中國大陸九○年代之政治改革與制度變遷

Abstract

在八○年代末期，世界的共產主義陣營發生了巨大的變化，蘇聯及東歐共產政權解體，半個世紀的冷戰和意識形態的對峙告終。然而，在全世界的共產主義陣營中，中國大陸卻是一個顯著的異例。中共政權統治下的中國大陸，不僅在經濟上於八○到九○年代取得了快速的成長，在政治上經過了八九年天安門的血腥鎮壓，整個政權仍然穩固地維持其壟斷性的政治權力格局。若將八九年前後的十年作為一個比較的視野來看，中國的「經改前進、政改緩行」的策略似乎是較成功的。然而，自從九○年代中以來，隨著中國本身朝向所謂「社會主義市場經濟」的進一步發展，更深入而廣泛的經濟體制改革的需求便顯得更加迫切，此種改革所牽動的也是整個政經體制更基本、更深層的矛盾，其反應出來的問題，已超出經濟改革本身所能解決的問題；另一方面，由計劃經濟轉向市場經濟的改革過程，不可避免地針對特定群體的利益損失會形成一定的社會成本，這種社會成本也都會轉化為政權合法性立即的流失，但相對地改革所造福的卻是不特定的對象，且往往其效應體現於未來，因而並不見得能形成對現有政權立即的支持，如此，改革中的政權往往要在政治上承受反改革力量的衝擊；再者，腐敗貴污、地方保護主義、以及整個官僚系統的部門化、官僚資本化傾向的加重，也為整個政權與社會之間造成巨大的緊張關係，造成社會上此起彼落的抗議示威活動；最後，由於中國與國際體系及西方國家的彼此關係愈來愈密切，導致互相合作的需求和互相衝突的可能都同時提高，如此由外而內對中國的政治局勢也起了相當大的牽動影響。以上種種的情勢，都呼喚著中國大陸一種政治改革的需求，若不能滿足此種需求，不僅妨礙到經濟改革的進一步推進，更會影響政權的合法性，甚而也制約了中國與國際社會的關係。而在九○年代，中國大陸也並非完全沒有政治，制度的改革或變遷，譬如農村的村委會選舉與自治的推廣、各級人大的功能加強、以及兩輪圍繞著轉變政府職能的政府機構改革等等。但畢竟這些都尚未構成所謂有「政權型態轉移」(regime transition)意義的政治體制變遷。那麼吾人應如何理解、解釋、並評估此種情形？既有的研究有哪些？不同的理解、解釋、與評估背後各自的論證為何？本文全圖針對這些焦點，回顧檢討相關的文獻，並嘗試提出本文自己的解釋－「政治改革最小化論」，以及若干未來值得繼續研究的課題。

In the late 1980s, the communist system went through tremendous transformation. Post Soviet Union and Eastern European communist regimes collapsed. However, communist China has stood out as an exception. The PRC has not only experienced rapid economic growth, but politically the ruling party has also remained in power even after the bloody repression in Tiananmen in 1989. It seems that ”economic reform without political reform” is a more successful strategy. However, as Mainland China has transformed toward a ”socialist market economy” since the 1990s, the need for deeper and broader economic reforms has increased. The deeper difficulties that further reform needs to overcome lie beyond the realm of the current economic reforms. Secondly, the transformation from a command economy toward a market economy has hurt certain vested interests and thus has created social costs, while the reform has not benefited any specific group. This contrast has inevitably increased the political costs for the reforming regime. Thirdly, corruption, local protection, and bureaucratic capitalism accompanied by the reform have also increased the tension between state and the society. Lastly, greater entanglements between China and the international system brought by the open-door reform have presented both opportunities for cooperation and confrontation, which in turn have great impact upon China`s domestic politics. All these developments call for political reforms. If these needs for political reforms are not satisfied, not only will progress for further economic reform be stalled, but the legitimacy of the regime itself may also be threatened undermining China`s international status. In the 1990s, there have been some changes and transformations in terms of political institutions, but they have not constituted a meaningful ”regime transition.”How should we understand, interpret, and evaluate these changes? What are the current studies on these issues? What are the arguments for various understandings, interpretations, and evaluations? This article will focus on these issues by reviewing the relevant literature. This article will also present its own interpretation, and point out some topics deserving our further studies.