One of the many fascinating tidbits scattered through Stephen Kotkin’s Stalin: Paradoxes of Power 1878-1928, the excellent first volume of his Stalin biography, is an explanation of where the unique “party-state” Communist political structure comes from.
In China today, as in the Soviet Union in the past, the Communist Party and the government exist as parallel, intertwined institutions, with Party clearly politically superior even as government bodies do most of the practical work. In the Soviet case, this resulted from the fact that the Bolsheviks had seized power as a minority party but were nonetheless attempting to exercise absolute control over the entire country:
Party thinking equated Bolshevism with the movement of history and thereby made all critics into counterrevolutionaries, even if they were fellow socialists. Meanwhile, in trying to manage industry, transport, fuel, food, housing, education, culture, all at the same time, during a time of war and ruin, the revolutionaries came face to face with their own lack of expertise, and yet the solution to their woes struck them with ideological horror: They had to engage the class enemy—“bourgeois specialists”—inherited from tsarist times, who often detested socialism but were willing to help rebuild the devastated country. …
But the cooperative tsarist experts were not trusted even if they were loyal, because they were “bourgeois.” Dependency on people perceived as class enemies shaped, indeed warped, Soviet politics and institutions. The technically skilled, who were distrusted politically, were paired with the politically loyal, who lacked technical competence, first in the army and then in every institution, from railroads to schools. The unintentional upshot—a Communist watchdog shadowing every “bourgeois expert”—would persist even after the Reds were trained and became experts, creating a permanent dualist “party-state.” …
“The institution of commissars” in the Red Army, Trotsky had explained of the political watchdogs, was “to serve as a scaffolding. . . . Little by little we shall be able to remove this scaffolding.” That dismantling never happened, however, no matter how often commissars themselves called for their own removal.
China went through a similar dynamic as the Communist Party took over government and nationalized companies after 1949: Party figures were installed to oversee managers and technical experts. As in the USSR, this dual party-state structure persisted long after its immediate justification had passed, even when the majority of government officials and company leaders had become Party members. In other words, the Communist Party has continued to treat its own country as a hostile environment that could not be trusted.
The fact that the dual Party-state structure is, essentially, institutionalized mistrust, is one reason why this system is hard to defend on principle. Chinese scholars have been discussing the need for the Communist Party to adapt from being a “revolutionary” party to a “governing” party for decades. In the liberalizing 1980s, there was the beginning of a movement to formally separate the Party and government, but this was reversed in the post-1989 return to conservative politics. Xi Jinping also seems to want to clarify the relationship between the role of the Party and government. But he has taken the opposite approach: formalizing the Party’s leadership over the government (see my previous post on this topic).