Western pundits, particularly those in the US, have it all wrong when they assume that allowing China into the global economic or trading system would eventually lead the country to become “one of us.” The fact of the matter is that China has never wanted to adopt Western democracy.
In view of more than 80% popular support according to US-based Pew and Gallup Polls and China’s ability to deliver on most of its promises (such as improving people’s livelihoods), the vast majority of the country’s population seem content with Beijing’s governance architecture, at least for now.
Neither is socialism in the European tradition been accepted as appropriate for China. In its search for an appropriate approach to economic development, it has adopted Deng Xiaoping’s “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” which has been expanded to “Xi Jinping Thought: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” or what US political scientist Daniel A Bell has referred to as “democracy at bottom and meritocracy at top.”
Democracy and meritocracy
China’s “democracy at bottom and meritocracy at top” is not perfect, and it is undemocratic in the Western tradition – leaders are not directly elected by universal suffrage. But in light of the government’s achievements over the last 40 years, China’s political architecture is arguably more efficient and effective than those of most countries in the world, including the US.
Direct democracy at bottom
Direct democracy at the grassroots level was proposed in the 1990s and experimented with in China in the early 21st century. It was chaotic at first because no one really knew what was the best way to elect lawmakers. Secret balloting was considered prone to cheating, with some fearing that candidates could be “elected” many times. A show of hands was considered intimidating because rival camps might take revenge on those who did not vote for their man or woman.
County-level legislators elect provincial lawmakers who in turn elect deputies to the National People’s Congress, China’s top legislature or parliament. The NPC meets once every five years to elect the nation’s top leaders and approve or disapprove policies.
Indirect election of leaders
In China, members of the Politburo and Standing Committee are “selected” by the Communist Party Central Committee, which is made up of senior leaders in government, state-owned enterprises and state banks. Former leaders also have a say in the selection process. The candidates are selected on the basis of proven competency and past accomplishments. The NPC “elects” who on the selected list will be the leaders for the next five years.
It could be argued that system by which Chinese leaders are indirectly elected is similarly to what is done in the US or Canada. In the US, the president is elected by the Electoral College and cabinet-level officers “elected” by members of Congress. In Canada, the leader of the party that garners the largest number of seats in Parliament forms the government and its leader automatically becomes the prime minister, who in turn appoints the cabinet.
Candidates to local, provincial and national legislatures need not be members of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The more than 2,500-member NPC, for example, represents a wide range of groups, from CPC members to ethnic minorities, the other eight political parties, and members of the armed forces.
The “selection and election” of county-level officials is not restricted to Communist Party members. In researching material for my first book, China’s Economic Rise and Its Global Impact, I discovered that the deputy mayor of a county in Guangdong province was a member of a non-communist political party. He was appointed because of proven competency and past accomplishments. Whether this is an isolated case or common across the country is unclear.
Modest political reforms
In Hu Jintao’s second term as president, he proposed wider Communist Party democracy, nominating more candidates than positions in the Politburo and Standing Committee. In this way, the “cronies” that were forced on to the selection list by former leaders might not get elected.
During Hu’s first term, his predecessor Jiang Zemin was able to install his supporters in pinnacles of power. For example, the two vice-chairmen of the Central Military Commission were his men, denying Hu any real power over the military. Another Jiang crony, Zhou Yongkang, the internal-security czar, derailed Hu’s efforts to combat corruption.
What’s more, expanded intra-party democracy was deemed healthy, improving the quality of debates and culminating in developing and implementing effective policies. In light of Xi’s first-term achievements – lifting more than 56 million out of poverty and improved relations with most countries in the developing world – China’s search for an appropriate governance architecture appears to be on the right track.
China is expected to deepen reforms, enshrining “Xi Jinping Thought: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” into the constitution.
The Xi Jinping era
Only time will tell whether the removal of term limits for the president and vice-president is Xi Jinping’s ambition to be “emperor” or “president for life.” But he did urge cooperation between the Communist Party and the eight recognized non-communist parties in realizing the “Chinese Dream” at the Communist Party of China National Congress meeting last month. This would suggest Xi might be interested in expanding democracy rather than restricting it.
In February, the US-based Brookings Institution also reported that Xi had introduced “Open Party Regulations,” aimed at making the development of government policy more transparent.
However, Xi is also moving China more to the “left,” rejuvenating Mao-era slogans and policies. For example, he urges the People’s Liberation Army to obey the Communist Party and protect the “motherland” from external interference (read US).
So over the next five years or longer, the world can expect deepening economic and political reforms that would lead to a more prosperous and assertive China capable of pushing back threats from the US and its allies. For example, China has slapped tariffs of up to 25% on some US goods in retaliation against President Donald Trump’s import duties on Chinese steel and aluminum. The Chinese government has promised a “fight to the end” if Trump follows through on his threat to impose tariffs on US$60 billion worth of Chinese-made goods.
Xi’s ability and willingness to face difficult issues head-on might be the reason he proposed the removal of the term limits on the president and vice-president. That was approved by the National People’s Congress in March.
Xi might seek a third term, but speculation that he plans to become “president for life” could be just that. Xi’s background does not point to an ambitious leader craving for power. Indeed, during his years spent in an impoverished village during the Cultural Revolution, Xi was well liked and praised as a caring and responsible leader. Moreover, his anti-corruption campaign suggests that Xi is not amassing power and wealth for himself or his family. Finally, there is no reason for him risk his legacy by clinging on to power for life.
Rejection of US-style democracy
However, like his predecessors, Xi rejects US-style democracy as flawed. In a society in which there are conflicting interests, gaining a consensus on a policy is time-consuming and extremely difficult if not impossible. According to a March 19 report by the UK-based publication Verdict, 45 US industry groups (including the Chamber of Commerce and the Informational Technology Industry Council) opposed Trump’s tariff policy on China.
US states such as Ohio that have lost manufacturing and jobs because of globalization, on the other hand, welcome or even demand his getting tough on China. A March 2 CNBC report indicated that two of Ohio’s top Democrats, US Senator Sherrod Brown and Representative Marcy Kaptur, support Trump’s policy.
Conflicting interest groups would likely relegate Trump’s policy into oblivion or ambiguity, a situation in which everyone loses. The steel and aluminum industries would be no better off because Trump has exempted major exporters of those commodities – Canada, Mexico, the European Union and Brazil. Consumers would be paying a higher price for products that use those metals.
Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have put forward another reason democracy is flawed. In a January Guardian article titled “This is how democracies die,” the authors argued that extreme partisan polarization on race and culture is responsible for America’s failed democracy. The election of Donald Trump has brought out the worst in America, with rising racist populism, protectionism and conservatism threatening the country’s (and the world’s) economic, political and social stability.
But besides all these modern factors, China rejects liberal democracy primarily because it is inconsistent with its history and institutions. During its more than 5,000-year history, China has never experienced democracy, which means it would require time to make a smooth transition from authoritarian to democratic rule. With some 56 ethnic groups and numerous regions whose interests might be at odds with one another, Western-style democracy might not only be dysfunctional but might cause the nation to implode.
All the evidence demonstrates that China would not be what it is today had it adopted liberal democracy.
Ken Moak
What a splendid article! What insight! Thank you! Of all the reasons you articulated, I like the last one the most – that "China rejects liberal democracy primarily because it is inconsistent with its history and institutions."
It lends to a greater geopolitical understanding of the world if people were to accept the obvious truth that we do not live in a homogenous world of humanity with one singular immutable set of universal values but rather that we live in a heterogenous world of multicultural, multireligious and multilingual humanity with multifarious multilateral and multitudinal values, mindset and psyche and mores and norms, and that the catchword or clarion call should be of mutual equal respect and peaceful co-existence.
It is in metaphorical terms maddeningly naive to expect that apples can be oranges or vice versa.
The continuing living antiquity that is China cannot be compared or contrasted let alone judged simpliciter on the same balance of scales with the young Turk of the United States. It is utterly insane for the U.S. to even pretend that it is the world hegemone or World Sheriff and can simply dictate what other Nations can do or cannot do, regardless of the fact that it perceives itself as the Aegis of the Free World!
I dare anyone to define absolutely what ‘free’ or ‘freedom’ is?
Mind you, I am merely suggesting as the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ that neither Communism nor Democracy nor whatever ideology that is yet to be invented is immanently or inherently good or bad. They all present divergent perspectives to suit people or nations in the karmic or destined circumstances that they find themselves. Certain things are inconceivably outside the control of wishes of humankind or societies within it. I have no trouble if the Christian or the Muslim or the Atheist etc were to have a personal sense of feeing superior so long as that superiority does not extend beyond a personal or private sense of self-esteem, self-worth and dignity.
So, where ancient or ailing old man China in its endeavour to stay alive in these changing modern times is injecting or vaccinating itself with moderated or bespoked versions of Occidental or Soviet Communism and also Occidental Capitalism but tailored appropriately and accordingly with Chinese characteristics so that there is no ‘organ rejection’, to evolve to survive in modernity, what God-ordained right has the U.S to exhort – you cannot just choose evolve as you so wish, you have to an exact replicate of me, be an exact clone of the U.S.! There will be no China then! The Chinese will all become ‘bananas’!
In this world of ‘duality’ for those who have studied Taoism, Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, how can anything as an immutably stand alone ‘absolute’ in truth or quality be found.?
In a world of self-survival, where China has decided that for its continuing survival as a creature timelined from the antiquity of its fellow now extinct peers like the Sumerians, Egyptians and Mesopotamians, that it has to metamorphosed with suitable genetic engineering taking in Communism, Capitalism etc and I might suggest eventually Democracy once the experimentation or work in progress is completed of modifying it with Chinese characteristics is done, why should the U.S, pass judgment when it is China that is fighting to stay alive? Does not a sick man an inalienable right to decide on what medical treatment it sees fit? It is after all his life not the professed ‘doctor’s!
Vincent Cheok
I believe otherwise. The Chinses system is self-contradictory in that, the bottom is democratic while the top is not democratic. If Non-democratic system is better than the democratic, then the non-democratic system should be applied universally in China. The liberal democracy should be rejected everywhere, bottom and up.
This self-contradiction made the Chinese system into a cheating system. In Article 79 of the Chinese constitution tells the Chinese population there will be multiple presidential candidates competing in presidential elections, while there was always only ONE presidential candidate to be DECIDED by the congress, not ELECTED because there were no competing candidates.
It is true the liberal democracy is inconsistent with China’s history, but it has been proposed by Confucius in his essay Li Yun Da Tong. 天下为公means liberal democracy. A Qing official Xu jiyu (or Xu Jishe) has compared the American system to Confucius liberalism, and his comparison is displayed in the Washington Monument in Washington DC.
Another cheating is the claim itself: the CPC one-party rule is better than liberal democracy. How did the CPC know it is better, when it has never tried the liberal democracy? Moak claimed that "The fact of the matter is that China has never wanted to adopt Western democracy." …Such claim made the cheating bigger.
China has wanted western democracy since 1930s but has never tried it. The Chinese population is being cheated by the CPC and authors like Ken Moak.
Wood Wu
"How did the CPC know it is better, when it has never tried the liberal democracy?"
It does not try it because it has a clear example of how it does not work in the US system. Why in the world would it want to replicate a system that is so clearly unmanagable . There is no doubt at all that China would still be on it`s knees if it were run like the US is run. Thats why the US is so busy trying to get China to adopt it`s system because the US elite know that that would eliminate China as a competator in the world.
Give just one example of a liberal democracy that can stand up to the progress China has made in such a short time. The liberal democracy are mired in unpayable debt, social anarchy, economical inequality, racial intolerance, and militarism.
Why is China so strong and getting stronger by the day, because just like soccer, a country is a team. When a team works together for the common good it wins. When it is every man for himself it cannot win. That is Western Democracy in a nutshell. Every man for himself and winner take all. No country, team , business what ever can succeed for long like that. There has to be competant coaches and players willing to work together for the common good. That is what China has mastered and it is working like a charm. as the old saying goes " If it ain`t broke don`t fix it". And if they were to try and fix it it certainly would not adopt a system that is so clearly failing such as that in the Western Democracies.
It never will because the way the system is set up, Tthe Elites ( 1/10th 0f 1% are running off with everything that could be considered valuable in the country while keeping the citisenry busy watching Dancing With The Stars and wars of choice. The system is dysfunctional by design. The only problem for the elites is that it is becoming so chaotic that even they and their propaganda machine has lost control of it.
Wood Wu
You are talking in terms of communism and democracy again. Think outside the square! Take a helicopter view and see China as an alien world unique in itself. Then you will see that China as a hybrid is not Communist nor Capitalist in a strict sense. It is a totalitarian meritocracy as it has always been since the Zhou Warring Period. The Communist Party is now the new ‘Emperor’. And the mutual covenant of the Mandate of Heaven and the Confucian filial piety family relationship as the basic unit of society – father/son, teacher/pupil, ruler/subject etc still applies – that is duties, obligations and responsibilities before private individual rights. It is about ‘freedom from’ public insecurity, poverty, homelessness, unemployment before freedom to publicly say, do and think, which is confined to private freedoms within one’s house. It is an issue of different priorities. Otherwise China with its population size and different dialectical and cultural groups would self implode!
Vincent Cheok
Wood Wu
Also the U.S. democracy in socio economic terms is better seen as a capitalist society ruled indirectly by the 1% that owns 90% of the nation’s wealth, particularly with this strange legal fiction of the corporation in its guise as the multinational corporation. In effect the U.S. is ruled by its multinational corporations and the rich and elite shareholders behind it. The thieves rule the country!
In China the socialist government is the countervailing power against the capitalist private sector, thus applying the Taoist yin and yang solution to this socio-economic potential for capitalistic oppression. Both on their own have the potential to be oppressive but have them to watch over each other is like taking a thief to catch a thief!
Vincent Cheok
Wood Wu,
The success of the CPC is there for everyone to see and that in itself proves that their system of governance is better than so-called liberal democracy.
Look at it this way. How a country progresses and moves forward is dependant on how it solves its problems -in other words the resolution of contradictions that it faces everyday. Failure to do so will result in famines, chaos, civil wars, uprisings, revolts, revolutions, etc., as have happened in the past with previous Chinese dynastic rules. The CPC knows this. And that’s the beauty of it. They know that their "mandate" to rule depends on how successful they are in running the country and in that knowledge they have put in a system of self -accountability to make sure that their party members behave properly – hence the severe punishment meted out to corrupt officials and members. This also makes certain that complacency never sets in.
Compare this with the system of the US and the West, where you have regular elections. Nothing substantial really ever happens. Neo-Libs and Neo-Cons take turn in ruling (ruining) the country and the people are conned into believing that their votes have been instrumental in bringing about changes, in the election of a new government or President or PM. In the meantime, the privileged 1% still owns 90% of the country’s wealth and are still the real rulers of the land.
As Marx said : "ELECTIONS GIVE THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT EVERY FEW YEARS TO CHOOSE WHICH MEMBER OF THE
RULING CLASS TO MISREPRESENT THEM”
Also Mark Twain : "IF VOTING MADE ANY DIFFERENCE THEY WON’T LET US DO IT".
Elections not only fool the people. It has also given the rulers (the 1%) a false sense of security. Their mind-set is that as long as they give the people the vote, their pressure-cooker steam will be let let off once every few years and they don’t have to worry too much about improving their livelihood or their welfare. The big question is : How long can they keep this up?
I wish people wouldn’t give ground to the nonsense argument that abolishing term limits for a government position is somehow ‘anti-democratic’. Democracy means rule by the ‘demos’ meaning the many, the masses, or the mob. If the U.S. presidency abolished term limits it wouldn’t be any less or more democratic because the U.S. president isn’t directly elected by the people anyways (electoral college members regularly vote in a manner counter to their constituent voters; last election several who were supposed to vote for Trump didn’t and several who were supposed to vote for Hillary didn’t). But even if the U.S. president was elected by direct democratic vote, abolishing term limits would, if anything, be more democratic as the people would have more options for how they want to vote.
The western media framing of the issue of abolishing term limits for the Chinese presidency is complete nonsense. If Xi was directly elected by the people it would mean they have more choice in their democracy, and as he isn’t, it doesn’t even apply.
Thomas Daniel Kuhn …..I am sorry I did not include time in my former argument. When I said the communists never tried, I meant the years after the 1949s, not the years after the 2000s. The communists believed in the years prior to 1949s that only American style liberal democracy would be good for China. Immediately after they won the civil war, they should have tried in the years after the 1949s to find out whether liberal democracy would be good or not.
When you said "It does not try it because it has a clear example of how it does not work in the US system." you meant the years after the 2000s and the commuinists had determined that democracy is no good, not after the 1949s.
By the way, the communists’ determination "democracy is not good for China" is being challenged constantly by democrcy movements inside China up to 2018. And is challenge by the constitution written by the communists themselves. In the said constitution, the name democracy appears everywhere.
Vince Cheok … Your explanations were irrelevant to my argument. When I said that, the communists never tried democracy, I meant the year immediately after they had won the civil war. If they had tried then, and found out the democracy would not work in China, then they have the right and freedom to move onto any other political system. If they had begun democracy in 1949, how do you know China would not begin to prosper in the same year? History testifies that, after the WWII, all the democratic countries in the West began to prosper while the communist countries behind the Iron Curtain did not. If communist China tried democracy immediately in 1959, China might be aided by the West and begin to prosper right in 1950, and would not fight the Korean war, the great famine, the cultural revolution, etc. History testifies again, China’s propserity was made possible financially and technologically by the rich democracies. Now for the formerly poor and weak China to explain to me that "democracy does not work for ONLY China" is not only illogical but also unreasonalbe.
Jason Jean…..I believe you did not understand the word "election" well enough and that was why you followed the Chinese usage when you said "If Xi was directly elected directly by the people it would mean they have more choice". No Xi was only decided, he was never elected and therefore the people do not and will not have any more choice.
In an election like the one in the US, there are always multiple candidates competing for votes where voters choose a personal name. In the Chinese decission process, there has never been a competitor for votes, where voters choose a YEA or a NAY.
Vince Cheok ….I believe your argument should include all democratic countries. You should not only talk about the American one only. Can you say the democatic Taiwan is also ruled indirectly by the 1% that owns 90% of the nation’s wealth? Or the democratic Japan, Canda, etc. ?
Joseph Redpath …I believe you have completely misunderstood election, including both Marx and Mark Twain. Election means there is competition among people wanting to rule. In China, there has never been any presidential election at all but the official language still keeps using the word "election of the president" to fool people, including you. The fact that you are fooled can be seen from your statement that "Their mind-set is that as long as they give the people the vote, their pressure-cooker steam will be let let off once every few years and they don’t have to worry too much about improving their livelihood or their welfare. The big question is : How long can they keep this up?"—-If your statement is true, why the poor and weak China became rich and strong on the shoulders of democratic countries? All the democratic countries became rich and strong earlier than China and as result are able to aid poor and weak China later on? As a matter of fact, China became rich and strong after China has been 西化=westernized. So now you are questioning "How long can they keep this up?" As least THEY have kept this up earlier than China; when the Chinese were starving to death in the 1960s, the Westerners were living in heaven and they are still living in heaven.
Wood Wu …Sorry you seem to have missed my point. Simply put, the western media is saying that abolishing term limits on the Chinese presidency is somehow ‘a move away from democracy.’ I argued that, first, the Chinese presidency, like you said, isn’t democractically elected (similar to the U.S. presidency). And second, even if it was democratically elected, it still wouldn’t be somehow counter to democratic principles. Therefore the western media coverage of this issue makes no sense.
Wood Wu (I’m replying to your first comment in this thread). There are lots of recognized democracies which have a directly elected lower government but a non-elected executive branch and these aren’t considered contradictory. Canada has an elected parliament but an appointed Senate (which has just as much power as the parliament). Additionally, we don’t get to choose our Prime Minister or his cabinet (that’s all decided by…you guessed it, political parties). The United Kingdom has an elected parliament but an unelected house of lords. The U.S. presidency is not elected by popular vote (they have an electoral college system).
Wood Wu I like your approach to history. I think you are right that if China had partnered with the U.S. immediately in 1949 it would have been more successful sooner. What you likely don’t know is that Mao Zedong sent letters (which they still have in the U.S.) to U.S. presidents asking to be their ally as he would have rather partnered with them than with the Soviet Union, but the U.S. refused to ally themselves with him at that time. The Republicans of China under Kai Shek were essentially bought and paid for; if they ever took power in China then China would have become a U.S. puppet state. Remember by the end of World War II the U.S. wasn’t in the habit of creating democracies, they created puppet dictatorships (see what happened when they ‘liberated’ South Korea or South Vietnam). Had the U.S. been willing to partner with the CCP as they have done since 1979, things would have been very different. But, being rejected by the U.S., Mao had no choice but to partner with the Soviet Union for assistance with development.
Ken Moak
Thanks for writing this splendid article. It compliments some of my courses at the Institute of South-South Cooperation at Peking University
Jason Jean …Sorry and apology to you.
VERY INTERESTING and sounds good .
Yeah Well, whereever ya are in the world. a round peg will not fit into a square hole. so that is the basic. Whoever gets past that the quickest and moves on to the next thing will get the prize. I think many in the west (US) just want to tear the whole nation down for who knows what reason while others are wanting to improve,reform democacy as much as possible. But the Money Interest is destroying the American Democracy. Or Republican Democracy, whatever you want to call it!
The oldest destroyer of Nations. Me Me Me Mine Mine Mine First First First.
Yeah Well, whereever ya are in the world. a round peg will not fit into a square hole. so that is the basic. Whoever gets past that the quickest and moves on to the next thing will get the prize. I think many in the west (US) just want to tear the whole nation down for who knows what reason while others are wanting to improve,reform democacy as much as possible. But the Money Interest is destroying the American Democracy. Or Republican Democracy, whatever you want to call it!
The oldest destroyer of Nations. Me Me Me Mine Mine Mine First First First.