"Democracy" in China, Part III

Few people outside of China have ever read the words of Mao Zedong. From my perspective this only contributes to the ignorance surrounding the CCP's position on Western democracy and continued tensions between the West and the PRC.

As such it is only appropriate to briefly discuss Mao's position on democracy, as his thought still guides the CCP. In his speech on democracy, Mao clearly outlines why the Chinese people could not accept Western democracy. In the fourth and fifth paragraphs, he describes the Chinese people's experience with Western democracy and its ultimate failure because it excluded so many of the Chinese people. Moreover, despite such strong yearning to become modern through Western ideals, the Western powers (Europe, the U.S., Japan, and Russia), were still treating China as a backward state, demanding commercial contracts for railroads and banking. They also still clung to their spheres of influence where Chinese law had no power.

In the fifth paragraph, Mao describes that socialism will abolish classes in society, reflecting the growing disparity between the rich and poor. Now one could argue that such a disparity always existed in China, however socialist philosophy had never entered the Chinese psyche before.

In the paragraph concerning abolishing state power (towards the end), Mao is quite honest stating that anyone who opposes the socialist revolution in China will not be treated kindly. Only those considered "the people" will be treated with benevolence. Recognizing that purging political threats has been a mainstay throughout the Republic of China under Yuan Shikai and Chiang Kai-shek (who hunted the CCP), this position cannot come as a surprise.

To sum up, Mao and the modern day CCP leadership have no taste for Western democracy. Not only is it viewed as corrupt (ironic considering that no government is free of corruption), but also because "democracy" in China is associated with chaos, civil strife, and weakness. The Republic of China was never able to stand on its own two feet and govern the entire territory of China (which in and of itself is a subject of debate). As such Western calls for liberalization in Chinese politics will fall of deaf ears in Beijing for the time being.

"Democracy" in China, Part II

Today I'll be talking about Chiang Kai-shek (referred to as Jiang Jieshi from time to time by Beijing). While several American administrations and elements of the American public portrayed him as a Chinese George Washington, he was more like Benito Mussolini.

Chiang Kai-shek was born to a merchant family but like most people from his class studied in Japan, in his case at a military academy for two years. Upon his return to China (which was under the administration of Yuan Shikai), Chiang became involved with various crime organizations and eventually the Nationalist Party (led by Sun Yatsen).

Eventually Chiang would assume leadership of the Republic of China after the government moved to the south. His style of government really can be compared to fascism, as he utilized secret police and believed that the people and state should be of one mission. Far from promoting democracy, he hunted down political opponents (even the Chinese Communist Party prior to the Nationalist "defeat"in 1949).

Once in Taiwan, Chiang never released his grip. He imposed martial law on the island, which remained in place until the late 1980s when his son would lift it. One of my teachers remembers studying in Taiwan during the 1970s and clearly recalls the "political commissar" stationed in the dorm.

Tune in over the weekend for Mao's thoughts on democracy.

"Democracy" in China, Part I

Sorry about the downtime. A little after I posted last Tuesday, I spilled soda on my laptop and promptly ruined it. Fortunately I back everything up and am now up and running again.

So what do I mean by "democracy"? More or less the form of government in the United States, otherwise known as a constitutional republic. So let's be clear that when politicians and citizens call for "democracy" in the PRC, they are really talking about instituting a republican form of government.

The first modern appearance of republican government in China was the establishment of the Republic of China. It was established in Beijing on January 1, 1912 after the last emperor of China was forced out. The Republic of China still exists, although on the island of Taiwan since 1949. Unfortunately it got off to a bad start from which it never recovered, as a general named Yuan Shikai was its first president.

Yuan began his career by serving in the Qing imperial army and rose through the ranks. He was part of the clique that brought an end to period known as the 100 days of reform, during which Emperor Guangxu tried to usher in reforms to transform the Chinese empire into a constitutional monarchy (think Great Britain). Positive sign, right?

The Chinese can't be blamed. In fact, Yuan was THE muscle in China. He had the largest and most modern army in China at the time. So despite the fact that Sun Yatsen should have been president by all accounts, the person with the largest amount of force assumed the position.

My next post will discuss Chiang Kai-shek (or Jiang Jieshi in pinyin). While I recognize that this is skipping a few years, I'm sticking the milestones in China's experiments with less authoritarian forms of government. After that, I'll delve into what Mao Zedong's thoughts were on democracy. For a good review on this material, John Spence's book "The Search for Modern China" is an excellent resource.

Heads up

Wow, has it really been the 3rd since my last post? Sorry about that. I had the pleasure of hosting my sister last week.

However, I have been thinking about what my posts will be. I am putting together a multi-post series concerning democracy in the PRC. Much has been made about it, and I've referred to it in a couple of previous posts. As such, it only makes sense to spend a little more time discussing Chinese democracy's historical roots and evolution. Expect the first post to be uploaded tomorrow on the 17th.

Socialism and Marxism aren't dead

I had fallen behind my reading of the People's Daily and stumbled across this article the other day. For those of you who can't read Chinese, the headline roughly translates to "The World's Clear Hope: China unable to do what Western democracy does."

This type of article is a poignant reminder that as far the CCP is concerned, socialism is alive and well in China. Moreover, they aren't going to adopt western democracy anytime soon. At the end of the article the last paragraph basically says that democracy isn't suited for China because it is so far removed from traditional Chinese culture and because it can't solve China's problems. My response: Marxism was a western philosophy you (China) were able to take and mold into a suitable form, so you could do that for democracy, if you wanted to. Let's not forget that Mao essentially re-wrote Marxism as a result of his experience during the Long March. And after he remolded Marxism for China's purposes, it, uh, solved your problems (but created others).

The story though has a certain ring of truth to it, which is why I like the article despite its ideological overtures. There are definitely elements in the West who would prefer that China under Marxist/Maoist guidance fall on its face and instead succeed with democracy because it would make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside (yes, including you too Mr. Fukuyama). However, reasonable people would prefer a stable China for several reasons, mainly because we benefit from China's economic reforms. A destabilized China as a result of civil war or disorderly transition of power would drive the markets down a lot, possibly creating another Great Recession or Depression depending on its duration and impact on exports. Either way, it wouldn't be pretty.

My final thought is that a democratic China may not be any better than the China we have now. Any Chinese government would pursue its interests just like any country. The idea that a democratic China would resolve all its problems with the West is ridiculous. The U.S. and E.U. are fighting over bananas in a trade war and can't come to agreement about Iraq and Afghanistan, despite having democratic ideals in common. Would human rights in China be better? Quite possibly, but the West is short on credibility for concern on human rights after failing to address Rwanda in the mid '90s and the current situation Sudan. But please, let's stop wishing that China were democratic and instead focus on resolving the problems and misunderstandings that exist between us. Wishful thinking is pointless.