I must admit, this talk of "essence" made me snicker. My cousins own cattle, so I've got a pretty good idea of the essence emanating from a body of work produced by politicians. But hey, this is China, a different country with different rules, right? Besides, their Congress members are not exactly politicians in the sense that our elected officials are politicians. I'll give their essence a fair whiff.
President Hu Jintao keys us into what the essence might be in his report delivered to the National Congress on October 15:
The theme of the congress is to hold high the great banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics, follow the guidance of Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of Three Represents, thoroughly apply the Scientific Outlook on Development, continue to emancipate the mind, persist in reform and opening up, pursue development in a scientific way, promote social harmony, and strive for new victories in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects.*
Of these, President Hu lets us know further into the report that it is The Scientific Outlook on Development (SOD) that will form the cornerstone of the fourth generation of party leadership. I thought this was going to be an exercise in reading between the lines, but President Hu is candid in his discussion of SOD.
Us Americans tend to fall on one side of the following debate: democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread; or, the Churchillian, democracy is the worst form of government save for all of the others. Naturally, we can't help but search for democratization in the reform plans of foreign nations, and we are shocked and awed when others do not come to the one of the above conclusions.
Hu's Scientific Development explicitly holds off on democracy for the sake of balanced development and stability because the CPC believes these issues need to be addressed before the people are given the right to vote. I like democracy; the chance to vote (or not vote) for the person or party to represent your interests is a special thing. But, the transition to democracy has always been a dramatic, traumatic and often violent event: American Revolution; French Revolution; US Civil War; Germany in the aftermath of WWI; Africa following decolonization up through today; The Fall of the Wall; and Russia's current confusion about democracy. I'd go back a bit further and toss in the English Civil War and the Netherlands' escape from Spain, but religion muddles those events up a bit.
If the CPC genuinely holds democracy as an eventual goal, then they are trying for something unprecedented in this world: a seamless, or as finely welded as possible, transition from an authoritarian regime to a democracy. The American Revolution and its important documents, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, have served as the basis for revolutions throughout Latin America, and at least one Southeast Asian revolutionary, Ho Chi Minh, was fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson's words. The US demonstrated that it would not tolerate violent revolutions, particularly communist revolutions, no matter whether those communist revolutionaries were looking to the US for support. Likewise, the UN has adopted opposition to violent revolution. If China can eventually peacefully transition to democracy then they will have demonstrated how to transition in an agreeable manner to the form of government that we hold so dear.
But, if the CPC is blowing smoke about making democracy an eventual goal, then they are doing a disservice to their people. A grave disservice that has great potential to undermine the stability and balance they are trying to build.
4 comments:
Hey ya Will,
Nice start. I was thinking of doing one too, but then I am just too lazy. Anyways, hope you keep it up.
Hold on, friend. Why are we even talking about democracy and China in the same sentence with such seriousness. There is no need for democracy because the CCP is good for you and me. You've been to China. Can you imagine letting even a small of percentage of them vote for anything? Will the masses respect the rule of law and the minority? I only pray these days that CCP cadre academies are churning out the kind of Confucian like scholarly officials that will enable the rise of an enlightened Celestial empire of the olden days. Because if its not we are heading toward eventual chaos, and throw in democracy it will be like Romance of Three Kingdoms again. I'm down for that and declaring my own county in China and gathering my loyal blood brothers to reunite China.
I just don't think democracy is good for the Chinese people, not now and possibly not ever. Frankly, if the CCP can get their act together in time to head off chaos I think a good heavy dose of paternalism is what China needs and wants.
Howard,
Paternalism might be good for China on a temporary basis, but I think that it is a far cry to say that China wants paternalism. Mao Zedong fomented revolution, or at least the people followed him in revolt, under the auspices of enfranchising power in the proletariat. The central government has been unable to adequately provide for hundreds of millions of Chinese. The peasants are not so naive that they don't know that if they had a vote, they could potentially alter their quality of life for the better. If they are not given the power and representation in government that the revolution was supposed to provide, a struggle for democracy rather than democracy itself could divide the united country.
There is at least one school of thought that says the late 18th century in America and Europe was a special time with certain qualities that gave rise to stable democracies, and that such a time and place may never occur again, thus democracy may not be appropriate for all countries. I don't buy it. Democracy might not be appropriate for all countries right now, but a stable democracy is the best preserve of freedom which 2500 years of Western philosophy has brainwashed me into believing is a really good thing. But then, the similarity between Logos and Tao, the Word and the Way, ends with the philosophies of the ancients: Socrates and his method; Confucius and his bureaucracy.
I see your optimism of a liberal ideal in the soul of the Chinese peasant. I'm going to play the culture card and claim that these villains (extra point if you get that little trivia hehehe) will never live up to your expectations.
Historically, the Chinese peasant only rose up during times of great disasters - war, famine, and disease all that losing the mandate of heaven stuff. They never fought for democracy or any sort of self governance. Strongmen pop up left and right and its off to the races with a battle royale to the top. All the peasant wants is to live without eating too much bitterness and some sort of self dignity and its all good. In the end everyone goes back home and the cycle starts again.
Now, I admit my history argument is shallow in some ways. Modern China has fundamentally changed and its people and culture and society is being influenced by foreign elements at such a fast pace. And I am sure there are other unknown and known variables that makes analogizing to history to be unfair.
Having said that, history is history and there is a heavy weight of one's culture and background that grounds the person. 4000 years of dynastic cycles builds up a bit of baggage in a culture and that inevitably becomes part of the thinking and subjective consciousness of Chinese peasants.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Democracy is just a new word for asking for the same needs for the last 4000 years, bread and circuses. Paternalism has provided for that for thousands of years with hiccups every 200 to 300 years. No democratic nation has proven that it can last as long as the Ming or Ching.
Post a Comment