This draft constitution appears to enjoy popular support.
The initial draft underwent extensive discussion among more than 500 people in Beijing, among active elements in various provinces and cities, and ultimately in a broad consultation involving over 8,000 representatives nationwide.
These discussions revealed that the draft was quite good and had won general approval and endorsement.
Many speakers today echoed this view.
Why was such a wide-ranging consultation organized?
There are several advantages.
First, how can we be sure that proposals formulated by a small group will be accepted by the vast majority of the people?
Through this process, the basic provisions and fundamental principles of the original draft were confirmed as widely supported.
All sound elements of the original draft were retained.
The fact that the views of a small number of leaders were endorsed by thousands demonstrates their validity, appropriateness, and feasibility, thereby bolstering our confidence.
Second, the consultation gathered more than 5,900 suggestions (excluding questions). These can be divided into three categories.
Some were incorrect, while others, though not entirely wrong, were nevertheless inappropriate and best left unadopted.
Why, then, were these unsuitable suggestions collected?
What was the purpose?
The collection served to provide a comparative understanding of the diverse perspectives on the constitution held by these 8,000 individuals.
The third category consisted of suggestions that were indeed adopted—undoubtedly valuable and essential.
Without them, even if the original draft was fundamentally correct, it would still have been incomplete, flawed, and lacking in thoroughness.
The current draft may still contain imperfections and remain incomplete; hence the need to solicit opinions from the entire nation.
Nevertheless, at present, this draft seems relatively complete, thanks to the incorporation of reasonable input.
What accounts for the widespread popularity of this draft?
In my view, one key reason is that its drafting combined the insights of leading cadres with those of the broad masses.
By integrating the views of a small elite with the input of over 8,000 people, and by subjecting the draft to further national deliberation after its publication, the central leadership’s perspective was effectively harmonized with the collective wisdom of the people.
This exemplifies the principle of combining leadership with the masses and engaging active elements across society.
We have employed this approach in the past and should continue to do so.
All major legislative initiatives should follow this method.
By adopting it this time, we have produced a superior, more comprehensive constitutional draft.
Why do those present here and the broader ranks of activists support this draft?
Why do they consider it good?
Primarily for two reasons: first, it draws on past experience; second, it balances principled stance with flexibility.
First, this draft synthesizes historical experience, particularly that of the past five years of revolution and construction.
It summarizes the people’s revolutionary struggle under proletarian leadership against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism, as well as recent achievements in social reform, economic development, cultural advancement, and government administration.
Moreover, it incorporates lessons learned since the late Qing dynasty concerning constitutional matters—from the “Nineteen Articles” issued at the end of the Qing era [2], through the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China enacted in the first year of the republic [3], to the various constitutions and draft constitutions promulgated by the Beiyang Warlord regime [4], and finally to the “Constitution of the Period of Tutelage” issued by Chiang Kai-shek’s reactionary government [5], up to his subsequent sham constitution [6]. Among these documents, some were progressive while others were regressive.
For instance, the Provisional Constitution of 1912 was, for its time, a relatively positive step; although imperfect and possessing certain limitations, it reflected bourgeois characteristics yet also embodied revolutionary and democratic ideals.
That constitution was drafted rather hastily, taking only about a month from conception to adoption.
By contrast, most of the subsequent constitutions and draft constitutions were decidedly reactionary.
Our current draft primarily draws on China’s revolutionary and developmental experiences, while also incorporating both domestic and international precedents.
Our constitution falls within the socialist constitutional tradition.
We have placed primary emphasis on our own experience, while also drawing on the strengths of Soviet and other people’s democratic countries’ constitutions.
Historically, the bourgeoisie pioneered constitutional development.
Whether in Britain, France, or the United States, the bourgeoisie went through a revolutionary phase during which they began to formulate their own constitutions.
We cannot simply dismiss bourgeois democracy and claim that its constitutions hold no place in history.
However, contemporary bourgeois constitutions are largely flawed and harmful, especially those of imperialist states, which serve to deceive and oppress the majority of the population.
Our constitution, by contrast, represents a new socialist type, distinct from the bourgeois model.
Indeed, it is far more advanced than the constitutions drafted during the bourgeois revolutionary period.
We are ahead of them.
Second, our draft combines principled principles with practical flexibility.
The core principles are two: democracy and socialism.
Our democracy is not bourgeois democracy; rather, it is people’s democracy—a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the proletariat and based on the worker-peasant alliance.
This principle permeates the entire constitution.
The other principle is socialism.
China has already embarked on the path of socialism.
The constitution stipulates that socialist transformation must be completed and that the country’s socialist industrialization must be realized.
This is a matter of principle.
But does implementing socialist principles mean that socialism should be established overnight throughout the nation?
Such a formalistic approach might appear revolutionary, but it lacks flexibility, would meet with resistance, and ultimately fail.
Therefore, measures that cannot be fully implemented at once must be carried out gradually.
For example, state capitalism involves a phased approach.
State capitalism does not consist solely of public-private partnerships; it encompasses various forms—one being gradual implementation, the other embracing diversity.
This means progressively advancing different forms of state capitalism toward the goal of socialist public ownership.
Socialist public ownership is the ultimate principle, but achieving it requires flexibility.
Flexibility manifests itself in the form of state capitalism, which is not a single model but rather a range of approaches, and in the timing of implementation, which is gradual rather than instantaneous.
This is where flexibility comes into play.
We specify what can be achieved immediately and omit what remains beyond our reach.
For instance, regarding material guarantees for citizens’ rights, we note that these will undoubtedly expand as productive forces develop in the future, but for now we merely state that expansion will occur “gradually.”
This too reflects flexibility.
Similarly, the united front, originally outlined in the Common Program, is now enshrined in the preamble of the draft constitution.
The aim is to establish a broad people’s democratic united front comprising all democratic classes, political parties, and mass organizations, in order to stabilize all sectors of society, including the national bourgeoisie and the various political parties, as well as farmers and the urban petty bourgeoisie.
There is also the issue of ethnic minorities, which presents both commonalities and specific characteristics.
Provisions applicable to all apply uniformly, while special provisions address unique circumstances.
Ethnic minority groups possess distinctive political, economic, and cultural traits.
What are the specific economic features of certain minorities?
Article 5 of the draft constitution states that there are currently four forms of ownership of the means of production in the People’s Republic of China, yet in reality, some minority areas still practice other forms of ownership.
Might primitive communal ownership still exist in certain minority regions?
It is likely that it does.
Furthermore, remnants of slave-owning and feudal systems persist in China.
Looking back, however, we can see that these systems were once more progressive than primitive communal ownership.
They represented an advance at the time, but eventually became unsustainable, giving way to newer systems.
Article 70 of the draft constitution stipulates that minority areas “may, in accordance with the political, economic, and cultural characteristics of the local ethnic groups, formulate autonomous regulations and separate regulations.”
All of these provisions embody a combination of principled principles and practical flexibility.
It is precisely because of this dual approach—accurately and appropriately drawing on past experience, and skillfully balancing principle with flexibility—that this draft has won widespread support and acclaim.
Were it otherwise, I doubt it would have received such approval or been regarded favorably.
This draft is entirely feasible and must be implemented.
Of course, it remains only a draft at present; it will become the official constitution after being adopted by the National People’s Congress in a few months.
We must begin preparations for its implementation today.
Once adopted, every citizen will be obligated to comply, with state functionaries taking the lead—starting with those present here.
Failure to comply would constitute a violation of the constitution.
Upon promulgation, this draft is expected to garner unanimous support from the entire nation and significantly boost national morale.
Just as an organization needs a charter, so too does a nation require a fundamental law.
The constitution serves as such a charter—an overarching legal framework.
By enshrining the principles of people’s democracy and socialism within this fundamental statute, we provide the people with a clear direction forward, enabling them to feel that they are following a definite, just, and correct path, thereby enhancing their motivation and initiative.

Will the promulgation of this draft constitution have any impact internationally?
Undoubtedly, both within the democratic camp and in capitalist countries.
Within the democratic camp, seeing that we have charted a clear, just, and correct course will bring them great satisfaction.
If the people of China are pleased, so too will they be.
Likewise, oppressed and exploited peoples in capitalist countries will also rejoice upon learning of it.
Of course, not everyone will welcome it.
Imperialists and Chiang Kai-shek certainly will not.
Do you suppose Chiang Kai-shek would be pleased?
I believe we need not even ask him; it is evident that he would not be.
We are thoroughly familiar with him, and he would never approve.
President Eisenhower [7] would likewise disapprove, dismissing it as a misguided path—though ostensibly clear and straightforward, it is in fact a detour.
He would criticize our notions of socialism and people’s democracy as erroneous.
Moreover, he would reject the principle of flexibility, preferring instead that we suddenly impose socialism overnight, thereby plunging the country into chaos, which would suit his interests.
He also opposes our policy of the united front, desiring a monolithic, homogenous structure.
Our constitution possesses both national characteristics and an international dimension; it is both a national phenomenon and a global one.
Many nations suffer similar oppression under imperialism and feudalism, representing a significant portion of the world’s population.
With the advent of a revolutionary, people’s democratic constitution providing a clear, just, and correct path forward, we can offer assistance to these peoples.
Our overarching goal is to build a great socialist country.
As a nation of 600 million people, we aspire to achieve socialist industrialization, to modernize and mechanize agriculture, and ultimately to construct a great socialist state.
How long will this take?
While it is premature to speak of a definitive timeline, roughly three five-year plans—about fifteen years—should lay the necessary foundation.
Will we then have attained greatness?
Not necessarily.
In my estimation, it will take approximately fifty years—ten five-year plans—for us to substantially transform ourselves and assume a markedly different appearance from what we are today.
What can we produce at present?
Tables and chairs, teacups and teapots, grain crops that can be milled into flour, and paper—but we are unable to manufacture automobiles, airplanes, tanks, or tractors.
Let us avoid excessive boasting or arrogance.
Naturally, I am not suggesting that producing a single automobile justifies a bit of pride, nor that building ten vehicles warrants greater pride; rather, the degree of pride should increase incrementally with the scale of production.
That, however, would be inappropriate.
Even after fifty years, when we have made substantial progress, we must remain as humble as we are today.
Should we become conceited and look down upon others, the consequences would be disastrous.
We should refrain from arrogance for a century, indeed, forever.
Our current constitution is of a socialist character, yet it remains transitional in nature.
We must unite the entire nation and rally all forces that can and should be united in order to realize our aspiration of building a great socialist state.
This constitution is written precisely for that purpose.
Finally, let me address a common misconception.
Some argue that the deletion of certain articles from the draft constitution was due to excessive modesty on the part of certain individuals.
This interpretation is incorrect.
The omissions were not motivated by humility, but rather by considerations of inappropriateness, irrationality, and lack of scientific basis.
In a people’s democratic state such as ours, it is unacceptable to include provisions that are ill-suited, unreasonable, or unscientific.
Such provisions were not omitted simply because someone deemed them unnecessary out of modesty.
Science knows nothing of modesty or its absence.
Drafting a constitution is a scientific endeavor.
Beyond science, we should place our trust in nothing else—specifically, we must reject superstition.
Whether Chinese or foreign, living or deceased, whatever is true is true, and whatever is false is false; anything else constitutes superstition.
We must dispel such superstitions.
Regardless of whether ancient or modern, we should embrace what is correct and reject what is incorrect—indeed, not only rejecting it but also criticizing it.
Only this constitutes a truly scientific attitude.
Printed according to Volume 5 of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong.
Included in the Reader of Mao Zedong’s Works.
Notes [1] This is Mao Zedong’s speech at the thirtieth meeting of the Central People’s Government Committee. [2] Refers to the “Nineteen Major Articles” issued by the Qing government in November 1911 in response to the Wuchang Uprising, aimed at preserving the Qing dynasty’s feudal rule.
These articles stipulated that “the imperial line of the Great Qing shall endure forever” and that “the emperor is sacred and inviolable.” [3] The Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China was promulgated in March 1912 in the name of Sun Yat-sen, the Provisional President of the Republic of China.
It declared that “sovereignty of the Republic of China belongs to all the people” and guaranteed citizens’ freedoms of person, residence, property, speech, communication, association, and religion.
This provisional constitution possessed the characteristics of a bourgeois republican constitution and was abolished by Yuan Shikai in May 1914. [4] Refers to Yuan Shikai’s “Temple of Heaven Draft Constitution” and the “Republic of China Constitution,” as well as Cao Kun’s “Republic of China Constitution” and Duan Qirui’s “National Constitution Draft.”
In October 1913, Yuan Shikai, seeking to overturn the Provisional Constitution, drafted the “Temple of Heaven Draft Constitution,” which granted the president sweeping powers.
Dissatisfied with this, he further promulgated the “Republic of China Constitution” in May 1914, concentrating all governing authority in the president’s hands and paving the way for a restoration of imperial rule.
In October 1923, after securing a rigged presidential election, Cao Kun issued a constitution drafted by the elected deputies, commonly known as the “Bribery Constitution.”
Meanwhile, in December 1925, Duan Qirui’s executive government prepared a “National Constitution Draft,” which, due to widespread public opposition, was never formally adopted. [5] The “Constitution of the Period of Tutelage” was promulgated by the Kuomintang government in June 1931 to legitimize its one-party dictatorship and fascist-style autocratic rule. [6] Refers to the “Constitution of the Republic of China” manipulated and passed by the National Assembly in December 1946, following Chiang Kai-shek’s repudiation of the Political Consultative Conference resolutions and outbreak of full-scale civil war. [7] Eisenhower was at the time the President of the United States.