Why is the party in charge of cadres, rather than cadres in charge of the party?

What exactly does "the Party supervises cadres" mean?

In the formulation of "the Party manages cadres," the key to the problem is not "cadres," but "management."

There are at least three understandings of this concept in practice.

First, the so-called "management" means management.

The so-called "party-managed cadres" means that the party's organizational department implements the selection, employment, deployment and daily supervision of cadres.

Second, the so-called "management" means decision.

That is, the party decides on the use of cadres.

Third, the so-called "management" means control, or leadership.

That is to say, cadres are regarded as the main body of power operation, and from the perspective of the ruling party's use of power to promote national and social development, the use of cadres and the entire process of cadres' power use are controlled to ensure that the ruling party's line, program, principles, and policies are implemented.

Ensure that the party’s governance goals are achieved.

In this sense, "the Party manages cadres" means the work of Party-led cadres.

I favor the third explanation.

The word "management" should be understood more broadly. It cannot simply be understood as "management" or "decision", but it emphasizes the party's leadership of cadre work.

This kind of control and leadership is a function that all ruling parties must perform.

The “management” of “the Party manages cadres” should also be understood in this scientific sense.

Some misunderstandings about “the Party manages cadres” In recent years, my country’s cadre and personnel reform has made great progress.

But unfortunately, for a long period of time, there have been some misunderstandings in our practice of "the Party's management of cadres". Conceptually speaking, these misunderstandings are ultimately due to incorrect, unscientific, one-sided and narrow understanding of the principle of the Party's management of cadres.

Caused.

The person who most clearly expressed his thoughts on party management of cadres was Stalin first.

Stalin emphasized the importance of cadre issues, but the result was that he improperly externalized party management of cadres into a top-down, hierarchical cadre appointment system.

How to understand "cadres are the decisive factor"?

In Stalin’s view, “After proposing the correct political line, we must also select staff and place people in various positions who are good at executing instructions, able to understand instructions, able to regard these instructions as their own, and good at implementing these instructions.

superior".

Obviously, the "management" reflected here is what we call the "management" and "decision" of departments and even leaders, and the main form is appointment.

Our party has always attached great importance to the issue of cadres.

There is no need to deny that during the revolutionary war and planned economy era, while we accepted Stalin’s cadre ideas, we also accepted his practice of directly appointing cadres by organizations and individual leaders who hold power.

This approach had certain rationality at the time.

During the war, except for the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region Government which has the conditions to conduct local elections, in most places where war is in progress and military struggle is the main task of the party, appointment methods must be widely used to determine cadres and leaders.

people.

In that case, we cannot use today's standards to evaluate yesterday's right and wrong.

The problem is that things have changed profoundly today.

This change can be summarized in at least two points.

First, with the development of the socialist market economy, a new interest pattern has gradually formed, people's democratic consciousness has gradually awakened, and their desire to be the masters of the country has become increasingly strong.

This raises a question for us: With the fundamental goal of building socialist democratic politics, how can the party shift from replacing the people as the masters of the country to leading and supporting the people as the masters of the country?

In this direction, the practices of the past seem to be less and less applicable today.

Second, the essence of reform is the adjustment of interests, and public power is a powerful means of adjusting interests.

With the deepening of reform, people are increasingly placing higher demands on the reasonable and fair use of public power.

In this way, who will serve as the holder of public power has become a particularly important issue.

In view of the lessons brought by the past lack of separation between the party and the government, the use of the party as a substitute for government, and the highly centralized party and state leadership system, as well as the negative corruption caused by weak supervision of power for a long time since the reform and opening up, people hope that more

participate.

This conflicts with the traditional practice of party organizations and individuals appointing cadres.

In fact, before the reform and opening up, problems in this area had been exposed continuously.

The excessive concentration of power, bureaucracy, paternalism, tenure of cadre positions and other phenomena that Deng Xiaoping criticized in his important speech "Reform of the Party and State Leadership System" in 1980 are all inextricably linked to this cadre appointment system.

Therefore, since the reform and opening up, while the economic system reform has continued to advance, our party has improved and strengthened party building in the spirit of reform, and has also made a lot of useful explorations on how the party manages cadres.

Especially in recent years, some local party organizations have taken the opportunity of promoting intra-party democracy to innovate in the election, supervision, and accountability of leading cadres, which has greatly enriched and broadened the connotation of party-managed cadres.

This direction of exploration and innovative spirit have eliminated the long-standing shortcomings of the cadre system to varying degrees and deserve full recognition.

However, in general, compared with other aspects of reform and compared with the requirements for the development of socialist democratic politics, there are still some areas for improvement in the party's management of cadres.

From a cognitive point of view, the long-term understanding that the party's management of cadres is equivalent to the appointment of individual party organizations and leaders, and the appointment of cadres in disguise, has not been completely changed.

In the eyes of many comrades, the party committee and secretary have the final say in managing cadres. Otherwise, it will dilute and weaken the party's leadership.