to prompt policy changes. In theory, the obstacle to policy change in multi-party systems should be smaller than that in one-party states, since policies can change with the alternation of ruling parties. When a new party comes to power, it can discontinue policies initiated by the former ruling party. However, this is often not the case. In many democracies, opposition parties no longer perform constructive roles; instead, they oppose merely for the sake of opposing. Political parties veto each other and no political party can make a decisive decision. Under such circumstances, substantial policy changes often become very difficult. In China, this is not the case. Although the Chinese society often complains that the ruling party is too slow in making policy changes, they are implemented on a more rapid basis than in other political systems. From the 1980s to the 1990s and to this century, China has achieved several significant policy changes. It will be difficult to understand the huge changes in China in these decades without taking into account the ruling party’s immense ability to respond to situations with appropriate policy changes.
All these changes have so far enabled the CCP to remain open. Through all these newly designed institutions, particularly a ruthless meritocratic selection process, China may well have the best leadership team in place. It is worth noting that while the CCP continues to oppose any Western style democracy, namely, a multi-party system, it has accommodated different elements from democracy, such as intra-party voting, decentralization and political consultation.
Equally important is that drastic changes have also occurred at the societal level. It is true that the Chinese people do not enjoy Western-style political freedom. But this should not blind us to the fact that there has been an explosion of personal freedom. For instance, under Mao, the Chinese people could not choose what to wear, where to live or work, what to study and they certainly could not choose to travel overseas. Today, they enjoy those liberties. Hence, about 100 million Chinese choose to travel overseas and about 100 million Chinese choose to return to China without any restrictions.
Another example is the widespread use of new information and communications technology (ICT). The ICT has brought great freedom to people but greater challenges to the CCP. Today, nearly half of the Chinese population is considered to be Internet users, and among them, 75% access the Internet via mobile phones. Public opinion formulated online have increasingly had an impact on the party-state and led to policy changes on some occasions. There were 180,000 cases of protests, strikes and other mass disturbances in 2010; some of them were organized with the aid of the Internet — blogs, e-mail, online forums and weibo (a Chinese word for micro-blogging). Public opinion formulated in cyberspace has translated into public pressure and on many occasions, brought down corrupt officials or forced the party-state to adjust policies. Compared with traditional media, the Internet in China enjoys relatively few controls from the CCP Propaganda Department and is even more driven by the commercial interests of major Internet content providers. Meanwhile, the unique nature of information flow on the Internet — instant, interactive and boundless — has undermined the effectiveness of traditional methods of propaganda.
To be fair, Chinese want the Western style of freedom and human rights. But China takes a long-term view in terms of the realization of human rights. The leadership does not believe that radical democratization will help China realize freedom and human rights. In this sense, the country is a part of the East Asian model. In East Asia, particularly the four little dragons, namely, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, freedom and human rights have been realized in an incremental way, the economic rights first, then the social rights and finally the political rights. Of course, no one is sure whether the CCP will be able to realize these rights via an orderly and incremental process.
Democracy has many advantages. The Economist emphasizes and I quote:
“Democracies are on average richer than non-democracies, are less likely to go to war and have a better record of fighting corruption. More fundamentally, democracy lets people speak their minds and shape their own and their children’s future. That so many people in so many different parts of the world are prepared to risk so much for this idea is testimony to its enduring appeal” (ibid, p. 47). Unquote.
The attractiveness of democracy expressed by this quote is certainly true. But democracy does not fall from the sky. One can cite The Economist again and I quote:
“building the institutions needed to sustain democracy is very slow work indeed, and has dispelled the once-popular notion that democracy will blossom rapidly and spontaneously once the seed is planted. Western countries almost all extended the right to vote long after the establishment of sophisticated political systems, with powerful civil services and entrenched constitutional rights, in societies that cherished the notions of individual rights and independent judiciaries” (p. 49). Unquote.
This is exactly what China has learned from successful stories of democracies in the West and tragedies of democracies in the developing world. In the post-Mao era, China has been regarded as a “learning state.” “Learning from other countries” has been the major source of China’s progress. Equally important is that China has also learned from the failure of other countries. China’s economic reform has been market oriented, but the country does not want the market to dominate the whole economy. The state has used the market to ruthlessly push economic development, but the market is still under the state control. From a Western perspective, China’s state sector is a symbol of the country’s low level of productivity, and worst, an abhorrence that should be quickly done away with. But from a Chinese perspective, the state sector is a powerful tool for the government to promote growth, balance the market and cope with economic crisis. China has learned from the West how to develop a set of social policies. However, it does not want a Western style welfare state. Also, as already mentioned, China is incorporating some democratic mechanisms, but it does not wish to give up its long tradition of meritocracy. China’s selective importation of Western state parts and their integration with its own tradition have made it stronger than the West.
As a “learning state,” China has actually been quite innovative in reforming its political institutions. Drastic social and economic changes must be accompanied by similar drastic political changes. Marx is still right. And I think we cannot deny that China has a right to explore its own political path. It is good not only for China itself, but also for other countries, particularly the developing world. In an age of democratic crisis in both the developed West and the developing world, China’s institutional experiment is becoming particularly meaningful. Its experiment may shed useful lessons for other countries.
Finally, in my view, there is no need to perceive China’s experiment as an attempt at undermining political systems practiced elsewhere. As mentioned above, China itself has learnt from the best practices as well as lessons of the political systems of the West and combined it with its own traditions. This act of learning and adaptation is primarily driven by the need to devise a political entity that works for China in line with changing conditions. That is the ultimate goal of China’s political innovations. China is not out to change the world.
And it is in the interest of the world to have a China that succeeds in this experiment. A China that fails in this experiment is likely to unleash strong negative repercussions on the rest of the world. On the other hand, a China that evolves its own path forward is likely to produce a stable, prosperous and peaceful China. This will in turn provide many opportunities for other countries to grow and benefit alongside China.
Chapter
2
A Turning Point (Maybe) in Reform and Opening Up
Joseph FEWSMITH
Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
1.Introduction
In
