Debates on Constitutionalism and the Legacies of the Cultural Revolution

This article focuses on the debate surrounding constitutionalism that has been driven by a constitutionalist alliance of media reporters, intellectuals and lawyers since 2010, and follows its historical trajectory. It argues that this debate forms a discourse with a structuring absence, the roots of which can be traced back to the taboos surrounding the Cultural Revolution, the 1975 Constitution, and everything associated with them. The absence manifests itself in the silence on workers' right to strike, a right which was deleted from the 1982 Constitution in an attempt to correct the ultra-leftist anarchy of the Cultural Revolution. Previous and in contrast to that, there was a Maoist constitutional movement in the Cultural Revolution, represented by the 1975 Constitution, that aimed to protect the constituent power of the workers by legalizing their right to strike. Today, we are witnessing the rise of migrant workers as they struggle for trade union reform and collective bargaining with little support from the party-state or local trade unions. In this context, a third constitutional transformation should be considered that is not a return to the 1975 Constitution but which instead adds some elements which protect labour's right to strike to the 1982 Constitution. 文章聚焦于 2010 年以来在中国网络上爆发的宪政争论及其历史轨迹, 这场争论由媒体记者、知识分子与律师所组成的宪政话语联盟所推动。文章指出, 这场关于宪政的话语存在一种结构性的不在场, 这种不在场可以追溯到文化大革命、 1975 年宪法以及与此有关的禁忌话题; 它体现在对工人的罢工权的不讨论与沉默, 而工人的罢工权已经从 1982 年宪法中删除。作为对文化大革命期间 “极左无政府主义” 行为的一种 “纠正” , 1982 年宪法删除工人罢工权不仅服务于当时以经济建设为中心的国家政策, 更成为一场宪政革命的开端。与之相反, 当然也在这场宪政革命之前, 文化大革命期间涌动着一场毛主义的宪法运动; 这集中体现在 1975 年宪法上, 它以保护工人的制宪权为己任, 例如在宪法的范围内保障了工人的罢工权。当前, 农民工罢工浪潮此起彼伏, 他们主张进行工会改革, 并展开薪酬的集体协商, 却并非总是得到当地工会与当地政府的支持。在这一情境下, 文章认为应当发起一场宪法转型运动, 作为第 3 条道路, 它既不同于 1975 年宪法, 又主张在既定的 1982 年宪法中加入保护工人罢工权的条款。