The Battle for Democracy

Is the PRC democratic? The USA?

The people are to be valued most, the altars of the grain and the land [traditional symbols of the vitality of the state] next, the ruler least. Hence by winning the favor of the common people you become Emperor…. Mencius, 280 BC.

In an earlier essay I compared Chinese democracy to Procter and Gamble’s obsession with polls, trials, surveys and PR – before they roll out a product or policy nationwide. In that light, Enfu Cheng and Shaoyong Sun’s article, Criteria for a Democratic and Effective National Political System: A Comparison of Democratic Political Systems in China and the United States, deserves far more attention in the West than it will get.

It’s important because it’s a warning. By defending Chinese democracy and attacking our version, it signals the beginning of China’s campaign to wrest the flag of Democracy from America’s faltering grip and seize the democratic high ground so long occupied by America.

I have broken their essay into four parts and added only brief commentary and illustrations. The series is free. Here is Part One. 

ABSTRACT

Democracy should not be only a matter of form, but should be genuine and workable. This article makes a comprehensive comparison between the political systems in China and the United States, using President Xi’s eight “whether to do” and four “depending on” criteria to judge whether each country’s political system is both democratic and effective. 

People’s democracy in China has always been based on the principle that the people must be at its center. Bringing to realization the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people is always regarded as the starting point and guarantee of democratic construction, and the people’s democratic right to be masters of the country is ensured through the establishing of a set of institutional systems. 

This approach determines fully that the socialist democratic political system with Chinese characteristics is real, effective and workable. The United States is a country based on “elite democracy” and the nature and mode of democracy there often turns into an alliance of, or competition between, parties and capitalist interests. This is a democracy in which politicians and capitalist oligarchs manipulate public opinion for their special purposes, a situation that amounts in essence to a takeover of sovereignty by oligarchic monopolies.

1. Introduction

The path of development of democratic politics has its inherent laws and objective scientific criteria. Addressing the question of how to evaluate democracy and the effectiveness of the country’s political system, Chinese President Xi Jinping gave a comprehensive and profound answer, setting out eight “whether to do” and four “depending on” criteria. In this way, he expounded China’s mainstream views on democracy. Xi Jinping stated: “The best way to evaluate whether a country’s political system is democratic and efficient is to observe 

1. whether the succession of its leaders is orderly and law-based, 

2. whether all people can manage state and social affairs and economic and cultural undertakings in accordance with the law, 

3. whether the public can express their needs through open channels, 

4. whether all sectors of society can efficiently participate in the country’s political affairs, whether the country’s decision-making can be conducted in a rational and democratic manner, 

5. whether people in all sectors can enter the state leadership and administrative systems by way of fair competition, 

6. whether the governing party can lead state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and 

7. whether the exercise of power is subject to effective checks and oversight. (Xi 2022, 297)

This clearly puts forward the eight general, universal “whether to do” criteria for judging whether a country is democratic, as Xi Jinping further pointed out, “Whether a country is democratic depends on whether its people are truly the masters of the country, and whether the people have the right to vote, and more importantly, the right to participate extensively in governance of the country; it depends on what promises they are given during elections, and more importantly, how many of these promises are delivered after elections; it depends on what kind of political procedures and rules are set through state systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly enforced; it depends on whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and more importantly, whether the exercise of power is genuinely subject to public oversight and checks. (Xi 2022, 297–298).

In this way, the four key “depending on” criteria for judging whether a country is democratic have been put forward in depth.

The above-mentioned eight general and universal “whether to do” criteria and the four key in-depth “depending on” criteria for judging a country’s democracy clarify, in progressive and complementary fashion, the basic criteria determining the democracy and effectiveness of a country’s political system. This new theoretical approach accords with the basic laws of modern political development, involves the institutional arrange- ment of modern democratic politics, covers the main content of a democratic system, and embodies the basic requirements of modern political civilization. Comparing the politics of democracy in China and the United States, it can clearly be seen that the demo- cratic system in China possesses the essential attributes of the whole process of people’s democracy, while the democratic system of the United States displays serious shortcomings.

2. The Eight General and Universal “Whether to Do” Criteria for Judging Whether a Country Is Democratic

President Xi Jinping’s eight “whether to do” criteria reflect the scientific nature and superiority of China’s political system by dialectically unifying the system’s democracy and effectiveness. This is a manifestation, at a profound level, of the law of development of the national political system, and amounts to an important development of the theory of national systems in Marxist politics.

2.1. Whether the Country’s Leadership Can Be Changed in an Orderly Manner in Accordance with the Law

The orderly change of the country’s leadership is embodied and reflected in the orderly change of its central leadership. It is worth mentioning that the change here tends to mean a continuous cycle rather than a one-time turnover. Orderly change of the country’s leadership involves an orderly handover of power at the top leadership level. This is an overall strategic issue for a country, one that is related to its overall situation, future, vitality, and stability. Orderly change of the country’s leadership will create a new political atmosphere, and will make it possible to judge whether the country’s political system is democratic and effective.

After a long period of practical experimentation, China has made progress in the orderly change of its leadership through reforming and improving the leadership system of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese government. For instance, China has abandoned the system of abdication and hereditary succession that exists in Western countries, as well as the system that in practical terms ensures lifelong tenure to leading cadres. China has established a national-level training mechanism for young and middle-aged cadres, thereby changing the one-tier into a two-tier system, converting the individual succession system into a collective one, implementing a system that leading cadres are required to be elected and have service terms, and so on. These measures have ensured a normal and orderly process of change in the leadership and leading organs of the CPC and the Chinese government. Power struggles and political turmoil have been effectively prevented, and the goals of ensuring political stability and strengthening cohesion have been achieved.

By contrast, leadership changes in the United States are a real world version of the teleplay “House of Cards,” determined by the nature of the country’s money politics. The United States is the most developed capitalist country in today’s world, and the naked money relationship between people there is reflected in every aspect of the coun- try’s economy and society as well as in the political field. Elections are profoundly affected by monetary factors, regardless of whether the elections are for the presidency, for membership in the Senate or House of Representatives, or for state governorships. Invariably, there are mutual struggles, conflicts and restraints due to the different sources of financing behind the candidates. In addition, there will be conflicts even after the elections, during the terms in office of successful candidates, because the relationship between political parties in the United States is competitive and veto-based. As a consequence, changes of leadership in the country are anything but orderly. What is more, the ruling party and the party of opposition in the United States often exchange roles, and between political parties, the pendulum effect in which “You just finished and I’m coming onto the scene” has become a normal occurrence. Disharmony has become a norm, feeding social division, and United States politics is often a zero-sum game. This is unlikely to provide a good political environment for orderly changes in national leadership.

To be continued weekly, in Parts 2 and 3.