At the end of February, a few days
before China's annual parliament session, Premier
Wen Jiabao commented on China's political system
and its future by saying, "The country has the
full capacity to establish a nation of democracy
governed by laws within the framework of a
socialist system." He also stated, "China shall
develop democracy in its own way."
At the
opening ceremony for a new semester at the Party
School of Chinese Communist Party Central
Committee, Vice President Zeng Qinghong spoke
about "education on democracy" and "inner
party democracy".
These statements can be interpreted in
various ways. As Wen Jiabao explicitly links
democracy to the socialist model, while adding
that it may take 100 years to reach a mature
socialist system, the omens for political reforms
may be deemed remote.
But the mere fact
that the premier and vice president entered the
stage and commented on democracy might reveal that
the political leaders sense pressure from the
grassroots for a more open political system.
This may not augur well for democracy in
China, but it may be a first step toward a debate
about values and principles associated with
democracy in the Chinese political system. It may
also confirm that China listened carefully when
then-US deputy secretary of state Bob Zoellick
invited it to become one of the stakeholders in
the global political and economic system.
To influence global development, a
stakeholder must be able to project an image of
itself, projecting the values embedded in its
political system.
Geopolitics over the
past couple of years bears witness to that.
Unilateralism has lost its magic. Cooperation and
partnership is back in vogue. Military power does
not deliver what policymakers seek: changes in
political philosophy and political culture.
Ideas and ideals stand out as more
suitable and more effective instruments to
engineer alterations of political and cultural
conditions, not the least in a global setting
increasingly dominated by values and ethics.
Neither of these lines of thought was to
be found in US President George W Bush's policy
statement about the Iraq war or in the State of
the Union speech. Although they are the key to
ending the debacle in Iraq, the chosen instrument
still seems to be found inside conventional wisdom
focusing on military instruments for a
non-military problem.
Only political
endeavors making it worthwhile for the majority of
Iraqis across religion, tribal connections and
ethnicity to join and support a new political
system will turn chaos into an orderly situation.
And that will only last if accompanied by
diplomacy and policies convincing the main powers
in the Middle East that a neutral or even better
supportive role is in their interest.
The Europeans were ridiculed by the US
a few years ago when then-defense
secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke about "Old Europe" and
"New Europe", rubbing in his contempt for the posture
taken by a majority of Europeans, who said that the
US might win the war in Iraq, but not the
peace. There probably were a variety of reasons behind
Old Europe's thinking, and some of the motives may
not be praiseworthy, but at the end of the day Old
Europe has been proved more correct in its
assessment than the US.
Europe itself
tasted the bitterness of self-conceit in 1991 when
some Europeans spoke about the honor of Europe
facing the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. The
Europeans were, simply speaking, not capable of
dealing with the rogues they faced. Only when the
United States decided to join a common US-European
engagement was the stalemate unhinged and a
political settlement negotiated.
The
lesson learned by the Europeans and the Americans
over the past 15 years - with no small cost in
casualties and global prestige - reveals that a
value-based approach is necessary to maintain
balance, equilibrium and the stability that
military power itself cannot bring about.
It is a watershed to come to this
conclusion. Mao Zedong's famous phrase that
political power grows out of the barrel of a gun
has become a questionable guideline. Now power
depends on the ability to reconcile cultural
identities and in making societal models
attractive for the larger majority of people, not
just the part of the population constituting a
majority.
Power is synonymous with the
ability to persuade people to do the right thing
measured against a moral yardstick that comes as
close as possible to the international community's
norm. A superpower necessarily leads the efforts
to draw up this grade book but does not dictate
how it should look.
The first page is to
create common values that unfold their full
potential when turned into universal values.
People around the globe must embrace these values
because they want to do so, because they have come
to the conclusion that such a course offers them a
better life, not because they fear for the
consequences if they choose other values.
The US and Europe have their well-known
societal model and political systems, although
cracks and self-examination cast doubts over how
robust the model is under the pressure of
globalization and multiculturalism. The picture
for Asia is not so clear.
There may be
elements of convergence when looking at the
economic models applied by the Asian countries,
with market economies and to a large degree
export-led growth being in the driver's seat. But
no similar convergence is discernible looking at
political systems and governmental style.
Some observers subscribe to the view that
economic growth will stumble unless political
systems are opened up for a democratic style of
government. It may sound good, but there is no
basis for such a theory. Asia and the Asian
countries may very well continue the run of high
growth without fundamentally changing the present
political systems.
This is not the point.
The point is whether the Asian population in due
course will expect more than just high growth and
an increasing material standard of living.
The young people growing up in the new
economic powerhouses may not wish to copy the
North American or European political model, but
they certainly look for enhanced influence on the
domestic political process and qualify
transparency and accountability as issues to be
taken seriously. They do not associate universal
values with the exact form of government, but the
principles governing the political system
irrespective of its form.
Asia and its
political leaders face the challenge of finding
some kind of Asian political model founded on
ideas and ideals attractive for the people of
Asia. The crucial question is whether they can
invent a model accommodating the wish for
influence and transparency with the high degree of
political stability enjoyed by a number of Asian
countries.
If so, Asia may still be
blessed with stability supported by high economic
growth with potential foreign-policy
confrontations under control. If no, the future
looks a good deal more uncertain and risky.
This is the main reason that statements
and policy declarations coming out from the annual
session of China's parliament, taking place right
now, and the 17th Party Congress scheduled for
second half of 2007 will be scrutinized with a
magnifying glass.
Joergen Oerstroem
Moeller, former Danish ambassador to
Singapore, Brunei, Australia and New Zealand, is a
visiting senior research fellow at the Institute
of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. The views
expressed are his own.
(Copyright 2007
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
