'Democracy' with one-party characteristics
By Kent Ewing
HONG KONG - In the wake of last month's 17th National Congress of the Chinese
Communist Party, the leadership has stepped up its campaign to convince the
world of the legitimacy of what might be called "democracy with Chinese
characteristics". Using the party's chief mouthpiece, the People's Daily
newspaper, one of the new-generation leaders has made a gallant attempt to
portray China as a nation in which democracy is on the move.
In an article published last week, newly elected Politburo member Li Yuanchao
wrote: "Democracy within the party is the lifeline of
the party." Before his expatiation of more than 7,000 characters is finished,
however, Li becomes hopelessly entangled in a web of his own contradictions. In
the end, he winds up, like so many officials before him, simply justifying
authoritarian one-party rule.
For example, figure out how Li's thoughts come together in this puzzling
declaration of the party's mission: "While expanding democracy within the
party, we must also uphold the unity of the party, and we must conscientiously
abide by the party's political discipline, always be in agreement with the
central committee and resolutely safeguard its authority to ensure that its
resolutions and decisions are carried out effectively."
That sounds more like single-file obedience than democracy - but there is a
method to the leadership's paradoxical madness. The push for so-called
"intra-party democracy", which also featured prominently in President Hu
Jintao's 190-minute address to the congress, has nothing to do with any notion
of democratic government as it is understood or practiced in the rest of the
world.
Indeed, the use of the word "democracy" by Chinese leaders is deliberately
misleading, if not downright dishonest, as they aim to exploit its allure of
individual freedom and choice only to enhance its opposite - the continuation
of totalitarian rule.
As the party's new personnel chief, Li is the latest spokesman in this
rhetorical ruse, but Hu has been playing with the word for years, and even his
predecessor, the often imperious Jiang Zemin, showed a fondness for the curious
phrase "democratic centralism".
Last month's congress served as the perfect symbol for this democracy paradox:
while the Great Hall of the People was abuzz with talk of democratic reform
throughout the week-long affair, which culminated with the presentation of the
country's new leadership team, there was absolutely no evidence of that reform
in any of the conference's Stalinist procedures.
Yes, the 204 members of the Central Committee were "elected", and it is nice to
be informed by the official Xinhua News Agency that 8% of the nominees failed
to win a seat on the committee. But how the election was conducted, how many
votes were received by the different candidates and who did not make the cut -
all that remains a mystery. And, of course, the selection of the 25-member
Politburo and the nine leaders who sit on the all-powerful Politburo Standing
Committee is wrapped in even greater secrecy. To call this process democracy of
any kind is to stand the word on its head.
That said, the party, which now boasts 74 million members, is becoming
increasingly representative of the Chinese society it purports to serve. There
is no longer any Marxist litmus test for acceptance; in fact, the aging
ideologues on the left have been completely marginalized and made hardly a
ripple at the recent congress. Thanks to Jiang's theory of "Three Represents",
which allowed "red capitalists" into the party and was enshrined in the party
constitution at its 16th Congress in 2002, membership is now seen more as a
cachet than an indicator of one's communist credentials. While the common man
still has no voice in China, elites from across the social spectrum are joining
the party and changing its dynamics.
The "democracy" that Chinese leaders seek is really more of a system -
imperfect at best right now - of checks and balances between these elite
interests. As the system continues to develop, they hope it will help to
curtail the rampant corruption that leaves the vast grass-roots population
feeling helpless and exploited and thus threatens social stability.
From the leadership's point of view, extremists on either side of the debate
about the country's future have been sidelined, and it is now time for a
unified approach to tackling the big challenge of sustaining economic growth
while reducing corruption and strengthening social stability. (And, if there is
any time and energy to spare, the rapidly deteriorating environment may also
get some much-needed attention.)
The trick over the five years before the next congress is to reform the party
without loosening its grip on power. To achieve this goal, the party will
embrace a much broader cross-section of Chinese society, but the game will be
an elites-only contest.
While what is happening should not be mistaken for democracy, it does qualify
as reform, and no one knows where such incremental change may lead in the long
run. At present, however, economic prosperity and social stability are the
paramount concerns in China. Given that a majority of the 1.3 billion people in
this newly rich country are still waiting for the fruits of prosperity to fall,
democracy - real democracy, that is - is just another word for chaos in the
unspoken vocabulary of Chinese leaders.
For a true indication of where democratic ideals stand in the leadership's
plan, do not look to the rhetoric that imbued last month's congress. Look
instead to Peking University and to Hong Kong.
The university's famous Democracy Wall was demolished last week prior to an
inspection by the Ministry of Education. While university officials denied any
connection between the demolition and the inspection, the timing was certainly
curious. The "wall" is really just a collection of bulletin boards erected on a
triangular piece of land located at the center of the campus. Also called the
Triangle, it became a gathering place for students during the Cultural
Revolution, but in the 1980s its bulletin boards were plastered with posters
supporting Western-style democracy. It served as a center for student protests
in the lead-up to the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989.
More recently, in 1999, students used the area to express their outrage over
the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. It has long been seen as a
place, however small, where the free exchange of ideas is welcome. Now it is
gone.
At same time, in Hong Kong, the founding chairman of the city's Democratic
Party, Martin Lee, has once again come under fierce attack from pro-Beijing
politicians. This time the assault - running on two weeks now - comes as a
reaction to an article Lee wrote for The Wall Street Journal urging US
President George W Bush to use next summer's Olympic Games, which Beijing is
hosting, to press China to improve its human rights record and to allow greater
press and religious freedom. For his audacity, Lee has been branded a "traitor"
of the Chinese nation.
Kent Ewing is a teacher and writer at Hong Kong International School. He
can be reached at kewing@hkis.edu.hk.
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
