Democracy
In China: Fact Or Fiction
By Thomas Riggins
28 April, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Friday’s
New York Times (4-20-07) had a front page story by Joseph Kahn with
the headline “In China, Talk Of Democracy Is Simply That.”
The following is an analysis of Kahn’s article.
Kahn begins by telling us
that Chinese leaders are saying they want their country to become “more
democratic.” Scholars and retired officials are writing articles
advocating "political system reform" and more "socialist
democracy." Some are even saying China should model itself on Switzerland
and its "worker-friendly democratic governing style." I will
get back to this as
"socialist democracy" and the Swiss system are antithetical
since Switzerland is an advanced monopoly capitalist country.
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao
has publicly praised democracy and said he wants a more open society.
The political testament of Long March veteran Lu Dingyi (who died in
the 1990s) which calls for change in the system has also recently been
published.
None of this means that the
government is interested in "Western style democracy." Kahn
doesn't tell us why that is so, so I will. Western style democracy,
or bourgeois democracy, has its roots in the the English revolution
of the 17th century and the Great French Revolution of the 18th. It
is a system designed to maintain the capitalist class's political domination
and economic control and to ensure that state power does not fall into
the hands of the working class.
Thus Western style democracy
(including Swiss democracy) would be an inappropriate model for a communist
government which represents the interests of classes antagonistic to
the bourgeoisie (workers and peasants.) This does not mean that the
bourgeoisie cannot be used to advance the economic development of the
state and civil society, just as long as it does not gain control of
the state apparatus as has happened in the former Soviet Union and other
areas that were formerly socialist. A better
model would be that of Cuba.
Kahn suggests that the Chinese
leaders (Wen along with President Hu Jintao) may just be posing as "progressives"
and trying to court younger party members and the intelligentsia in
order to curry favor at this year's upcoming party congress. The leadership
is up for reelection at this congress (they have five year terms). The
democracy advocates want more officials elected rather than appointed.
If this will happen or not
is problematic. Officially the government says that China is already
"democratic" because the party rules in the interest of the
"demos"-- i.e., "the people." The question is, do
the Chinese masses think this is the case or not.
Kahn next makes what I think
is a false contrast. He says some democracy advocates are calling for
the use of elections "as a force that can help party leaders stay
in touch with the people and provide a popular check on corruption."
This is contrasted with what Kahn says would be "a new political
system in which people choose their leaders in free elections."
This seems to imply that nothing the party does short of giving up power
("a new political system") would count as being "democratic"
in the true (i.e., the bourgeois) sense. But capitalist "democracy"
is not the only form of democracy possible.
Kahn says that President
Hu, in an internal party document, said that "tight discipline"
was needed "to prevent the promotion of a figure like the former
Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev." Gorbachev is considered as
"a traitor to socialism."
I think Hu is on solid ground
here. China right now is in the midst of an economic revolution consisting
in the transition from a backward underdeveloped country with feudal
remnants into an advanced industrial state. In the process many capitalist
methods are being employed (and as a consequence a capitalist class
is coming into existence and growing more powerful as time goes by).
In a transitional period
such as this the Party must be firmly in control of both the political
and economic levers of power. It would be naive not to believe that
potential Chinese Gorbachev's abound in and out of the party. No one
who has seen what has happened to the Soviet people's material interests,
health, and well being as a consequence of Gorbachev's counterrevolution
would wish this on the Chinese people (except representatives of the
capitalist powers.)
The fact that "freedom"
and "democracy" are being widely discussed is, however, a
progressive development. That they have "Chinese characteristics"
rather than "Western" is only natural. Kahn quotes the economist
Lu De who says, "What we are seeing is a repudiation of Deng Xiaoping's
edict that the party should focus exclusively on economic development."
I think this is an advance. However necessary Deng's edict may have
been at the time, it was one-sided and led to important socialist values
taking a back seat to economic development alone (such as the abandonment
of socialized medicine and the rise of corruption.)
Mr. Lu, who advises the State
Council (cabinet), also said, "I think Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao
have caught up with the thinking of party leaders from an earlier era,
who understood that political change and economic change had to proceed
hand in hand. Of course, they must move step by step. It will not be
one big leap and we're there."
But are the leaders sincere?
Kahn suggests that they are not (just look at his headline). One retired
official told him, he says, that, "They want democracy to belong
to the party, not to people who oppose the party. If the party can define
what democracy is, then it will not be as dangerous."
Let us not treat this quote
abstractly. Classes want to keep power. This quote applies to capitalist
parties as well as socialist parties. The Republican Party in the US,
for example, routinely attempts to interfere with and deny voting rights
to people "who oppose the party."
They challenge and intimidate
minority voters at the polls, and try and disenfranchise whole segments
of the population in some states only days before an election, and they
enact laws regarding voter identification cards which discriminate against
poor people, the elderly and non-English speaking citizens. I read about
all this frequently in the Times.
The Republicans do this to
keep power in the hands of the most reactionary sections of the capitalist
ruling class in the US which their party represents. They want democracy
to belong to their party and they define what it is-- its being in favor
of "free trade." Don't think the Communist Party of China,
which represents the workers and peasants of China, is any less active
in defending the interests of the classes it represents. Republicans
are not bothered by what their party does and Chinese Communists should
be not be bothered by what their party does. There is still class struggle
going on in this world after all.
Earlier I said that socialist
and bourgeois democracy were antithetical But Marxist dialectics allows
for historical antitheses to be synthesized and the result to be a higher
developmental phase which retains what was most positive in each of
the antitheses. Thus, when Prime Minister Wen says, "Democracy,
rule of law, equality and fraternity do not belong solely to capitalism,"
we have no reason to doubt his sincerity.
Kahn reports that President
Hu has said the party should be more responsive to the masses, and has
coined the term "harmonious society." This slogan, he writes,
"has become the ideological umbrella under which China has taken
the first steps toward developing a redistributive welfare program."
I think it is a positive socialist value to redistribute wealth to the
people, but I have reservations about the slogan. It smacks of "a
state of the whole people" and seems to deny the existence of class
struggle in China. Class struggle will be with us until we reach the
stage of advanced communism and a classless society (if ever.)
So, is democracy fact or
fiction in China? Once you realize that a concept such as "democracy"
is not a "one size fits all" sort of concept, you rephrase
the question to "what kind of democracy or what level of democracy
exists in China?" The answer to this question will vary with each
observer depending on his or her class outlook, political philosophy,
and ideas about communism.
My own view is that the party
is still committed to the socialist project (or why fear a Gorbachev),
which is inherently democratic, and that the level of democratic rights
is steadily increasing for the people of China: the increase being directly
proportional to the material well being of the population and the ability
of the CPC and its leadership to build a society
committed to socialist construction.
Thomas Riggins
is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at
[email protected].,
or at paeditorsblog.
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Click
here to comment
on this article