The Battle for Democracy. 2

Is the PRC a democracy? Is the USA?

Part One of this trilogy here, Part Three here. In this second part, China continues its challenge for the World Democracy Crown by challenging America’s lack of democratic participation.

So it is that whenever Heaven invests a person with great responsibilities, it first tries his resolve, exhausts his muscles and bones, starves his body, leaves him destitute, and confound his every endeavor. In this way his patience and endurance are developed, and his weaknesses are overcome. We change and grow only when we make mistakes. We realize what to do only when we work through worry and confusion. And we gain people’s trust and understanding only when our inner thoughts are revealed clearly in our faces and words. Integrity, wisdom, skill, intelligence – such things are forged in adversity. Mencius.

2.2. Whether the People as a Whole Can Manage State and Social Affairs as well as Economic and Cultural Undertakings in Accordance with the Law

The people are the masters of the country and society, and have the democratic right to manage state and social affairs as well as economic and cultural undertakings. Effectively protecting this right of the people is essential for expanding democracy in the country and society, for improving the legal system, and for constructing and consolidating pol- itical civilization.

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China provides that “the people manage state affairs, economic and cultural undertakings and social affairs through various means and forms in accordance with the provisions of the law” (People’s Publishing House 2018, 8). This sets out the fundamental legal basis on which the whole Chinese people manage state and social affairs as well as economic and cultural matters. The People’s Congress is formed by democratic election. To make up the People’s Congress, its representatives come through democratic elections from all ethnic groups, industries, social strata and parties, with broad representation.1 In practice, the Chinese people are indeed able to manage state and social affairs as well as economic and cultural matters through a wide range of means and forms. For instance, the Chinese people take part in the management of state affairs through numerous mass organizations and other organizational forms. They participate in management of enterprises and institutions through workers’ congresses, and of economic and cultural undertakings through cul- tural, educational, health and scientific research organizations. They also manage social affairs at the grassroots level in urban and rural communities through organizations such as urban residents’ committees and rural villagers’ committees. They manage a variety of social and state affairs and undertakings, in diverse fields and at all levels, through people’s congresses formed by elected representatives. It is obvious that China can carry forward the master spirit of people through democratic management, and the people can actively and effectively play the principal role.

By contrast, the United States is a country based on “elite democracy,” its democracy often subject to alliances or competition among parties and capitalist interests, or else becomes a game where politicians and capitalist oligarchs manipulate public opinion for their special purposes. As a result, the interests and wishes of the American people are thwarted, because the people are not truly able to manage either state and social affairs or economic and cultural undertakings. In the United States, the reality that lies behind the democratic slogan “sovereignty belongs to the people” is that sovereignty belongs to monopoly oligarchs, while “mass democracy” is alienated from the people, becoming “democracy of the minority.” As the French political scientist Pierre Rosanvallon has commented, the American people basically no longer believe that their government serves the public interest. Most of them hold that the American political system is dominated by a small number of large interest groups that often ignore the masses and seek their own benefit (Dye, Ziegler, and Schubert 2016, 3).

2.3. Whether the People Can Freely Express Their Interests

The interests of the people not only provide the motivation for all of their social activities, but also make up the intrinsic force driving social development. For this reason, demo- cratic politics should also take these interests as its “adhesive,” and should seek the great- est common divisor of the people’s interests, on the premise and basis that the people should be able to express their interests freely.

The Communist Party of China has always attached great significance to the people’s demand to express their interests. In line with serving and loving the people, the party has continuously expanded and opened up channels for the people to express their interests, making every effort to respect, reflect and safeguard public opinion. Every year, for instance, many suggestions, motions and proposals are put forward by representatives of people’s congresses and by members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) at all levels to reflect the desire of the broad masses of the people on how to govern the country. Through “open-door legislation,” the opinions of citizens all over the country are extensively solicited from the initial stage of the legislative pro- cess. The people can report their problems and requirements to relevant authorities through the petition system; to monitor and collate their interests through emerging media network; and to make use of various internal references of party and government departments, democratic parties, instruction and research units and news media at all levels to reflect their wishes. Through these measures, China has established a demand-response mode of democratic operation that truly reflects the people’s thoughts and responds to their needs.

The United States, on the other hand, narrows the free expression of people’s interests to periodic elections on the basis of “one person, one vote,” and prides itself on employ- ing a democratic criterion. It is undeniable that this “voting system” is an expression of certain interests, but it is essentially the institutional embodiment of the “elitist demo- cratic concept” in the United States. The interests represented are those of a very small group of elites that employ narrow institutions for their own special purposes, which are depicted as the general interests of the great majority of the people. Under this “voting system,” the people of the United States can only express their interests once and for the short period of time when they have the chance to vote. There is thus no comprehensive, regular or daily channel for expressing interests, which means that this system cannot meet people’s objective need to express their interests freely. What is more, the expression of interests through such a “voting system,” even if effective at the time of voting, is often ineffective at the time of implementation, which means that the system lacks the political effectiveness of a sustained response. As a consequence, the proportion of the American people who vote in elections is low. Many Americans show a disdainful and politically negative attitude to elections, maintaining that “it makes no difference whether I express my views or not.” The result is that the interests and wishes of the masses lack genuine expression.

2.4. Whether All Sectors of Society Can Participate Effectively in the Country’s Political Life

It is only when all major and minor matters in a country’s political life can be decided through joint consultation with all sectors of society can the country’s decision-making be scientific, the desires and interests of the great majority of the people be accurately reflected, and the vitality of democracy be properly demonstrated.

People as masters of the country figures prominently in the participation by all aspects of Chinese society in the life of the country, realizing Chinese-style participatory democ- racy. Before implementing a resolution, the state should extensively solicit the opinions and suggestions of the people from all sides, respecting their rights to know, to partici- pate, to express their views and to supervise the process. The state should stimulate the people’s enthusiasm for participation, and enlighten their thinking so as to give full play to their leading role in formulating resolutions and in maintaining and increasing the vitality of democracy. In this way the phenomena of “paternalism” and “dictatorial rule” can be prevented, and democracy and effectiveness can be achieved.

The United States, in contrast, can only realize the active participation of a part of the people—mainly, the wealthy class—in the country’s political life. The majority of the American people are essentially excluded from participating in the various fields of the decision-making process, making them spectators of political life (Pateman 2006, 28). In addition, the focus of American politics is on elections and partisanship. Even see- mingly popular issues such as those of identity politics 2 are ultimately just a means through which the country’s rulers dilute the class consciousness of the population, bringing about a fragmentation of people’s interests and creating social divisions. In addition, issues in the fields of the economy, culture, society and ecology have always been neglected in the United States, making it difficult for the American people to reflect on their rights and demands in these fields, and to realize their demands through participation in political life.

2.5. Whether National Decision-Making Can Be Scientific and Democratic

As far as national development is concerned, the road to the best outcomes is for the state to succeed in decision-making, while a failure of decision-making can lead to collapse. The quality of decision-making is improved, and the risk of failure reduced, if decision-making is scientific and democratic.

After a long period of practical exploration, of accumulating experience and of sum- marizing its lessons, China has gradually formed a more mature collective decision-mak- ing mechanism, achieving a balanced power structure within its leading collectives, and has laid a solid foundation for scientific and democratic national decision-making. The collective decision-making mechanism, against individual decision-making is based on the principle of democratic centralism. Involving “collective leadership, democratic cen- tralization, individual deliberation and the making of decisions by meetings,” it gives full play to the wisdom and strength of the decision-making collective and of the broad masses of the people. Through repeated processes of “democracy, centralization, re- democracy and re-centralization,” the quality of decision-making is optimized, and the decision-making mechanism makes its final choices.

Democratic centralism is a system that integrates centralism on the basis of democracy with democracy under centralized guidance. It is not only the fundamental organizational prin- ciple of the CPC, but also the application of the mass line in the party’s life. (People’s Pub- lishing House 2022, 83)

In a country like China, marked by obvious regional differences and diverse social inter- ests, it is only through establishing and improving this “brainstorming” collective decision-making mechanism that various social forces can be united and can impel China constantly forward toward the great goal of national rejuvenation.

Although the United States also emphasizes democracy and brainstorming in its decision-making, the result is quite different from that of China. This is mainly because decision-making in the United States is controlled by the narrow interests of many “lob- bying firms,” of Wall Street financial oligarchs, of the military-industrial complex and of political donors. This is also the reason why the State of the Union address often falls into the strange circle of “President proposals, Congress vetoes; Republican proposals, Demo- crat vetoes; Democrat proposals, Republican vetoes,” despite having been drafted and repeatedly revised by presidential advisors and manuscript “scholars” (Hu 2013). It is obvious that real science and democracy are not present in the decision-making of the

United States. This is shown by the fact that the socialist system represented by China and the capitalist system represented by the United States behaved in diametrically oppo- site ways during the fight against the COVID-19 epidemic (Liu and Xie 2022, 102).

2.6. Whether Talents from All Walks of Life Can Enter the National Leadership and Management System through Fair Competition

The most basic and critical element in the national political system consists of the talents of the people who make the system up. Talented people enter the national leadership and management system through fair competition, which serves to inject a strong intellectual momentum and innovative vitality into the democracy and effectiveness of the national political system.

The Chinese government is constantly reforming the personnel system and the culti- vation system for talents, actively establishing and developing a sound selection and appointment mechanism that recruits talented people from all walks of life, putting the right persons to right places, enabling persons to get promoted or demoted according to their capabilities and performances, and encouraging their vitality. The government upholds the principle of selecting and employing people with integrity and ability, those who are recognized by their organizations and the public. By “implementing the workforce development strategy, respecting labor, knowledge, talent, and creativity” (People’s Daily 2021, 1), China gathers together the best minds from all areas of society for the endeavors of the party and the country, which also provides broad space and var- ious channels for the development of people in all fields.

In the United States, by contrast, it is not easy even for outstandingly gifted people to enter the national leadership and management system through fair competition. With deep traditions of “promotion by descent,” it is not uncommon for particular families to figure in political life for multiple generations, and members of prominent families often become leading officials and businessmen. Regardless of whether these people pos- sess inherited family talents or whether their main advantages are political and business connections, their lives have been shaped in abnormal ways by the environment of money politics, oligarchic politics and family politics in the United States. As a result, social mobility even for talented people has been relatively rigid for many years. This makes it difficult for progressive-minded people with integrity and talent, and from diverse backgrounds, to enter the national leadership and management system through fair competition.

Part One of this trilogy is here.