are called organs of public opinions is that these deputies are the trustees of the people, elected by them according to their own will in accordance with legal procedures. The democratic election procedures and even the democratic nature of the representatives would be greatly flawed if such procedures were absent or incomplete. According to the electoral laws and election practices in different countries, in the process of electing members or representatives, the following procedures must be carried out in general: establishment of electoral agencies, division of constituencies, registration of voters, nomination of candidates, organization of election campaigns or introduction of candidates, primary election, formal voting, announcement of results, etc.

The procedures prescribed in the process of deliberation guarantee the representative body’s effective exercise of its functions and powers. Although the constitutions and laws of all countries stipulate that the representative body should be the center of the state organ system and endow it with great powers of legislation, finance and supervision, without corresponding procedures and systems, these powers would be nothing more than an abstract declaration through legal provisions. Therefore, in order to ensure that the functions and powers of the representative body can be fully exercised and its due status can be truly secured, all countries in the world have established and improved a set of systems and procedures to guarantee the deliberative activities on the basis of summarizing previous experiences and lessons. In terms of systems, there are mainly assembly systems, conference systems, session period systems, legislative assistant systems, hearing systems, information openness systems, voting systems and interpellation systems. As for procedures, there are generally four steps observed in the working process, namely, introducing a bill, deliberating on a bill, voting and passing a bill and releasing a bill. C. Schmitt noted that debate is one of the main principles of the parliament,⁵⁸ but I tend to believe that debate is merely a part of activities in the process of observing the principle of procedure, and a way for ideological confrontation between proponents and opponents on a given issue. Therefore, instead of singling out debate as a major principle of the parliament, we might as well emphasize the principle of procedure and raise our awareness of it.

• (6) The Principle of Publicity

The so-called democratic politics in modern sense also refers to the politics of public opinion, in which the state affairs rest with popular will and policies are attributed to popular support. Much as the people are the masters of the country and social life, due to all kinds of subjective and objective limitations, they are not yet able to manage the state affairs in person, but only govern the country in the form of the representative system. Therefore, in order to realize the will and interests of the people, there must be a mechanism to guarantee that the people have an effective means to restrict and supervise the establishment and operation of the representative system. However, restriction and supervision are premised upon understating, on the basis of which people could correctly evaluate and judge whether the public’s opinions have been satisfied only when they acquire the sufficient knowledge of all aspects of the representative system in terms of its establishment and operation. Implementing the principle of publicity is an important process and effective means to achieve this goal. Hence, some scholars take publicity as a major principle of the parliament.⁵⁹ In this regard, Lenin also argued that “‘the broad democratic principle’ presupposes the two following conditions: first, full publicity, and secondly, election to all offices. It would be absurd to speak of democracy without publicity…. Since the entire political arena is as open to the public view as is a theatre stage to the audience”, for political activists, “ their every move could be examined universally or universally in real sense.”⁶⁰ Karl Marx explained, “The representative constitution is a great advance, for it is the open, genuine, consistent expression of the condition of the modern state.”⁶¹

In light of theory and practice, two aspects have to be illustrated concerning the publicity principle of the representative system: first, the process of electing members or representatives should be open to all. Second, the deliberative activities of the representative bodies should be disclosed. As for the election process, since the deputies are elected to represent the people, if the people know nothing about them, how can we call them representatives? Therefore, only when the people adequately know and actively participate in the election of candidates, the registration of voters and the specific election results, can the generation of the representative bodies have a real foundation of the popular will, and such representative bodies are qualified to discuss the state affairs on behalf of the people. In this sense, deliberative activities are the focus of the publicity principle implemented in the representative system. However, the understanding and interpretation of the so-called open deliberations in the representative bodies differ considerably in the practices of various countries. For example, in France, open deliberation means that the people are allowed to listen in and journalists are allowed to publish records, so that the public can monitor whether their elected members have fulfilled their obligations, and understand the government policies through the consultation of the members and the reply of the government. Meanwhile, in Germany, publicity means that the committee meetings are open to all members of the houses, whether they belong to the committee or not, and the representatives of the government and the senate can also attend as nonvoting delegates. However, the general public and journalists are not allowed to attend, but the participants can describe the details of meetings to the outside public and news media. In general, open deliberation includes the release of meeting agendas, the publication of the records and permission to sit in on meetings, etc. In addition, with the development of the modern democratic politics, governments all over the world have placed more attention on open deliberation through specific provisions in their constitutions and laws. According to a survey of the 61 constitutional countries in Asia and Europe, 34 of them have established the system of open deliberations in their representative bodies, accounting for 55.7% of the total.

However, the very nature of the capitalist state powers determines that the implementation of the publicity principle in the representative system is bound to be constrained by capital. Although in the actual political life, the bourgeoisie often creates some spectacular “scenes of democracy”, the privilege of capital is bound to limit the degree of publicity. However, the nature of the socialist state, with people being masters of their own countries determines that it is both necessary and possible to thoroughly implement the publicity principle. When it comes to the difference between Soviet regime and the old regime, Lenin once said, “It was an authority open to all, which carried out all its functions before the eyes of the masses, and was accessible to the masses.” “The new authority maintained itself and could maintain itself solely because it enjoyed the confidence of the vast masses, solely because it, in the freest, widest, and most resolute manner, enlisted all the masses in the task of government. It concealed nothing, it had no secrets, no regulations, no formalities.”⁶²

1.4.2 Distinctive Principles of Capitalist Parliamentary System

The bourgeoisie has declared that the general principles mentioned above must be implemented in the process of establishing and operating the representative system, but some distinctive principles as well must be adopted due to the nature of its capitalist state power. They are chiefly the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances and the principle of representation of all citizens.

• (1) The Principles of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances

The principles of separation of powers and checks and balances are the organizational and operational principles for capitalist countries to establish their state organs centered on their representative bodies. Separation of powers refers to the division of the state power into several parts, independently exercised by several state organs. Checks and balances mean that these state organs maintain a mutual check and balance relationship in the process of exercising their powers.

The idea of power separation can be traced back to Aristotle in ancient Greece, who divided the government power into three parts: deliberative, executive and judicial. In the Roman period, Polybius advocated the theory of “mixed government”, believing that the Roman government should be checked and balanced by three forces, i.e. the Consul representing the monarch, the Senate representing the aristocracy, and the people’s assembly representing the people. In modern times, Locke refocused attention to the separation of powers that further developed by Montesquieu. In order to justify constitutional monarchy, Locke and Montesquieu based their ideas of separation of powers on the reality of the British constitutional monarchy and the theories of the modern natural law school combined with the social contract theory, specifically, the concepts of natural rights, principles of natural law and human rationality in the natural law theories, as well as the social contract theory and the state purpose theory. However, two points need to be highlighted. For one thing, the thought of “separation of three powers” is not synonymous with the term “separation of powers and checks and balances” because the former appeared far earlier than the latter. For another, significant differences exist between the doctrine of Locke’s power separation and that of Montesquieu’s. Firstly, Locke emphasizes “power separation among social classes”, while Montesquieu stresses the rational allocation of the state power on the whole. Secondly, Locke’s so-called “three powers” actually only have “two powers”, because he holds that both the power of execution and that of diplomacy can be exercised by the government. Thirdly, Locke does not involve the doctrine of checks and balances at all in his theory of separation. Moreover, in terms of the relationship between the legislative power and the executive power, Locke believes that the former has superiority over the latter, and the latter is derived from the former. As a result, it is in fact implicated “unity of legislative and executive powers”. Therefore, we cannot confuse the doctrine of Locke with that of Montesquieu when analyzing the development of the theory of separation of powers and checks and balances. It follows that in modern times, Locke initiated the theory of separation and Montesquieu developed and completed it.

The principle of separation of powers and checks and balances was established during the bourgeois revolution in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by the bourgeoisie in accordance with the modern doctrines of separation of powers, and it guided the establishment of the bourgeois representative system to replace the feudal autocratic system after the bourgeois revolution. According to this very principle, the U.S. Constitution of 1787 stipulated that the organization and operation of the state organs should center on the representative body. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen states that a society, in which neither the people’s rights are assured nor the separation of powers is established, has no constitution at all. Influenced by France and the United States, the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances have been echoed in the constitutions of capitalist countries in different forms.

In view of the political practice of the capitalist countries, the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances has indeed played a very important role in establishing and consolidating the bourgeois democracy and promoting the bourgeois representative system for the benefit of the propertied class. For example, US president Nixon was forced to resign, which was the result of the internal conflict among the bourgeois monopoly groups. And more importantly, the class nature of the capitalist countries is concealed by this illusion of separation of powers and checks and balances. In fact, just as Engels pointed out, this kind of separation of powers was nothing more than a division of routine tasks for the purpose of simplifying and supervising the state organs. Additionally, it has been a universal fact that the executive power expands while the legislative power diminishes day after day in the capitalist countries.

• (2) The Principle of Representation of All Citizens

Concerning the relationship between representatives and electors, bourgeois scholars have put forward three general theories. The first is the trustee theory of representation, which holds that it is too difficult to exercise direct democracy due to large populations and the vast territories of modern nations, so representatives are elected to form a legislative body and are entrusted to exercise the legislative power on behalf of the electors. Consequently, the relationship between the representatives and the electors is equivalent to the so-called “the trust relationship” in civil law, and the relationship between the electors and the legislature is also the trust relationship between the electors and the elected. The second is the delegate theory of representation, which holds that the legislature represents all the people of the country and has a special, close relationship with the people. In other words, the legislature belongs to all the people, not to any part of the people. No single elector can be regarded as a trustee of any individual member of the legislature. Hence, the will of the legislature is equivalent to that of the whole society, and the legislature as a whole has a delegate relationship with the electors. The third is the institution theory of representation, in which both the parliament and the electoral body are taken as state organs and their functions are prescribed by laws. It is believed that the job of the people is to elect, while the job of the parliament is to legislate and supervise the administration. There is neither trust relationship nor delegate relationship between them.

The delegate theory is the most influential of the three, and it has actually become the guiding principle of the bourgeois parliamentary system. In political practice, it manifests itself as the so-called principle of representation of all citizens, that is to say, a member of the parliament is not a representative of an individual constituency or elector, but that of all citizens. This principle is deemed by the bourgeois scholars as “the negation of Imperatives Mandat of the Estates General in the Middle Ages” and “a general rule of the modern parliaments”.⁶³

In the United Kingdom, the idea of representation of all citizens was recognized early in the middle of the sixteenth century. In this regard, Algernon Sydney (1622–1683) made an early elaboration on the representation of all citizens in his Discourses Concerning Government.⁶⁴ An equally zealous advocate of the contract theory, John Locke, the British bourgeois enlightenment thinker, insisted that “The power that every individual gave the society when he entered into it can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community.”⁶⁵ In fact, the idea of representation was implicated in his statement. In his famous speech addressed to the electors in the Bristol constituency, Edmund Burke, an eighteenth century British politician, also elaborated this principle systematically in detail. He said that “when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but a member of Parliament.”⁶⁶ According to John Stuart Mill, he also believed that men of higher intelligence and talent should be chosen to Parliament and that their decisions would naturally contain more opinions of right than those of lower intelligence, and hence, a member of the legislature should not make commitment to nor be bound by his constituents. “It follows that the electors will not do wisely, if they insist on absolute conformity to their opinions, as the condition of his retaining his seat.”⁶⁷ Some western scholars argued that the principle represented by Burke’s speech indicated that the Member of Parliament’s (M.P.) responsibility to the nation took priority over his responsibility to his constituents, and that his duty was to promote the national interests rather than to promote sectional interests.⁶⁸ And they believed that Burke’s speech had confused the following two questions: Firstly, whether the M.P. was to act as a representative bound by “delegation” and “instructions” or as a trustee who has the freedom to decide on affairs? Secondly, as an M.P., should he focus on the interests of his constituents or the interests of the whole nation in his legislative actions?⁶⁹ However, in the actual operation of the British parliamentary system, this principle has been applied to the utmost, which was thoroughly expressed by Baku in his well-known letter to the voters of his constituency.⁷⁰

In continental Europe, this principle was established during the French Revolution. After the revolution, the French Constitution of 1791 stipulated that “The representatives elected in the departments shall not be representatives of a particular department, but of an entire nation, and no mandate may be given them.”⁷¹ This was the public expression of this idea. In addition, the Weimar Constitution stipulated that “The deputies shall be representatives of the entire people. They are subject only to their conscience and are not bound by instructions.”⁷² Further, this principle is clearly stated in Article 43 of the Japanese Constitution, too.

From the claims of bourgeois scholars and the practice of the principle in the capitalist countries, there is no institutional relationship between representatives and voters except for a regular election every few years. Just as Rousseau pointed out in criticizing the British parliamentary system, voters were only free when electing members of parliament, but after that they were no more than slaves. As a result, once elected, members were totally divorced from their voters. To this defect, some bourgeois scholars expressed similar disillusionment. For example, Sa Mengwu, a scholar from Taiwan, China believes that in this way “it is no surprise that the parliament cannot represent the will of the people.”⁷³ The parliament produced by such a system is bound to become a ruling institution that isolates and oppresses the people. For some bourgeois scholars, “only in this way can the M.P.’s freedom of action and status be effectively guaranteed”,⁷⁴ but their so-called freedom of action is only the freedom to serve the propertied class. Although the principle satisfies the need of the bourgeoisie to dress up the parliament as representing the interests of all citizens, this charming theory hardly reflects the political practice of capitalist countries. In the book American Parties and Elections, the contemporary American scholars Harold F. Gosnell et al. demonstrated that U.S. elections are manipulated by the two major bourgeois parties, and the occasional emergence of some small parties representing the interests of other political groups is always short-lived, just like a flash in the pan, and that the campaign expenses are mostly donated by special interest groups, and the reason why the donors are so generous to the candidates and the parties is that they expect returns from the politicians in the future. Just as Lenin pointed out, “Every few years a decision must be made about who of the ruling class should suppress and oppress the people in the parliament—this is the real nature of the bourgeois parliamentary system.”⁷⁵ Therefore, the principle of representation of all citizens is simply a tool for abstraction of the relationship between the representatives and the electors by the bourgeoisie.

Nevertheless, with the change of the social class power balance and the progress of the bourgeois democracy in theory and practice, the principle of representation of all citizens is gradually being replaced. “Once the political individualism was established, the focus of representation thought had been shifted, and the delegation mode proposed by Burke had gradually been abandoned. It followed that the doctrine of representatives being responsible to and subject to their constituencies emerged.”⁷⁶

1.4.3 Distinctive Principles of Socialist People’s Representative System

The socialist people’s representative system, due to the socialist public ownership of the means of production and the nature of the socialist state power, must adopt principles distinct from those of the bourgeois parliamentary system, specifically, the principle of democratic centralism and the principle of supervision and removal.

• (1) The Principle of Democratic Centralism

From the perspective of historical development, the organizational and operational principle of the socialist state power organs has undergone a transitional process from the unity of legislative and executive powers to democratic centralism.⁷⁷ The principle of unity of legislative and executive powers means that the people’s representative organs are in charge of both legislation and administration, while the democratic centralism refers to “the combination of centralism built on the basis of democracy with democracy under centralized guidance.”⁷⁸ As the initial organizational and operational principle of the socialist state power organs, the principle of unity of legislative and executive powers is not only a result of the experience accumulated in the process of the proletarian regime construction, but also is determined by the nature and the mission of the proletarian dictatorship.

The Paris Commune of 1871 was the first proletarian regime in history. In the Commune, the people directly elected representatives to form ten Commune committees, equivalent to government departments. Members of the Commune, who were also members of the committees, led the administrative departments to enforce the decrees of the Commune. Therefore, the proletarian regime of the Paris Commune is fundamentally different from the bourgeois regime established in accordance with the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances in that the former actually combines the legislative power with the executive power. In summing up the experience of the Paris Commune, Karl Marx formally articulated the principle unity of legislative and executive powers on the basis of the facts of the Paris Commune and his theories such as the Theory of State, Theory of the Proletarian Dictatorship and the Theory of Smashing the Old State Machinery. He noted “The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.”⁷⁹

After the victory of the Russian October Socialist Revolution, Lenin developed the historical experience of the Paris Commune in the process of establishing the Soviet regime. Considering that the Paris Commune was only a political power organization founded by the French working class in the city of Paris with relatively small area of jurisdiction and simple structure of organization, and that it needed to deal with various affairs with urgency due to extremely fierce struggle between the revolutionists and anti-revolutionists at that moment, therefore, it was of vital significance for the Commune to enact and enforce decrees and laws all by itself. However, since the Russian revolution was a triumph in an entire country, a national regime was badly needed. Moreover, the class struggle between the revolutionists and the counter-revolutionists was not as intense as it had been during the Paris Commune after a time period. In this case, it was not only unnecessary, but also impossible, to copy the principle of unity of legislative and executive powers adopted by the Paris Commune, and to integrate the missions of law-making and law implementing into one in the people’s representative body. Therefore, under these circumstances, Lenin changed the practice of unity of the representative organ and the executive organ elected by the people during the Paris Commune, and separated the above two organs beginning in 1918 on the premise of ensuring the plenipotentiary status of the Soviet Congress. According to the 1918 Soviet Russian Constitution, the highest organ of state power was the All-Russian Soviet Congress and its permanent body the All-Russian Soviet Central Executive Committee, and the highest executive organ was the People’s Committee. However, the people’s Committee was responsible to the All-Russian Soviet Congress and the All-Russian Soviet Central Executive Committee. According to the 1936 Constitution of the USSR, the highest organ of state power of the Soviet Union was the Supreme Soviet, and the Soviet Council of Ministers, the executive organ of the Supreme Soviet, was the highest administrative organ of the Soviet Union, which was generated by, responsible for and reported to the Supreme Soviet. When the Supreme Soviet was not in session, the Soviet Council of Ministers was responsible to and reported its work to the permanent body, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet.

Why did the early proletarian regime adopt the principle of unity of legislative and executive powers rather than that of separation of powers and checks and balances? According to classical Marxist writers, the reason is that it is determined by the nature of the proletarian regime and the need to develop the proletarian democracy.⁸⁰ First of all, since it is stipulated that all power belongs to the people in the proletarian regime, in the execution of power, we must choose and adopt a principle that best suits the status of the people as masters. Secondly, it is also an important procedure to develop the proletarian democracy. According to Lenin, “it is a huge progress with historic significance all over the world in the development of democracy”⁸¹ to concentrate the state power in the hand of the Soviet which is closely related to the people and to combine the functions of legislation and law enforcement mediated through the responsible people’s representatives elected.

Nevertheless, with the in-depth development of the theory and the practice of the socialist state regime construction, the principle of “unity of legislative and executive powers” has increasingly been challenged. Although the practice of this principle was recognized by the classical Marxist writers, the arguments of the revolutionary tutors should not be understood in isolation from the specific historical context in which they arose because their views were aimed at the state regime construction during the period of seizing and consolidating the political power, so this principle could not be regarded as a universally applicable guidance that must be followed for the construction of the socialist state regime. As mentioned above, the concept of “unity of legislative and executive powers” underwent changes in actual political practices different from its original sense since the 1918 Soviet Russian Constitution and the 1936 Constitution of the USSR. Thus, some scholars insisted that the legislative and executive should not be combined.⁸² So, what is the organizational and guiding principle of the socialist state power organs? The answer is definitely the system of democratic centralism, which is affirmed in the constitutions of various socialist countries and the theoretical explanations of the socialist scholars, but the key problem is that no consensus has been reached as to the relationship between “unity of legislative and executive powers” and “democratic centralism”. Consequently, while it is agreed that the democratic centralism must be observed in the socialist constitution and political practice on the one hand, but disputes over the principle of unity of legislative and executive powers never stop on the other. In my view, the principle of democratic centralism is the inheritance and development of the principle of unity of legislative and executive powers, and the reasons are as follows:

First, both principles emphasize that the people are masters of the country. Under the principle of unity of legislative and executive powers, the legislative organ and the executive organ are integrated into one, which reflects the master status of the people, while under the principle of democratic centralism, although the legislative organ and the executive organ are separated, the latter is derived from the former, and is also responsible to and supervised by the former, thus the people’s master status is also reflected. If the principle of unity of legislative and executive powers is believed to be perfectly applicable to the urban regime construction such as the Paris Commune, the principle of democratic centralism is designed for making up its inadequacies in a national regime construction. Since the two principles are consistent in the aspects of intrinsic attributes and basic contents, it also makes sense to interpret the regime built up on the basis of the principle of democratic centralism as a reflection of the principle of unity of legislative and executive powers.

Second, the principle of democratic centralism practiced in the regime construction of socialist countries is the application of the organizational and guiding principle of the proletarian parties in the construction of a state regime. Neither Marx nor Engels definitely put forward the concept of “democratic centralism”, but they laid the foundation for it.⁸³ In mid-December of 1905, the first assembly of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party passed a resolution, in which the concept of “democratic centralism” was explicitly used for the first time. In the article “Terms of Admission into Communist International” published in July 1920, Lenin stressed that “Parties belonging to the Communist International must be organized on the principle of democratic centralism”.⁸⁴ Afterwards, democratic centralism has been universally accepted as the organization and action principle by the proletarian parties of all countries. With the rational understanding of the principle of democratic centralism deepened and the practical experience accumulated by proletarian parties, and especially due to the dilemma that the principle of unity of legislative and executive powers faces in the actual regime construction, the democratic centralism has naturally been adopted by the proletarian parties as the organization and action principle, which is clearly stipulated in their constitutions. For these reasons, the principle of democratic centralism is considered in this book as one of the distinctive principles of the socialist people’s representative system, and it is also a concrete reflection of the procedural principle in the socialist people’s representative system, so to speak.

According to the constitutions and the political practices of the socialist countries, the principle of democratic centralism is manifested in three aspects in the socialist people’s representative system. Firstly, the people’s representative organ is produced by democratic election, responsible to the people and supervised by the people. Secondly, the administrative, judicial and procuratorial organs are all elected by the people’s representative organ, to which they are responsible and by which they are supervised. Thirdly, the division of functions and powers between the central and local state organs follows the principle of giving full play to the initiative and enthusiasm of the local governments under the unified leadership of the central government.

• (2) The Principle of Supervision

In terms of the relationship between representatives and electors, the socialist people’s representative system has adopted a totally different principle from that of the bourgeois parliamentary system in that it completely discards the so-called “principle of representation of all citizens” in the bourgeois parliamentary system and holds that representatives are responsible to electors and report their work to electors, and that representatives are supervised by electors and can be removed anytime according to law. These points mentioned above are the main contents of the principle of supervision in the socialist people’s representative system, but it is not the whole story. Additionally, the principle of supervision, I think, also includes the supervision of electors and representatives over the whole representative organ system, especially the administrative and judicial organs. The following discussion mainly focuses on the first aspect of the principle of supervision.

The principle of supervision in terms of the relationship between electors and representatives was also created by the Paris Commune, the first regime of proletarian dictatorship. As Marx once put it, “The Commune was made up of the municipal councillors elected by universal suffrage in all arrondissements of Paris, and these councillors should take responsibility and could be removed anytime.”⁸⁵ This is a fundamental property of the political form in the Paris Commune, and can also be taken as a thorough denial to the bourgeois parliamentary election system. As mentioned above, members of parliaments in capitalist countries are also elected, but they are not responsible to the electors in their constituencies and only act according to their own “conscience”. Accordingly, since they are representatives of all citizens instead of the constituencies, they accept neither delegation from their constituencies nor supervision from their electors. However, according to the supervision principle of the Paris Commune, representatives were not only required to be responsible to their electors, but also subject to effective supervision by electors, that is, those representatives elected could be removed at any time. In other words, removal can be regarded as an extension and guarantee of the supervision. And that is why Engels pointed out, “the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts—administrative, judicial, and educational—by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time.”⁸⁶ Therefore, removal of the representatives by electors at any time was the fundamental mark that signified distinction between proletarian electoral system and the bourgeois electoral system, and was also the key to complete denial of the bourgeois parliamentary system by the Paris Commune. It is in this sense that Lenin said, “No elective institution or representative assembly can be regarded as being truly democratic and really representative of the people’s will unless the electors’ right to recall those elected is accepted and exercised. This fundamental principle of true democracy applies to all representative assemblies without exception, including the Constituent Assembly.”⁸⁷

This principle, initiated by the Paris Commune, has been accepted by later socialist countries as an important democratic principle to guide their establishment and improvement and aid the operation of the socialist people’s representative system. The principle has been explicitly stipulated in the constitutions of all socialist countries. According to Article 107 in the 1977 Constitution of the USSR, “Deputies shall report on their work and on that of the Soviet to their constituents, and to the work collectives and public organizations that nominated them,” and “Deputies who have not justified the confidence of their constituents may be recalled at any time by decision of a majority of the electors in accordance with the procedure established by law.”⁸⁸ According to Article 8 in the 1972 Constitution of the DPRK, “Deputies to the organs of state power at all levels are accountable to their constituents.”⁸⁹ According to Article 77 in the 1982 Chinese Constitution, “Deputies to the National People’s Congress are subject to the supervision of the units which elected them. The electoral units have the power, through procedures prescribed by law, to recall the deputies whom they elected.”⁹⁰

By implementing the principle of recall, the socialist countries not only guarantee that the elected are real representatives and public servants of the electors, which thus eliminates the phenomenon that the elected and the electors are divorced from each other in the bourgeois parliamentary system, but also effectively ensure the realization of the true democracy and the implementation of the universal suffrage. Japanese Scholar Isao Satou once noted, “In a sense, it is a revival of the mandatory appointment system that once existed. But here we can find the difference between Soviet representatives and members of parliament in the capitalist countries, that is, the former has the people as its real foundation.”⁹¹ In my view, the principle of supervision is an extension of the principle of universal suffrage. The reason why the bourgeois principle of universal suffrage is no more than “the freedom at the moment of election” is that the indispensable part of the supervision is lost.