The Battle for Democracy. 3.

Showdown: American vs Chinese democracy

Part One here. Part Two here. In this third and final section of the essay, China challenges for the World Democracy Crown by attacking the lack of democratic participation in America.

According to Confucius, a person is not necessarily good if he is praised by all and not doomed to be bad if he is criticised by all: he is only good when he is welcomed by the good and opposed by the bad. Therefore, the rulers must be cautious to analyse the people's voice when the capable are to be selected. The circumstances should be created that assure the opportunity for those capable and virtuous people who are not necessarily good at gaining popular support, and prevent promoting those incompetent and vicious men who are skilled in forming cliques. The key to social stability and prosperity is to promote the competent and demote the incompetent. Mencius

2.7. Whether the Ruling Party Can Achieve Leadership in State Affairs in Accordance with the Constitution and Laws

If the ruling party wants to govern scientifically and democratically, it must take the Constitution and laws, which are important tools of governance, as its own rules of govern- ance. Only if this is the case can the status of the people as the master of national governance be ensured, and it is only in this way can institutional and legal guarantees be provided for rule by the people.

The Communist Party of China has dialectically united law-based governance with scientific and democratic governance, forming its basic framework for governing the country. Law-based governance is the fundamental strategy underlying the CPC’s rule. A socialist legal system, embodying Chinese characteristics and governed by the Constitution, has been formed and continuously improved. Adhering to the principle of seeking integrated development of the rule of law, the government and society have continuously improved the level of the rule of law throughout the whole country. Decision-making in China is much more scientific because all major legislative decisions are made democratically after thorough deliberation and according to democratic procedures. This means that the Communist Party of China can lead state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and laws, and effectively prevent the phenomenon of “substituting power for law and suppressing law with power.” China adheres to the great practice that integrates the CPC’s leadership, the people’s position as masters of the country, and law-based governance with socialist democratic politics with Chinese characteristics, and in this way, pro- motes democracy, the rule of law, fairness and justice in national governance.

American politics, on the other hand, is featured by party politics. The two main parties respectively represent different interests of social classes and interest groups. In political practice, they often put the agendas of parties and interest groups above public rationality which embodied especially in the Constitution and laws, sacrifice the public interest and the long-term interests of the people to their special and short-term interests. The government, Congress and the court have become their game place. That is why it is hard for the ruling party to manage state affairs in full compliance with the Constitution and laws, no matter which one comes to power. Moreover, the interpretation of the Constitution and laws in the US is quite flexible and elastic, meaning that the ruling party often lacks accurate references for exercising its leadership of state affairs.

2.8. Whether the Use of Power Can Be Effectively Restricted and Supervised

Establishing a comprehensive system for restricting and supervising the exercise of state power is an essential element for ensuring the effective operation of the state system, and an important way in which the functioning of democracy can be guaranteed. Only when power is effectively restricted and supervised can incursions on the ability of the people to be the masters of the country be avoided. Responding to the wishes and needs of the people for this restriction and supervision of the state authority, China has gradually built up a democratic, Chinese-style operation mode of power restriction and supervi- sion, based on self-reflection, comparative reference and cumulative creation. For instance, China has developed a full-coverage, high-efficiency power restriction and supervision system covering the CPC’s leadership at all levels, using institutionalized arrangements including the original inspection system, and has formed a power correc- tion and rectification mechanism that integrates the anti-corruption mechanism, and the corruption prevention mechanism. Through improved education in the area of power restriction and supervision, China has brought about a situation in which advanced ideology, law, morality and serious party discipline are “in the ears, brains, hearts, and actions” of public officials who hold power. China has allowed public officials who hold power to have the courage to criticize others, and also, through the introspective perception of power restriction and supervision, to criticize themselves. The aim is for them to hold discipline in awe and respect, to avoid crossing the line when using power, and to get used to living and working in an environment of restriction and supervision.

Contrasting with this is the framework of democracy in the United States, where the restriction and supervision of the use of power operates mainly through the separation of powers, and where national elections are held every few years as a “weather vane” for restricting and supervising the way in which power is exercised. This mechanism may seem to be rigorous and systematic, but its limitations and inefficiencies have become obvious in the course of its long-term implementation. This is due to the fact that the elites who hold power in the United States have long been funded by monopoly corpor- ations and lobbying exchanges. The construction of a genuinely efficient and scientific institutional mechanism for controlling and supervising power must seriously hamper the ability of these vested interests to acquire wealth and to serve their narrow cause in the future. Even though there are national elections that provide an opportunity for party rotation, these are based on election cycles that can force the people to wait for years before representatives are replaced. Even when national elections are held, this allows only a limited improvement within the scope of local areas and fragmented policies. There is no thorough or effective restriction and supervision of the use of power.

3. Key Criteria: Four Instances of “Depending On”

Xi Jinping further proposed four key “depending on” criteria, based on the eight general “whether to do” criteria concerning democratic politics that are discussed above. Here too, comparative analysis of the characteristics and practical outcomes of the democratic systems in China and the United States leads to some striking conclusions.

3.1. It Depends on Whether the People Have the Right to Vote, and More Importantly, on Whether the People Have the Right to Participate on an Extensive Basis

The right to vote is a basic political right that citizens should enjoy. Having the right to vote, however, is not sufficient in itself, since this is not the whole of democracy; the people must also have the right to participate on a genuine and extensive basis. The right to participate is the core of democratic politics. Democracy will be a mere formality if people only have the right to vote, and not to participate in a broad fashion; it is, after all, possible that people will be awakened politically only when they vote, and that after voting they will sink back into a dormant state. For this reason, and in addition to ensur- ing that the people have an equal right to vote in accordance with the law, great significance should also be attached to allowing the people to participate in the management of state and social life through systems and mechanisms other than elections.

The people’s democracy in China is a socialist democracy as a whole process and in the broadest sense, with its “breadth” reflected mainly in two aspects. The first is the extensive range of its participants. Marx and Engels at one point noted that “all previous his- torical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities” (Marx and Engels 2010, 495). By contrast, the whole process of people’s democracy in China upholds the supremacy of the people, and ensures that in their great majority they are able to participate equally in political and economic life and to share the fruits of development. As far as the right to vote is concerned, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China states:

All citizens of the People’s Republic of China who have reached the age of 18, regardless of ethnicity, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education level, property status, or length of residence, are entitled to have the right to vote and be elected, except for those who are deprived of political rights in accordance with the law. (People’s Publishing House 2018, 21)

That grants the overwhelming majority of the people an equal right to vote. The second aspect is the extensive content of the participation. The whole process of people’s democracy in China not only ensures that democratic elections are carried out in accordance with the law, but also guarantees that the people carry out democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management and democratic supervision in accordance with the law. In this way, a “full chain of democracy” is realized, with appropriate procedures and complete links in its operation. In addition to voting in elections, the Chinese people exercise their right to participate through various channels in accordance with the law. These channels include the management of state affairs, economic and cultural undertakings, and social affairs such as consultations, symposiums, consultation meetings, argumentation meetings, earnest talks, hearings, appraisal meetings, and dis- cussion councils in many fields and at all levels. It is obvious that besides having the right to vote, the Chinese people also have the right to participate extensively, allowing them not only to effectively express their democratic wishes, but to realize democratic participation as well.

The United States, in contrast, focuses its democracy on elections, the core process of which is that citizens select their leaders through competitive voting (Huntington 1998, 4). While attaching importance to liberal electoral democracy, the United States treats governance-style participatory democracy with disdain. The main reason for this is that electoral democracy in the United States has the function of converting the power of capital into political power. The whole process is manipulated by money from major corporations and interest groups essentially in line with the logic of capital, which means that the political trend after the election is dominated by the power of money and by group self-interest. As a consequence, the political system in the United States fails to represent the desires and interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. The country thus has only formal democracy, with the right to vote but with no substantive democracy based on a broad right to participate. This exposes the fact that the democracy of the United States, with its roots in “electoral fetishism,” is incomplete.

3.2. It Depends on What Verbal Promises Are Made in Elections, and More Importantly, on How Well These Promises Are Realized after the Elections

It is obvious that verbal promises should be made in elections. This is not simply a matter of customary practice, but reflects the fact that promises are normally premised on a con- cern for and understanding of people’s desires and demands, while setting out goals and directions for future endeavors. Verbal promises during the election process, however, are not the whole sum of democracy. The goal of democracy is to turn verbal promises into concrete actions. A democracy in which the people are awakened when it is time to vote but then after voting go into hibernation, in which they hear the hype during elec- tions but afterwards are denied the right to speak, and in which they are favored during the elections but are then ignored, is not real democracy.

China’s ruling party and government pay close attention to the people, and respond to their interests and demands. This is because in China, all power belongs to the people. The whole process of people’s democracy in China adheres to the principle of people’s sovereignty, with popular power as its core content and as the value it pur- sues. On the one hand, the Chinese Constitution stipulates that the National People’s Congress and local people’s congresses at all levels are organs through which the Chi- nese people can wield state power. People’s congresses are democratically elected at all levels, are accountable to the people and are subject to popular supervision. All administrative, judicial and procuratorial organs of the state are created by the National People’s Congress, are responsible to it and are supervised by it. This ensures that the people’s congresses and the organs of state power at all levels represent the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people, effectively reflect their desires, safeguard their rights and interests, and improve their well-being in the daily work. Meanwhile, the process of people’s democracy in China covers the five major links of democratic elections, democratic consultation, democratic decision- making, democratic management, and democratic supervision, forming a system of “full-chain democracy” that can effectively avoid the undesirable and embarrassing phenomenon of “democracy during elections but no democracy after the elections.”This system guarantees that whatever verbal promises the Chinese people receive during the election process, they can be certain that these promises will be fulfilled after the election.

Under the “party-struggle democracy” (Yang 2021, 11) system, by contrast, the “electoral parties” (Almond et al. 2010, 858–859) in the United States tend to be “ver- bal giants and action dwarfs” as far as the implementation of electoral promises is concerned. This is due to the fact that candidates in the United States do not really care about the appeals by ordinary voters, but instead set out to win votes through news-making, through attention-getting performances, and through lavishly presented“shows.” The real concern of these candidates is to meet the demands of the “money patrons” and interest groups that support them (unlike feudal autocratic society with its “imperial power politics,” capitalist autocratic society is all about “money power politics” and “capital power politics”). The promises that are showered on the Amer- ican people during elections are either “empty promises” that are ignored once the polls close, or pledges that are honored only in a limited and intermittent way. Unlike the case with the “life-first” and “health-first” promises that the Chinese leadership made and fulfilled as it set out to overcome COVID-19, neither of the two major pol- itical parties in the United States, as they took their turns in power, fulfilled their con- tradictory promises or enact measures able to deal with the pandemic. This real experience highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the different political, econ- omic and cultural systems between China and the United States, and reveals the different governance capabilities of the two countries.3

3.3. It Depends on What Kind of Political Procedures and Political Rules Are Stipulated by Institutions and Laws, and More Importantly, Whether These Institutions and Laws Are Actually Implemented

The vitality of laws and institutions depends not only on the development and improve- ment of basic political procedures and rules, but also on whether the laws are successfully implemented and the institutions prove effective. In this case, the “seeds” need first to be planted before they can germinate, bloom and bear fruit. Meanwhile, the results will be nil if the institutions are merely decorative, and if the laws cannot be effectively implemented and enforced.

The political procedures and rules that surround Chinese institutions and laws are very strict. For instance, the whole-process election procedures of the national people’s representatives and the National People’s Congress require the fulfillment of various procedures including initial inspection and the solicitation of opinions, preliminary elections, secret ballot elections, and competitive elections. Nominations are organized from top to bottom, and there are also bottom-up free elections. This is genuine procedural democracy. In addition, China’s institutions and laws have the advantage of “nationwide” implementation under the principle of “democratic centralism.” As Deng Xiaoping explained, “The great advantage of a socialist country is that if a decision is taken to do something, and if a resolution is adopted, the measure will be implemented immediately” (Literature Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China 2004, 1195). China’s institutions and laws thus pos- sess a genuine unity of the opinions expressed by the public and the satisfaction felt by the people when their wishes are put into practice. In this way, a democracy with strong implementation and high overall performance is achieved. In China, an important pillar supporting the implementation of laws and the functioning of institutions is the People’s Congress system. This system coordinates democratic elections, democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management and democratic supervision. It effectively ensures that the Chinese people wield state power through people’s congresses at all levels where they manage state affairs as well as econ- omic, cultural and social affairs in accordance with the law, which provides important support for the implementation of all laws and for the work of all institutions. As Xi Jinping clearly stated,

It is necessary to carry forward the spirit of the socialist rule of law through the system of people’s congresses, to implement and promote all national undertakings in accordance with the laws and regulations formulated by the people’s congresses and their standing com- mittees, and to ensure the people’s equal participation and rights in order to develop and safeguard social justice, to respect and protect human rights, and to carry out law-based national work. (Xi 2014)

While the institutions and laws of the United States also stipulate political pro- cedures and rules, these are much weaker than those of China. The reason is that in capitalist countries various interest groups and major political parties will inten- tionally or unintentionally weaken political procedures and rules through gaming or collusion, on the economic basis of private ownership of the means of production. In addition, whether laws will be implemented or institutions will operate cannot be guaranteed. It is very common for proposals advanced by the presidential administration to be rejected by congress, for proposals made by senators to be rejected by the House of Representatives, and for proposals put forward by the Republican Party to be rejected by the Democratic Party. As a result, reasonable and legitimate measures are delayed or even appear to be “discussed but not decided, decided but not implemented,” as exemplified by the shutdown of the US government due to the fiscal crisis.

3.4. It Depends on Whether the Rules and Procedures for the Functioning of Power Are Democratic, and More Importantly, Whether Power Is Really Supervised and Restricted by the People

Democracy is not an ornament, but a solution to people’s problems. The people are the legitimate source of all state power. Power can only be used to serve the people, benefit the people and be responsible to the people, since power comes from the people and is endowed by the people. Meanwhile, the people should also be responsible for the supervision and restriction of power. As Mao Zedong admonished, “Only when the people are allowed to supervise the government will the government not dare to slacken. Only when everyone takes responsibility will all the political measures that a man in power introduces be preserved after he dies” (Literature Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China 2013, 611). Numerous historical experiences have shown that the less is the degree of effective supervision and restriction of power, the greater the possibility of its abuse and corruption. Only when power is exercised under democratic supervision and restriction can it truly be used by the people.

After a long period of practice and improvement, China has institutionalized, proceduralized and standardized the rules and procedures for the operation of power, further enhancing the vitality of power and of anti-corruption provisions while at the same time ensuring that power is neither unrestrained nor subject to the dictates of capital. For instance, China has formulated and implemented a system in which those who are in power dare not be corrupt, in which those who are nevertheless corrupt face severe punishment, and in which those who give and take bribes are cracked down upon from all sides. The system of transparency in the affairs of the party, the government, the justice system, and all other fields has been improved, and the provisions related to questioning, accountability, economic responsibility audits, resignations and dismissals have also been tightened. Systematic supervision and discipline at the national level has carried forward the fine traditional style of the ruling party, the National People’s Congress and the people’s government, as well as of their close connection with the masses, self-criticism and self-correction.

By contrast, the exercise of power in the United States, despite having its own rules and procedures, is enmeshed with the class, party and personal interests of the mind of people who wield authority. It is difficult for power in the United States to be widely supervised and effectively restricted by the population. Subject to a political system marked by lobbying companies and capped or uncapped campaign donations, most people in the United States are effectively puppets manipulated by elites from all walks of life through the use of prearranged “democratic” plots and schemes. Playing along with the ruses and ploys of their democracy, most Americans do not seek to expose and rectify the sham that passes for democratic rule in their country.4  It is well known that money politics runs through all aspects of elections, legislation and governance in the United States. The democratic rights of the people to participate in and discuss state affairs have been limited, resulting in the transformation of unequal economic status into unequal democratic rights. Democracy in the United States is like a movie production, deliberately staged by Hollywood, in which elaborately crafted characters proclaim the supremacy of the people in front of the cameras while making deals behind the scenes. Money politics, identity politics and veto politics make the American people highly resentful and negative towards American democracy.

Notes

1. The composition of the representatives of the 13th National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China may be taken as an example: as of the end of January 2018, a total of 2,980 representatives of the 13th National People’s Congress had been elected nationwide. Among the elected representatives, there are 438 representatives of ethnic min- orities, accounting for 14.70% of the total number of representatives, and 55 ethnic minorities across the country have their own representatives. There are 39 representatives of returned overseas Chinese. There are 769 re-elected representatives, accounting for 25.81% of the total number, and 742 women representatives, accounting for 24.90% of the total. There are 468 representatives of front-line workers and farmers (including 45 representatives of migrant workers), accounting for 15.70% of the total number of representatives. There are 613 representatives of professional and technical personnel, accounting for 20.57% of the total number of representatives. There are 1011 representatives of leading political cadres, accounting for 33.93% of the total number of representatives. Quoted from Report of the Gen- eral Office of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the Election of repre- sentatives to the 13th National People’s Congress, February 24, 2018. (see http://www.npc.gov. cn/npc/c30834/201802/e99f27464e86456b91829d162187bce6.shtml).

2. The study of identity politics is a hotspot in Western Politics, Economics, Sociology and Psy- chology. However, just as the celebrated English Marxist scholar Eric Hobsbawm has pointed out,The political project of the Left is universalist: it is for all human beings. . . . identity poli- tics is essentially not for everybody but for the members of a specific group only. . . .That is why the Left cannot base itself on identity politics. It has a wider agenda. (Hobsbawm 2017)It is clear that the identity politics promoted by the rule class of the United States could only lead to fragmentation of the mass and their basic interests, not to real extensive participation in a “should-be” democracy.

3. The serious shortcomings of the US political system and governance capabilities have led to weak government leadership. According to a poll conducted by Gallup on January 2–22, 2023, 21% of Americans rank “the government/poor leadership” as the top problem facing the country, more than twice the number of Americans that say the same for “the economy in general” (10%), despite inflation has emptied the pockets of the American people (see “Amer- icans Think Country’s Biggest Problem Is the Government Itself, Poll Finds,” https:// newleftreview.org/issues/i217/articles/eric-hobsbawm-identity-politics-and-the-left).

4. According to Edelman Trust Barometer 2022, in a poll of 36,000 respondents from 28 major countries, including China, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia,

Thailand, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Nigeria, the trust rating for China was 83%, ranking first in the world. The United States, on the other hand, was trusted by only 43% of the public, ranking it alongside the United Kingdom, Spain, Japan and Germany as countries the people do not trust. The trust of Chinese people in their govern- ment was the highest in the world at 91%, while Americans’ trust in their own government was only 39% (see https://www.agilex.ca/documents/voccc/1617.pdf).

Acknowledgements

This article was translated by Associate Professor Yexia Sun at the School of Marxism, Northeast Normal University, China.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Notes on Contributors

Enfu Cheng is Chief Expert at the Center for Innovative Marxist Studies, Northwestern Polytech- nical University, and Chief Professor of the School of Marxism, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Shaoyong Sun is Director of the Center for Innovative Marxist Studies, and Professor of the School of Marxism, Northwestern Polytechnical University.

References

Almond, G. A., G. B. Powell Jr., R. J. Dalton, and K, Strom. 2010. Comparative Politics Today: A World View. [In Chinese.] Translated by H. Yang et al. Shanghai: People’s Publishing House.

Dye, T., H. Ziegler, and L. Schubert. 2016. The Irony of Democracy. [In Chinese.] Translated by Z. Lin. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House.

Hobsbawm, E. 2017. “Identity Politics and the Left.” New Left Review I/217 (May/June). https:// newleftreview.org/issues/i217/articles/eric-hobsbawm-identity-politics-and-the-left.

Hu, A. 2013. “Decision-Making Democracy with Special Characteristics Leads the Way for China.” [In Chinese.] People’s Daily, March 18. http://theory.people.com.cn/n/2013/0318/c40531- 20820468.html.

Huntington, S. P. 1998. The Third Wave: The Wave of Democratization in the Late 20th Century. [In Chinese.] Translated by J. Liu. Shanghai: SDX Joint Publishing Company.

Liu, R. and H. Xie, 2022. “The ‘End of History’ and Its Criticism in the Context of the Epidemic.” [In Chinese.] Research on Political Economy, no. 1: 102–114.

Literature Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. 2004. The Chronology of Deng Xiaoping (1975–1997), vol. 3. [In Chinese.] Beijing: Central Literature Publishing House.

Literature Research Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. 2013. The Chronology of Mao Zedong (1893–1949), vol. 2. [In Chinese.] Beijing: Central Literature Publishing House.

Marx, K., and F. Engels. 2010. Marx and Engels Collected Works, vol. 6. Digital ed. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Pateman, C. 2006. Participation and Democratic Theory. [In Chinese.] Translated by C. Yao. Shanghai: People’s Publishing House.

People’s Daily. 2021. “Upholding and Improving the People’s Congress System and Continuously Developing the Whole Process of People’s Democracy.” [In Chinese.] People’s Daily, October 15.

People’s Publishing House. 2018. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. [In Chinese.] Beijing: People’s Publishing House.

People’s Publishing House. 2022. Compilation of Documents of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. [In Chinese.] Beijing: People’s Publishing House.

Xi, J. 2014. “Speech at the Celebrations for the 60th Anniversary of the Founding of the National People’s Congress.” [In Chinese.] https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1644727435238734969&w fr=spider&for=pc.

Xi J. 2022. Xi Jinping: The Governance of China, vol. 4. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.Yang, G. 2021. “The ‘Aristotle Law’ of Democracy.” [In Chinese.] Beijing Daily, March 15.