Democracy in China: A Distant Dream or Emerging Reality?

China’s democracy has long been a controversial topic. Western critics claim that the country is under autocratic rule and that the former president of the country — Jiang — was called a “dictator” in a 60 minutes interview with Mike Wallace. However, Chinese government officials and some Chinese scholars seem to have a different interpretation of democracy from the western world. They named the Chinese style of democracy “Whole Process People’s Democracy,” in which decisions are made “democratically" without a substantive voting process. Is this mechanism a thin disguise for dictatorship, or simply another way to interpret and exercise democracy? This article will discuss the controversy from two case studies and see how democratic measures are carried out in a so-called authoritarian system.

Case #1: Selection of the Head of State

Unlike traditional democratic countries where the president is elected through different voting forms, the Chinese presidents are often nominated by their predecessors: the former political bureau members. Candidates are selected from governors of provinces or secretaries of the provincial Party committee, which means they have experience governing a massive population for at least five years. Jiang used to be the mayor of Shanghai before he was nominated, Hu had experience governing Guizhou and Xinjiang before he became a member of the political bureau, and Xi was the secretary of the Party committee in Zhejiang before he joined the political bureau in 2007. Afterward, these selected candidates will be involved in the national decision-making with the existing political bureau members to get familiar with governing a country with 1.4 billion people for approximately five years before they come to power.

This mechanism undoubtedly requires minimal populace interference, while its effectiveness is another question. In systems where the head of state is directly decided by popular elections, whether or not the voters have enough understanding of political affairs and understandings for the candidate to make reasonable voting decisions is questionable. Voters can be educated while still making unreasonable or not fully-considered decisions since people in different fields can't track politics constantly. A specialist in astronomy can be ignorant in choosing presidential candidates even though he may have a doctorate. An analogy is that for a complex math problem, it is better to let a small group of mathematicians solve it instead of gathering a large group of middle school students and telling them to vote democratically for the correct answer. Using examples in reality, the result of the Brexit Referendum is a painful process of leaving the EU, which many regretted after making the decision. How can you expect most voters to fully understand the benefits and costs of such a vital decision and thus make a well-considered decision? Another case is attempting to reform the national welfare system in some European countries. Expenditures on welfare placed a significant burden on economic development while passing relevant reforms is challenging since it signifies the loss of support from voters. Gerhard Schröder, the former premier of Germany who cut down welfare in his reforms, ended up stepping down before finishing his second term. The decision between long-term economic development and short-term welfare is obvious for politicians. In contrast, the decision between support and opposition from the people is even more than the former.

Assuming China is governed under the same mechanism. In 1999, the United States “mistakenly” bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. They added the collision incident in the south China sea in 2001. Many Chinese citizens were infuriated, and the country was immersed in an anti-American atmosphere. Politicians can easily win elections by being tough towards the United States, which fits people’s moods. Nevertheless, China at that time desperately needs cooperation with the US for its economic development. This means the government must restrain its hostility to the US even though this may be against public opinion, and they may face severe criticisms from the public. The then president, Jiang, remained restrained on these issues. It was a decision against people’s will, but it was also a relatively better decision to make.

Nevertheless, the electoral mechanism in China is undeniably detached from its people, resulting in a series of problems. It lacks transparency and thus lacks inspection from its people. The elected head of state lacks effective limitation to his power, arguably a double-edged sword. On the one hand, concentrated power may enable him to pass reforms against the will of the vested interests, while on the other hand, it arguably increases the risk of making gross mistakes. Moreover, although the mechanism has been working well in the past decades, its legitimacy doesn’t come from the direct vote of the people but from the benefits the government has brought to its people. It is the performance legitimacy that sustains the government.

In a phased conclusion, the electoral mechanism of China is effective but hardly democratic. It successfully provides performance legitimacy while lacking direct authorization from people.

Case #2: Policy-making process

Establishing a new policy in China doesn’t involve substantive voting sessions, which is why it is often criticized as “autocratic.” However, it arguably exercises democratic approaches in this process, not through substantive voting in certain assemblies like the parliament, but through extensive negotiations between different sectors and administrative layers and consultation with experts.

In the Chinese mechanism, before a significant decision is made or a decree is passed, the central government will consult many think tanks, colleges & universities, scholars & professionals and make many rounds of negotiations within various administrative layers of the government. For instance, a series of decisions made during the 18th third Plenary session, including tax reform and power regulation, resulted from consultation with over 100 organizations nationally in half a year. And among the over 2500 pieces of advice received, around 50% were adopted. Seven standing members of the political bureau were sent to different districts for investigation, and the resolution passed after extensive negotiations between multiple administrative sectors.

Admittedly, this procedure doesn’t involve substantive voting sessions in the parliament, but it considers and adopts voices from society, especially the experts. Such procedures allow policies to have better consistency and make it easier to introduce reforms. Furthermore, it protects governmental decision-making from the influence of vested interest, a common phenomenon in some states. Nevertheless, this mechanism still lacks transparency and inspection. And compared to the western mechanism, it is harder to understand how democracy is exercised throughout the procedure, making it feel like a dictatorship for those not involved in policymaking.

Concerning the topic of dictatorship, some may argue that one-party rule signifies dictatorship. However, it is necessary to distinguish CCP from other foreign parties. Unlike traditional parties, which represent certain vested interests, the CCP represents the nation's common interest. In the US, the Republicans stand for the relatively traditional population, the MEGAs, the anti-abortion groups, heavy industries in the inland states, etc. At the same time, high-tech companies and the coastal states support the Democrats. CCP doesn’t represent the interest of certain vested interests but in theory, serves the entire nation. And the one-party rule in China is more of a political tradition that has lasted in this country for over 2000 years, and a central government unifies and governs the entire population.

Conclusion

The discussion brings us back to our fundamental question. What is democracy? And does the Chinese government satisfy the criteria of democracy?

Generally, democracy is defined as the government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.' Government for the people adheres to the idea that the central state exists for the sake of its citizen, not for the ruler's interest. Democracy is also a system in which the people rule, which is the meaning of the phrase 'by the people.' In addition, it should also be deemed as a system in which the voices of the people can be heard and that people are given the liberty to influence political decisions.

With our analysis, China is capable of fitting the first principle -- 'for the people.' This is usually something that the western style of democracy cannot obtain due to the mix-motivation involved in people's voting process. Some will vote based on their interest, while others will put their preferences aside and vote the way they do on moral grounds. Therefore, it makes it difficult for western society to ensure that all public policies are for the common good rather than the interests of a specific subset of the members of society. In comparison, the political system of China ensures objectivity in its policy-making process.

However, it must be stated that it is not the intention of the article to flatter the Chinese government and conclude that the Chinese system is the optimum solution. Instead, it aims to explain the Chinese mechanism and make comparisons with the western ones. As educated thinkers, we should not adopt an extremist perspective where we believe the western democratic society is the optimal solution. Instead, we should critically examine each system and judge them dialectally. Many developing countries which applied the western system failed miserably and still suffer from political chaos, while the PRC managed to develop into the second-largest economy globally and enhanced the living standards of its people considerably, regardless of all the doubts and critiques it had received over the years. There is arguably no perfect political system, but only the least bad system. The Chinese system is far from perfect and still urges further reforms to tackle issues mentioned previously in the article. This is the same for all other political systems globally.