Wang Changjiang: How to understand that "the Party governs cadres" is scientific?

What exactly is "the party governing cadres"? In the formulation of "the Party governs 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" is management. The so-called "Party governing cadres" refers to the selection, use, transfer and daily supervision of cadres by the Party's organizational departments. Second, the so-called "management" is decision-making. That is, the party decides the use of cadres. Third, the so-called "management" is control, or leadership. That is, cadres are regarded as the main body of power operation, and the whole process of cadres' use and use of power is controlled from the perspective of the ruling party's use of power to promote the development of the country and society, so as to ensure the implementation of the ruling party's line, program, principles and policies and the realization of the party's ruling goals. In this sense, "the Party governs cadres" is the work of leading cadres of the Party. I agree with the third explanation. The word "management" should be understood in a broad sense, which can neither be simply understood as "management" nor "decision", but emphasizes the party's leadership over the work of cadres. 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. Several misunderstandings of "the Party governs cadres" In recent years, great progress has been made in the reform of cadres and personnel in China. But unfortunately, for a long time, there have been some misunderstandings in the practice of "governing cadres by the party". Conceptually, these misunderstandings are ultimately caused by incorrect, unscientific, one-sided and narrow understanding of the party's principle of governing cadres. Stalin was the first to express the idea of the Party governing cadres most clearly. Stalin emphasized the importance of the issue of cadres, but as a result, the party's management of cadres was inappropriately externalized into a top-down and hierarchical cadre appointment system. How to understand "cadres are the decisive factor"? In Stalin's view, "after putting forward the correct political line, we must also select staff members and put people who are good at implementing instructions, can understand instructions, can take instructions as their own things, and are good at implementing instructions into all work." Obviously, the "management" embodied here is what we call "management" and "decision-making" of departments and even leaders, and the main form is appointment. Our party has always attached importance to the issue of cadres. Needless to say, in the era of revolutionary war and planned economy, we accepted Stalin's thought of cadres and his practice of appointing and dismissing cadres directly by organizations and leading individuals in power. This practice was reasonable at that time. In wartime, except for local elections in the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia border region, in most places where the state of war and military struggle are the main tasks of the party, the appointment method must be adopted to determine cadres and leaders. In that case, we can't use today's standards to evaluate yesterday's right or wrong. The problem is that the situation today has undergone profound changes. To sum up, this change has at least two points. First, with the development of the socialist market economy, a new pattern of interests has gradually taken shape, people's democratic consciousness has gradually awakened, and their desire to be masters of their own affairs has become increasingly strong. This raises a question for us: under the fundamental goal of building socialist democratic politics, how can the party replace the people as masters of the country in the past and lead and support the people as masters of the country? Along this direction, the past practice seems to be increasingly unsuitable for today. Second, the essence of reform is the adjustment of interests, and public power is a powerful means to adjust interests. With the deepening of reform, people increasingly put forward higher requirements for the rational and fair use of public power. In this way, who will act as the master of public power has become a particularly important issue. In view of the lessons brought by the highly centralized leadership system of the party and the state in the past, and the negative corruption caused by the long-term lack of supervision over power since the reform and opening up, people hope to participate more. This is in contradiction with the traditional practice of appointing cadres by party organizations and individuals. In fact, before the reform and opening up, problems in this area have been constantly exposed. In the important speech of 1980 "The Reform of the Leadership System of the Party and the State", Deng Xiaoping criticized the phenomena of excessive concentration of power, bureaucracy, paternalism and tenure of cadres, which are inextricably linked with this cadre appointment system. Therefore, since the reform and opening-up, our party has continuously promoted the reform of the economic system, improved and strengthened party building in the spirit of reform, and made many useful explorations on how the party manages cadres. Especially in recent years, some local party organizations have taken the opportunity of promoting inner-party democracy to innovate in the election, supervision and accountability of leading cadres, which has greatly enriched and broadened the connotation of the party's management of cadres. This exploration direction and innovative spirit have eliminated the long-term disadvantages of the cadre system to varying degrees, which is worthy of full recognition. However, on the whole, compared with the requirements of other reforms and the development of socialist democracy, the Party's management of cadres still needs to be improved. From the understanding point of view, for a long time, the understanding that the party manages cadres is equivalent to the appointment of cadres by party organizations and leading individuals, and the appointment of cadres in disguise has not completely changed. In the eyes of many comrades, the party's management of cadres means that the party Committee and the secretary have the final say, otherwise it will dilute and weaken the party's leadership. Looking at the problem from this angle, some comrades actually can't figure out how to let the people participate in the selection of cadres. They regard the attempts made by some places in the election of village committees, the direct election of township heads, and even the direct election of party branch secretaries, township party Committee secretaries and party representatives as copying the western model and having resistance. This understanding, reflected in practice, is that the relationship between party cadres and the people as masters of the country cannot be viewed dialectically, and the two are often opposed.