Naming Democracy

    So the Chinese government has issued a "white paper" entitled, "Building Political Democracy in China."  The title might leave the erroneous impression that the Communist Party is serious about democratization.  A quick read, however, shows that this document does precisely the opposite: it clearly reiterates the authoritarian limits to genuine democracy in China.  Take this passage, for example:

 China's democracy is a democracy guaranteed by the people's democratic dictatorship.

    So, a democracy can be a dictatorship?  This is an old Leninist ploy: one-party rule, centered on the "dictatorship of the proletariat," is more democratic than "bourgeois" electoral democracy, because the authoritarian party can act on the behalf of "the people" without being subject to elections, which are simply dominated by rich capitalists.  Now, there are flaws in electoral democracy - if not carefully managed, elections can be dominated by the rich and powerful - but that does not mean that authoritarianism is more democratic than democracy.  A cursory familiarity with the sad political history of the PRC (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, 1989 Beijing Massacre) will put the lie to this sorry rationalization for political repression.

     The Party is simply playing with names.  They are trying to call authoritarianism "democracy."  Many Americans would immediately see this as an "Orwellian" manipulation of language.  I see it as a violation of Confucius's demand that things be named properly.  Here's an excerpt from the Analects:

When names are not used properly, language will not be used effectively; when language is not used effectively, matters will not be taken care of; when matters are not taken care of, the observance of ritual propriety and the playing of music will not flourish; when the observance of ritual propriety and the playing of music do not flourish, the application of laws and punishments will not be on the mark; when the application of laws and punishments are not on the mark, the people will not know what to do with themselves.  Thus, when the exemplary person [a Sage] puts a name to something, it can certainly be spoken, and when spoken it can certainly be acted upon. (13.3)

    Which is all a rather long way of saying if you call authoritarianism "democracy," you really cannot act upon genuine democracy.  The Chinese government is not interested, and does not intend, to act upon genuine democracy.

Comments

[Patrick Zhang]

Well, I guess I am not sure what "genuine democracy" means. People in the west tend to think their mechanism works for every country and are eager to expand their system to the rest of the world. While this passion is admirable, it always reminds me of those "crusade" in the history. The only difference is the so-called genuine democracy,instead of religion, is what they sell now.

I agree China's system is far from perfect. But I think it's now exploring a system that can work for itself. Any drastic move to the so-called "genuine demoncracy" would be a disaster before a strong middle-class is built. Numerous examples can be seen in other countries.

[Sam]

I agree that we need to resist a "crusading" approach to democratization. The US cannot, and should not, tell China how to make its political system more democratic. But the people of Taishi can and should.

[Patrick Zhang]

Well, indeed, the Taishi village incident exactly exemplifies the democratization progress in China. Just a few years ago, it was infeasible to hold a fair election at a village-level. Today, free elections are being held in thousands of villages. No doubt that China needs to democratize itself. But this process should only take place at a pace that is good for Chinese people. They need to cumulate experience, not to eagerly embrace the so-called "genuine demoncracy".

[Patrick Zhang]

Well, indeed, the Taishi village incident exactly exemplifies the democratization progress in China. Just a few years ago, it was infeasible to hold a fair election at a village-level. Today, free elections are being held in thousands of villages. No doubt that China needs to democratize itself. But this process should only take place at a pace that is good for Chinese people. They need to cumulate experience, not to eagerly embrace the so-called "genuine demoncracy".