Editor’s Note: Dr. Hu Wei is the author of “Possible Outcomes of the Russo-Ukrainian War and China’s Choice”, a commentary published by our website that attracted global attention. Dr. Hu wrote this essay on December 1, a day after his alumni Jiang Zemin passed away in Shanghai. As this essay ponders what Jiang Zemin meant for today’s China, it also forces us to dwell on China’s current trajectory and how it will be perceived and received by the rest of the world in the years to come.
In 2000, I transferred from Fudan University to Shanghai Jiao Tong University for a teaching position. There, the people respectfully referred to Comrade Jiang Zemin as ‘Senior Alumnus’ or ‘Senior Alumnus Jiang’. Since joining the faculty of Jiao Tong University, I have also referred to him as ‘Senior Alumnus Jiang’, who—upon his retirement as the Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party—came to visit his alma mater. I had the honor to participate in the related activities.
I learned the unfortunate news on the afternoon of November 30th. The news did not come as a surprise, though I did hope that it would be, as it had always been, a mere ‘rumor’. The official obituary was followed by an unprecedented wave of online remembrance. That a man may be remembered as such is enough to prove that he was an extremely unusual and extraordinary individual.
In recent years, there have been an increasing number of online articles praising Senior Alumnus Jiang, and the reasons are worth analyzing. It is increasingly recognized that Jiang—as a major leader of the Party and the State—made a series of correct decisions that impacted the viability of the Chinese nation. I would like to briefly share two or three of his contributions to express my condolences for the death of Senior Alumnus Jiang. I lived through these episodes
I. Restoring China-U.S. relations onto the track of healthy development
As Spring turned to Summer in 1989, Comrade Jiang was appointed Secretary General amidst the most serious political turmoil since China’s reform and opening up. To address the crackdown on China by the United States and the West, Deng Xiaoping proposed the strategy of ‘biding our time and hiding our capability’ (韬光养晦) . Based on a series of talks by Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin summarized the strategy into a concise and profound twenty-eight word policy: 冷静观察，稳住阵脚，沉着应付，韬光养晦，善于守拙，有所作为，绝不当头 (observe calmly, secure our position, take one’s time before reacting, hide our capacities and bide our time, maintain a low profile, and never claim leadership). These twenty-eight words contained three major points of significance: first, what stance ought China adopt against U.S. crackdown? Such is the premise of the problem; second, what principles ought to be followed when biding our time? The political strategy of biding our time holds a profound understanding of traditional Chinese culture and applies the Daoist idea of ‘doing nothing but doing everything’ to the extreme. It is a strategy that implements the great wisdom of foolishness to overcome rigid strength with flexibility; third, what will become of the hiding of our capacities and the biding of our time? Deng offered a clear warning: China should neither take the lead nor carry the flag.
The twenty-eight words policy reflected not only Deng Xiaoping’s political tactics but also Jiang Zemin’s political wisdom. To elegantly summarize the many things said by Deng Xiaoping is indeed crucial; Jiang Zemin not only grasped and summarized Deng Xiaoping’s strategic thinking in a complete, accurate, and profound manner but also put it into practice and carried it out seriously. One of the main purposes of ‘biding our time’ is to defuse conflicts and break the deadlock in China-U.S. relations. Only by not taking the lead can China avoid a full-scale confrontation with the U.S.-led Western bloc during a potentially eventful time in China-U.S. relations. However, to bring China-U.S. relations back on track with healthy development, there must be progress and strenuous effort. To this end, Jiang Zemin actively promoted the consensus of a constructive strategic partnership between China and the U.S. through ‘head of state diplomacy’ between the two nations.
A key step towards progress was Jiang Zemin’s visit to the U.S. in 1997. It was the first official visit to the U.S. by the Chinese head of state in twelve years, and the most important visit by a Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping’s visit in 1979. However, the idea of the ‘Chinese threat’ was rampant in the U.S. at that time, and China was portrayed—after the Cold War—as the ‘new evil empire’; prior to Hong Kong’s return, some believed that the democratic process in China had ended; during the first seven months of 1997, members of the U.S. Congress introduced sixty-six anti-China bills—a record-breaking number. Against this backdrop, it took great courage and charisma to turn the tide.
Indeed, Senior Alumnus Jiang’s charismatic personality left a deep impression. For example, while in Honolulu, he played ‘Greetings to Hawaii’ on a Hawaiian guitar and invited the governor’s wife to improvise and sing for the audience; in Southern California, where he was welcomed by the Chinese diaspora, Jiang sang the Beijing opera ‘A Bright Moon Shines Under the Window’; at the White House, President Clinton accompanied Jiang on a tour of Lincoln’s Bedroom; when shown the Gettysburg Address penned by Lincoln himself, Jiang recited the opening of the speech in English…
On November 1st, Jiang Zemin delivered a speech at Harvard University. I was on a one-year visiting fellowship at Harvard and had the privilege to witness this historic moment. It was the first time that a Chinese leader gave a speech at Harvard University. Jiang spoke in English and once again showed his unique charm, which was very well received by the audience. After finding out about President Neil Rudenstine’s upcoming visit to China, Jiang spoke of the friendly relations between Harvard University and China and said, ‘I look forward to meeting you again in Beijing[…] or Shanghai’, which elicited laughter and applause from the audience and became a highlight of the speech. Professor Wang Huning (王沪宁), who accompanied Jiang on the visit, told me afterward that the original speech did not have ‘or Shanghai’; it was instead improvised by Jiang on the spot to great effect. There was a burst of applause inside the venue, yet, at the same time, there was also a burst of ‘noise’ outside—where supporters of ‘Taiwan’s independence’ and ‘Tibet’s independence’ shouted through loudspeakers anti-China slogans. An American reporter asked President Jiang whether he heard the ‘noise’ outside. Instead of avoiding the ‘thorny’ question, Jiang replied: ‘although I am over seventy years old, I still have good hearing. My only choice is to speak louder than them!’ Once again, there was prolonged applause and laughter.
During the visit, President Jiang and President Clinton agreed that the two nations are both committed to nurturing a strategic partnership oriented towards the 21st century, which marked a historical turning point in the post-1989 period during which China-U.S. relations faced serious challenges. The following year, President Clinton visited China. After the state banquet in the Great Hall of the People, Jiang invited Clinton to conduct the military band that performed the two countries’ national anthems, bringing the atmosphere to a climax. Indeed, in establishing a close personal rapport, the two presidents created an important foundation to bringing China-U.S. relations back on track of healthy development. At that time, I was in the United States and wrote an article titled, ‘Striving to Build a Constructive Strategic Partnership between China and the U.S.—Background and Prospects of Jiang Zemin and Clinton’s Mutual Visit and Head of State Diplomacy’, which was published in the [Chinese-language newspapers] Washington News, the Boston News, and the Southern American News on June 26, 1998. Shanghai ‘Wenhui Daily’ also published my article titled ‘The Establishment of a Strategic Dialogue Mechanism is Important for Head of State Diplomacy’ on June 24, 1998 [reprinted by “Digest Bao”]’ on June 28, 1998). ‘Head of state diplomacy’ thus became a key factor in the improvement of China-U.S. relations, paving the way for the success of China-U.S. WTO accession negotiations in 1999, as well as China’s formal accession to the WTO—which created the conditions for China’s eventual rise—in 2001.
II. Realizing the transformation of a revolutionary party to a ruling party
Another major contribution of Senior Alumnus Jiang was the creation of the ‘Three Represents’ theory, which followed the universal laws of human history and the trend of world development and also creatively answered the questions of what type of Party to build and how to build it.
From today’s perspective, the ‘Three Represents’ is a highly profound and creative theory, providing a new historical orientation for where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is headed at the turn of the century. To this end, Jiang commissioned Huang Ju (黄菊)—then a member of the Politburo of the CCP Central Committee and Secretary of the Shanghai Municipal Committee—to establish a research team with the aim to explore the subject matter in-depth, and I was fortunate enough to be a member. It was the middle of the millennium when I published the article ‘The Three Represents: The Coordinates of Party Construction for the New Century’ (in Exploration and Debate, No. 10, 2000) (探索与争鸣), which was one of the earliest papers providing an interpretation of the ‘Three Represents’. One of the articles’ core arguments—which attracted some attention—was that the CCP should realize the transformation from a ‘revolutionary party’ to a ‘ruling party’ under the guidance of ‘Three Represents’. The idea of moving from a ‘revolutionary party’ to a ‘ruling party’ was the basic consensus of the research group at the time, and this consensus was affirmed by Comrade Huang Ju and reported to Secretary General. I remember that Comrade Huang Ju once mentioned to me that some older comrades in the Party disagreed with this view asking, ‘is the ruling party no longer revolutionary?’ But Secretary General nevertheless adopted this idea. However, in order to accommodate the sentiment of the older comrades in the Party, the official report of the Central Committee did not explicitly adopt the concept of changing from a ‘revolutionary party’ to a ‘ruling party’ but rather made the following statement: ‘Our party has changed from a party that led the people in their struggle to seize national power to a party that leads the people to hold national power and rule for a long time’. The statement first appeared in Secretary General’s July 1st speech in 2001 and was later widely quoted. However, I have noticed that in the later published ‘Selected Works of Jiang Zemin’, the explicit assertion of the ‘revolutionary party’s’ transformation into the ‘ruling party’ does appear. This demonstrates that Senior Alumnus Jiang himself approved of this important viewpoint.
The political judgment to move from a ‘revolutionary party’ to a ‘ruling party’ is one of great significance and constitutes, in my view, the important notion behind the ‘Three Represents’. In fact, I think it forms the core meaning of the ‘Three Represents’ theory. To this day, the ‘Three Represents’ remains one of the guiding ideologies of the CCP, and the idea of the transformation from a ‘revolutionary party’ to a ‘ruling party’ that accompanies this important ideology should not be overlooked. Indeed, (even today) the direction of the CCP needs to be seriously considered and examined.
Eventually Jiang Zemin solemnly declared in the report of the 16th Party Congress that ‘the important thought of the ‘Three Represents’ was put forward on the basis of a scientific judgment of the Party’s historical orientation. Through revolution, construction, and reform, our Party has changed from a Party that led the people in their struggle to seize national power to a Party that leads the people to take control of national power and govern for a long time; from a Party that led national construction under external blockade and a planned economy to a Party that leads national construction under the conditions of opening up and developing a socialist market economy’. The transition from revolution to governance, from closure to openness, and from planned economy to market economy represents the basic direction of China’s social progress in the new historical period after the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CCP Central Committee. Only when there is no reversal of this principle can China usher in a bright future and realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
III. Promote the development of people’s democracy through intra-party democracy
Political reform has always been an insurmountable obstacle after the launch of reform and opening up. If Mao’s historical greatness lies in establishing a New China and solving the problem of ‘state building’ Deng’s historical greatness lies in promoting reform and opening up, which has greatly liberated and developed the social productive forces. For future leaders, how to reform the political system and solve the problem of the development of China’s democratic politics is the key to establishing their historical legacy. This historic task was already proposed by Deng, but he has failed to accomplish it. For the third generation of CCP leadership, how to complete this unfinished business, is a major issue.
As the core of the third generation of CCP central leadership, Jiang has dwelled on this issue. He put forward the proposition of ‘building socialist political civilization’ and expanded the construction of ‘two civilizations’, which was proposed by the second generation of leaders, into the framework of ‘three civilizations’. These are actually designed to provide space to crack the issue. However, the issue is so sensitive and difficult that it is really not easy to find a viable pathway.
As a political scientist, I’ve always been interested in this question. As early as the late 1990s, I began to conduct research on political reform with intra-party democracy as the focus, and the results have attracted certain attention. Xiao Gongqin (萧功秦), a famous scholar, has made a detailed comment on this in his article On the Theory of Intra-Party Democratization from the Perspective of Political Development. The article Intra-Party Democracy and Political Development: Developing Intra-institutional Resources for Democratization in China, published in the Fudan Journal, No. 1, 1999, is my representative work on this subject. In 2008, it was compiled into Chinese Scholars on Democracy and the Rule of Law by famous scholars Keping Yu (俞可平) and Arif Dirlik. As a collection of contemporary Chinese ideological and cultural essays, this book collected the representative papers of sixteen authoritative scholars in politics and law in the past ten years. But in 1999, my paper caused controversy and the Fudan Journal was criticized, and I was under a lot of pressure.
In 2000, I joined the research group organized by Ju Huang and participated in a high-level research seminar organized by CCP’s Central Government. In particular, Comrade Hu Jintao (胡锦涛) personally came to the seminar to be debriefed and deliver a speech. During this process, I had an in-depth conversation with Comrade Ju Huang. In accordance with his request, I completed the internal research report ‘Intra-Party Democracy and Political Reform’ in November of that year, which he submitted to the Secretary General. Senior Alumni Jiang approved this report. In his speech commemorating the 80th anniversary of the founding of the CCP in 2001, Jiang clearly put forward the important conclusion that ‘We should actively promote the development of people’s democracy through the development of intra-party democracy’. As a result, my views on ‘intra-party democracy’ were no longer an issue. Some leaders called me a ‘rooster that crows early’. If he had not taken the lead in advocating intra-party democracy to promote the development of people’s democracy, I am afraid that my ‘unjust case’ would not have been rehabilitated. Of course, if one is able to do one’s part for national development and social progress, a little personal suffering is nothing.
In his report to the 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, Jiang Zemin explicitly proposed ‘developing socialist democracy and building socialist political civilization’. He went on to stress that ‘intra-party democracy is the life of the Party and plays an important role in demonstrating to and leading people’s democracy’. It should be said that inner-party democracy leading the development of people’s democracy is a major strategy of our political reform and democratic political development, which still needs to be further studied and advanced.
But in any case, as time passes, people are more and more appreciative of Senior Alumnus Jiang’ intelligence and wisdom. This is a phenomenon rarely seen in China.
Correction: This translation has been updated to reflect the Latin usage of Jiang’s title as ‘Senior Alumnus Jiang’ as opposed to ‘Senior Alumni Jiang’.
2000年我从复旦大学调往上海交通大学任教，交大人把江泽民同志尊称为“老学长”、“江学长”。后来老学长从总书记岗位卸任后曾来母校视察，我也有幸参加了相关活动。从加盟交大开始，便也称之为“江学长”。
我在11月30日下午得知噩耗，虽不意外，但依然希望像以往那样是一个“谣言”。讣告发布后，网上掀起了一波波的怀念和追忆，前所未有。一个人能被如此缅怀，足以证明他的极不寻常、极不平凡。
近年来网上有逐渐增多的文章称颂江学长，个中原因值得分析。其中得到越来越多公认的，是他作为党和国家主要领导人，做出了一系列事关中华民族兴衰成败的正确决策。下面结合我个人的经历，略谈二、三事，以表达对江学长逝世的哀思。
一、让中美关系重回健康发展的轨道
1989年春夏之交，中国发生了改革开放后最严重的政治风波，江泽民同志临危受命，担任了总书记。面对美国和西方对中国的打压，邓小平及时提出了“韬光养晦”的对外方针。江泽民根据邓小平的一系列谈话，把这一政治大韬略完整、准确、深刻地概括为28字方针：冷静观察，稳住阵脚，沉着应付，韬光养晦，善于守拙，有所作为，绝不当头。这28个字，字字珠玑，主要蕴含了三层意思：第一，面对美国对中国的打压，应当采取什么姿态？是沉着冷静还是头脑发热，这是处理问题的大前提；第二，沉着冷静之下，应当遵循什么原则？这一政治大韬略深刻把握中国传统文化和神髓，把道家“无为而无所不为”的思想运用到极致，大智若愚，以柔克刚；第三，韬光养晦，善于守拙，最后的落脚点是什么？邓小平明确告诫：中国不当头、不扛旗。
这28字的战略方针的提出和概括，不仅体现了邓小平的政治韬略，也反映出江泽民的政治智慧。邓小平说过很多话，如何加以概括总结至关重要。江泽民不仅完整、准确、深刻地把握了邓小平的战略思想，而且身体力行，认真贯彻。“韬光养晦”的一个主要目的，是化解中美冲突，打破中美关系的僵局。中国不出头扛旗，才能避免与美国领导的西方世界走向全面对抗，才能在中美关系面临危机时转危为安。但要让中美关系重回健康发展的轨道，还要有所作为，付出艰辛的努力。为此，江泽民通过中美之间的“元首外交”，积极推动中美两国达成建设性战略伙伴关系的共识。
其中的一个关键环节，是江泽民1997年访美。这次访问是12年来中国国家元首第一次正式访美，也是自1979年邓小平访美以来中国领导人对美国进行的一次最重要访问。但在当时，“中国威胁论”在美国甚嚣尘上，中国被描绘成冷战后“新的魔鬼帝国”；香港回归前，也有人称中国民主进程“夭折”；在1997年的头7个月里，美参众两院议员先后提出了66项反华提案，破了历史纪录。在此背景下，如何扭转乾坤的确需要领导人的魄力和魅力。
江学长充分发挥了其长袖善舞、多才多艺的优势，一些个性的瞬间给人留下了深刻印象。比如在檀香山，他用夏威夷吉他弹奏了《向夏威夷问候》这首歌，并邀请州长夫人即兴为大家演唱；在南加州接受华人华侨欢迎时，江泽民清唱了京剧“一轮明月照窗下”；在白宫，克林顿总统陪同参观林肯的起居室，主人向客人展示了林肯亲笔书写的葛底斯堡演讲稿，江学长随即用英文朗诵了演讲的开头……
11月1日，江泽民在哈佛大学发表演讲。我当时正在哈佛做为期一年的访问学者，有幸见证了这一历史时刻。这是中国领导人首次在哈佛大学发表演讲。老学长一口英语，再次展现其独特的魅力，受到听众的极大欢迎。在谈到哈佛大学与中国的友好关系时，江泽民说得知校长陆登庭（Neil Rudenstine）即将访华，“我期待与你在北京，或上海，再次会见”（原话是I look forward to meeting you again in Beijing, or Shanghai），这句话引起了现场一片会心的笑声和掌声，成为演讲的一个亮点。我的老师王沪宁随行访问，演讲结束后王老师告诉我，演讲原稿并无or Shanghai，这是江主席临场发挥的，起到了极好的效果。会场内掌声阵阵，但与此同时会场外也传来阵阵“噪音”——“台独”、“藏独”等分子在会场外用高音喇叭呼喊反华口号。有位美国记者现场向江主席提问是否听到外面的“噪音”。老学长非但没有回避这一“刁钻”的问题，反而诙谐地答道：我虽然年过70，但听力还是很好的，我唯一的选择就是我讲的声音比他们更大！会场再次报以长时间的掌声和笑声。
通过这次访问，江主席同克林顿总统商定，两国致力于建设面向21世纪的建设性战略伙伴关系，成为1989年后中美关系面临严峻挑战的一个历史转折点。翌年，克林顿总统访华，在人民大会堂国宴之后江学长即兴邀请克林顿现场各自指挥军乐团演奏两国歌曲，把气氛推向了高潮。两国元首建立了密切的私人关系，为推动中美关系重回健康发展轨道奠定了重要基础。彼时，我身在美国，撰写了《努力建构中美建设性战略伙伴关系——江泽民克林顿互访与两国开展元首外交的背景与前景》，于1998年6月26日分别刊登在《华盛顿新闻》、《波士顿新闻》、《美南新闻》等报纸。上海《文汇报》1998年6月24日也发表了本人文章《建立战略对话机制元首外交特别重要》（《文摘报》1998年6月28日转载）。“元首外交”成为当时中美关系改善的一个关键因素，为1999年中美入世谈判的成功铺平了道路。2001年中国正式加入WTO，为中国的崛起创造了至关重要的条件。
二、实现从革命党向执政党的转型
江学长的另一大贡献，是创立了“三个代表”重要思想，遵循了人类历史的普遍规律，顺应了世界发展的时代潮流，创造性回答了建设什么样的党、怎样建设党的问题。
从今天的眼光看，“三个代表”是极具内涵、极富创意的思想，为世纪之交的中国共产党向何处去提供了新的历史方位。为此，江泽民委托当时的中共中央政治局委员、上海市委书记黄菊建立一个研究班子，对这一问题进行深入探讨，我有幸成为其中的一员。那是千禧年年中的事情，我及时发表了《“三个代表”：党的建设面向新世纪的坐标》一文（载《探索与争鸣》2000年第10期），是当时较早对“三个代表”重要思想进行阐释的论文之一，其中的一个核心论点就是中国共产党要以“三个代表”为指引实现从“革命党”向“执政党”的转变，引起了一定的关注。从“革命党”走向“执政党”的观点，可以说是课题组当时的一个基本共识，这一共识得到了黄菊同志的肯定，并向总书记做了汇报。
记得有一次黄菊同志找我谈话，提到党内有一些老同志不同意这一观点，说“难道执政党就不革命了吗”。但是总书记还是采纳了这个观点。不过，为了照顾党内一些老同志的情绪，在中央的正式报告中没有直接使用从“革命党”转变为“执政党”的概念，而是做出如下表述：“我们党已经从一个领导人民为夺取全国政权而奋斗的党，成为一个领导人民掌握着全国政权并长期执政的党”。这一表述最早出现在2001年总书记的七一讲话，后被广泛引用。但我注意到，在后来出版的《江泽民文选》中，的确出现过“革命党”向“执政党”转变的明确论断。这说明，江学长本人是认可这一重大判断的。
从“革命党”走向“执政党”，是一个具有重大意义的政治判断，理论内涵极为丰富，我认为实际上构成了“三个代表”重要思想的核心要义。时至今日，“三个代表”重要思想依然是中国共产党的指导思想之一，而与这一重要思想相伴而生的从“革命党”向“执政党”转变的重大判断，不应当被忽视。中国共产党究竟向何处去，需要认真加以思考和审视。
作为这一论断的最后结论，江泽民在党的十六大报告中郑重宣示：“‘三个代表’重要思想，是在科学判断党的历史方位的基础上提出来的。我们党历经革命、建设和改革，已经从领导人民为夺取全国政权而奋斗的党，成为领导人民掌握全国政权并长期执政的党；已经从受到外部封锁和实行计划经济条件下领导国家建设的党，成为对外开放和发展社会主义市场经济条件下领导国家建设的党。”从革命走向执政，从封闭走向开放，从计划经济走向市场经济，代表着党的十一届三中全会后历史新时期中国社会进步的基本方向。只有沿着这个方向不发生逆转，中国才能走向光明的未来，实现中华民族的伟大复兴。
三、以党内民主带动人民民主的发展
政治体制改革始终是改革开放后绕不过去的一个坎。如果说毛泽东的历史地位在于建立了新中国，解决了政治学语境下的“国家建构”（state building）问题，那么邓小平的历史地位则在于推动改革开放，极大解放和发展了社会生产力。对于之后的领导人来说，如何进行政治体制改革，解决中国的民主政治发展问题，是奠定其历史地位的要件。这个历史任务邓小平已经提出了，但未能完成。对于第三代领导集体来说，如何完成这一未竟的事业，是一个重大课题。
作为第三代中央领导集体的核心，江泽民对此是有考虑的。他提出“建设社会主义政治文明”的命题，把第二代领导集体提出的“两个文明”建设拓展为“三大文明”架构，实际就是旨在为破解这一问题提供空间。只是这一问题甚为敏感、甚为艰巨，要找到可行的突破口的确不易。
作为一名政治学者，我一直关注的正是这个问题。早在上世纪90年代后期，我即开始针对以党内民主为重点的政治体制改革进行研究，有关成果引起了一定的关注。著名学者萧功秦《从政治发展角度看“党内民主化”论》一文对此有详细评论，海外也有专文予以分析。发表于《复旦学报》1999年第1期的《党内民主与政治发展：开发中国民主化的体制内资源》是本人关于这一论题的代表性成果，2008年被著名学者俞可平和Arif Dirlik 编入《中国学者论民主和法治》，该书作为“当代中国思想文化论丛”的一种，收录10年来16位政治学和法学权威学者的代表性论文。但在1999年，我的这篇论文引起了争议，《复旦学报》被追责，当时我本人遭受很大的压力。
2000年我加入了黄菊同志组织的研究班子，并参加了中央组织的一个高端研究班，当时包括黄菊在内的上海一些领导同志也在这个班中，尤其是胡锦涛同志亲自莅临研究班听取汇报并讲话。在这一过程中，我与黄菊同志深入交谈，按照他的要求当年11月完成了内部研究报告《党内民主与政治体制改革》，由他提交给总书记并得到肯定。2001年在庆祝中国共产党成立八十周年大会上的讲话中，江泽民明确提出“通过发展党内民主，积极推动人民民主的发展”的重要论断，由此本人关于“党内民主”的观点自然就不再成为一个问题了，以致有领导说我是“早叫的公鸡”。因此，我对老学长一直怀有谢意。如果不是他率先倡导以党内民主带动人民民主的发展，我的“冤案”恐怕就难有平凡昭雪的一天。当然，能够为国家发展和社会进步尽一份责任，个人受点委屈也不算什么。
在党的十六大报告中，江泽民鲜明提出“发展社会主义民主政治，建设社会主义政治文明”，并继续强调“党内民主是党的生命，对人民民主具有重要的示范和带动作用。”应当说，以党内民主带动人民民主的发展作为我国政治体制改革和民主政治发展的一个大战略，至今仍然是需要深入研究和推进的。
但无论如何，随着时间的流逝，人们越来越感念他的睿智和英明，这是以前不曾有过的景象。
