Not all one party systems are the same. The most significant difference between the PRC's one party system and the other countries' one party system is the fact that there are always two parellel organizations running side by side between the state and the party. Like all the Communist countries such as Vietnam and North Korea, the state organization is always the junior member.
This is a scenario where the party is above the state and the party discpline is above the law. Take for example, Chen Liangyu was first brought to face the party discpline before being sent to face the court of law. In another word, it is the supremacy of the party rules that prevails in PRC and not the rule of laws. Another example is PLA remains firstly the CCP's militia, albeit a very big one, and then the PRC's armed force. All these go to explain the supremacy of the party over the state.
The big question with all the one party system is its ability to hold itself accountable with its internal check and balance mechanism. What is conspicuously absent in the CCP and PRC is the lack of the rule of laws, an independent anti-corruption commission and administrative ombudsmen, a free and critical media as well as a robust administrative legal system. Supposed, all the above are in place, Chen Liangyu's sexual exploit, illegal land dealing would have been uncovered and he would have been unseated from power much earlier. The very lack of these mechanism means there is at present day a very lagged deterent system which encourage trangresses.
Another big question is the opagueness in leadership selection. Without some form of overt intra-party electoral process, how can the people be confident that the leader chosen in the smoke-filled room is one who is committed and competent? One party system often fails to produce good leaders and the country's fate is left to chance. It may not be fair to say whether autocratic power or a democratic power is more successful. The very essence of democarcy is the choice the people have, without which, Thaksin-inspired party would not have returned to power and Thailand would remain under the Junta's rule. The same is true with Philippines, without democracy, Immelda Marcos will perhaps in power now succeeding her husband. It is not often a country is so lucky to have LKY or Deng and the successive CCP leaders who didn't rock the boat.
The very substantial economic and political progress made by CCP's rule is remarkable and well appreciated. The mandate that CCP enjoys are based, in the first 30 years since the liberation, on revolution and the next 30 years based on the progress made after the Deng's reform. What is the basis of CCP's mandate for the next 30 years? This will be a big question come next year when PRC reaches 60. The circle of 60 years is important to the Chinese culture.
While there are many things are left to be desirable under CCP, we can nevertheless give the benefit of the doubt to the CCP that the political system in China would take a different course and it would have the special Chinese characteristic. Let's also accept that China need not copy the Western notion of separation of power and the plural democracy. The question is thus for CCP to explain what kind of political system CCP envisaged for China to make a China truly a peoples' republic. I believe the true answer is - CCP doesn't have an answer now. They are still searching for the answer but the the search and the introspection has to start now.
What is going to happen, it will be depend on the development in several fronts. as I have argued elsewhere, it will be very interesting to watch the political development in HK for the next 20 years because whatever happens in HK politically is definiely what is approved or tolerated by the central government (read CCP) and that in turn will provide a glimpse into what a political system CCP is prepared to accept in the future. Toleration of political dissent is a unique quality and HK over the last 11 years has shown remarkable accommodation. This maybe due in part to CCP's common front strategy to win over the critics. Nevertheless it augur well. It is to be hoped that CCP shows greater toleration when dealing with domestic dissents. For example, putting the human right activist or reporters behind the bar without clear evidence of national security breaches doesn't win friends and goodwill. This go back to the rule of laws.
No question, CCP will also watch very closely other Chinese polity including Singapore and Taiwan. Singapore's one party system in PAP is a tempting role model. PAP, in my view, relies upon the constitutional framework to perpetuate the one party system whereas CCP does not. Further, PAP doesn't have a vibrant intra-democracy and this certainly suite CCP's taste. PAP's leaders are often selected and groomed by consensus and do not emerge via overt intra-party contest. In this aspect, CCP and PAP are very much alike but this cannot be regarded as a constructive lesson. The positive lesson from Singapore is definitely the adoption of her constitutional framework that would require CCP to separate the party organization from the state structure. Making the state and the constitution supreme will be the goal.
Unlike HK and Singapore, who are both British clones, ROC had developed a blue blood Chinese polity with a plural form of democracy. What I am sure is that the ROC's experience both in mainland and in Taiwan in the past 100 years is not something that the CCP admires. Plural democracy is detested. What CCP admire is a system of government where the ruling party will continue in power and deliver an able and competent administration which enjoy the peoples mandate.
On the question on the impact of common market on the subject of reunification, I hold a sceptical view. Europe has more than 50 years of common market experience, yet, the political union for Europe is still a long way from materializing. I am not confident that the cross strait common market will be a catalyst for the reunification. As I argued elsewhere that it will require CCP to initiate fundamental constitutional reform in the mainland before any substantive prospect of unification can be entertained. This would ideally be accomplished through a constitutional convention to engage all political constituents, whether domestic or in exile, whether maindland or Taiwan, to redefine what a modern constitutional China should be and could be. The timing is again after 2020s.
Incidentally, I was watching the TV yesterday, I was pleasantly surprised to see the extent of CCTV coverage on the newly formed Executive Yuan in Taiwan. There is no question that the mainlanders are getting more and more information even though somewhat political correct regarding the political system and culture in Taiwan even before the 3 links materializes. It is very difficult to discern what are the CCP's objectives in giving so much media coverage to Taiwan's political system. Is it meant to draw a positive or negative lesson from plural democracy? is it a conscious plan to prepare the peoples for plural democracy? On the second question, I am not prepared to think so.
With the younger generation of mainlanders becoming more educated on the choice of political system, it will over times - between 2020s-2030s - released a bottom-up new political culture made effective ad efficient by the seemless internet power. At the same time CCP would usher in a new generation of political leaders who are receptive and confident. The domestic front would be such that these two developments respectively bottom-up and top down will coincide and unleast the political renaissance that the chinese in the past 150 years have been striving for would have come to fruition.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Musing about Political Reform in China (Part 1)
(This is a reply by KH in response to Democracy in China only after 2022)
The evolution of single party states in Asia ....CCP, LDP, KMT, PAP, BN, Golkar, Congress etc... is a subject worthy of a lot of discussion - and probably a great many Ph.D thesis. Your thesis on internal party elections in CCP got me thinking about the 'lens' though which we look at political reform...and whether a multi-party democracy is the only desired end-state?
Ruling (single) parties in much of Asia including the CCP were invariably (at one time) the party of progress and modernisation. These parties tend to have a national as opposed to a party-political agenda. One tend to forget that often, at some distant past, they replaced something even more backward and distasteful (the exception being Burma). Often, they represent the national consensus, although one which may be outdated. Thats why their opponents tend to be seen as working against the "nation". The presence of a strong national consensus (often that is to be independent, modern and rich) is actually a source of great strength for many Asian nations. Which is also why it is difficult to transform into the single party state to a 2/multi party system.
However, political reform is an ongoing reality. To (mis?)quote, a well-known historianonce said that the study of human history taught him that only 2 things to be true. First, change when they occur happens slower than expected. Second, change when they occur happens faster than expected. Anywhere in Asia, driven by the larger trends of modernization and globalization of the economy, knowledge and (more gradually) of shared universal values, politics is changing. The only question is how much of it is taking place below the surface. On final analysis, bottoms-up change is more concrete than flashy news stories of dissidents, elections or anti-government protests. Due our Taoist heritage, we have a less difficult time understanding that when there is nothing there is something and when there is something there is noting (!). Westerners who sees everything in emperical terms - yes or no, black or white. Media and pundits simply look silly to read too much into events, read too little into the big picture and be impatient with history. Between the appearance and the substance of political reform lies most of the misunderstanding between Western and non-Western analysis of political reform in Asia.
Many observers also tend to (over)simplify things by saying that China is pursuing economic liberalization but not political liberalization. I would argue that is a false choice because one is also the other, two sides of the same coin, different means to the same ends. I support your assertion that consicously or not the Chinese leadership "already possessed some kind of road map towards the democratization process". Indeed, political reform is part of "reform and opening up"; just that in China changes happen when no one is looking. Compare today with 1978, it couldnt be further from the truth to argue that China had not democratised simply because it is still under CCP rule.
No, I believe the purpose of political reform is to creation of a stable modern political culture. In my view, the usual indicators such as free and fair elections, opposition parties, a free and critical press or other forms of overt political contests actually gives a false result on the health of the political reform because it stresses the process more than the conditions. It is like judging a marriage by the quality of the wedding. By discerning between appearance and substance, political reform is more about developing the pillars underpinnings of a stable modern political culture than elections. I would pay more attention to the development (often below the surface) of the following 5 pillars:
(1) rule of law - fundamentally important for independent institutions, ultimately a check on abuse of power by individuals and maintain credibility of the 'system';
(2) credible administrative system (incl. law enforcement) - even the best intentions is useless if incompetent. The rule of law must be seen to be enforced. More democracy are undermined by weak governments than by dictators;
(3) strong private sector - there must be enough wealth in private hands to counter the power of the state. the people should be able to vote with ballots, wallet and their feet;
(4) broad-based education - for rational and informed discussions and debate.
(5) respect for the private individual - including respect for private life, property, thoughts etc. far from only dealing with civil and political rights, many societies also need to deal with social justice: race, class, social mobility, meritocracy etc.
You can make great progress political reform without multi-party elections, but I'd argue also that rushing to the appearance of a multi-party democracy without investing reform in the preconditions will end up with a dysfunctional system. Interestingly, an autocratic power can probably be more successful in developing those 5 pillars.
Examples of political reform from an autocracy to multi-party democracy; the most successful Asian transitions to democracy took place in post-war Japan and in Korea and Taiwan in the 90s. Yes, there were timely acts of leadership in all those places but I'd argue that political reform that created those pillars for democracy were present all along. I'd say that the process is far advanced in Hong Kong and highly present in Singapore and Malaysia.
Political reform (defined as a modern liberal democracy) is arguably less advanced in Indonesia, Thailand or the Philipines even though they already have a multi-party system. The reality in Asia is that there are few if any examples of a genuine two-party system - Taiwan and India being nascent examples. The reality is often: intra-party factionalism like the LDP, India Congress party or personality-based political parties like we see in Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India amongst the regional parties. Mostly, these personal-patronage political system is another word for legal and systemic corruption. Here the people pay the costs of democracy without getting the fruits of democracy; voters do not usually even get a real difference whichever way they vote. To me this is not a healthy democracy. If Philippines is so democratic why would people need to topple the elected government twice in the last 20 years? Same argument for Thailand although its the military that does the toppling.
The irony is not lost on that single-party states like Singapore, LDP-Japan, KMT-era Taiwan, Korea under military rule can often actually deliver better economic freedom and even civil and political rights than a corrupt democracy. I'd argue that ultimately it is because their 5 pillars are better developed. So I would argue that the priority for CCP should be to develop, as much as possible, the 5 pillars a modern political system described above.
One can point out that the examples given are all wealthy places. Am I saying that the rich are better than poor countries at political modernisation? Is it because a growing and wealthy middle-class will cause political change? My answer is no with respect to causation. Political reform and economic growth both relies on the same 5 pillars I cited above. One does not cause the other because both were growing together. We may see the plant but we forget the roots were growing as well. In my view, over the last 30 years China has made arguably the greatest progress towards a modern political system since the fall of the Qing dynasty. Today the typical person (especially in the cities) enjoy more economic freedom, personal freedom and even civil and political space than almost anytime in history. This is to be appreciated.
You are right in citing elections in Hong Kong as a major catalyst. It is a great confidence building exercise for the CCP in experimenting with pluralism - although HK is far more developed in the 5 pillars. Taiwan is a great influence because a lot of people are following it in the mainland; and they can see first-hand the strengths and weaknesses. I believe that a de-facto common market across the straits is at hand in 5 -10 years. With mainlanders travelling to Taiwan, a population 3x bigger than HK and even closer linguistic and cultural background, Taiwanese in mainland will inadvertantly be a political catalyst too.
Like you, I too believe the tipping point will be around 2020-30 but I base it on demographics. By 2020, easily more than half the population will be born after 1978 and after 2030, very few will be old enough to actually experienced the Cultural Revolution - so as an optimistic generation grows up the fear for political change grow less that means more personal liberties at least at the grassroot level. On current trends for the first time in history every Chinese would have had schooling. I hope the CCP will maintain a strong and effective state but I also hope the CCP will push hard for social justice and ensure equal opportunities even for the poor minority farm boy/girl. As the economy grows more advanced, it can reasonably be expected to have a more robust rule of law. As you pointed out, by 2020-30 the leaders - western educated or not - would have spent their entire life working and dealing with the outside world. I like your analysis of the 6th generation leadership of the CCP. Although they may be more incremental rather than transformational in brining about major political changes, I believe that political reform ongoing at the fundamental level, political changes will occur very naturally, without upheaval but equally transformational.
The evolution of single party states in Asia ....CCP, LDP, KMT, PAP, BN, Golkar, Congress etc... is a subject worthy of a lot of discussion - and probably a great many Ph.D thesis. Your thesis on internal party elections in CCP got me thinking about the 'lens' though which we look at political reform...and whether a multi-party democracy is the only desired end-state?
Ruling (single) parties in much of Asia including the CCP were invariably (at one time) the party of progress and modernisation. These parties tend to have a national as opposed to a party-political agenda. One tend to forget that often, at some distant past, they replaced something even more backward and distasteful (the exception being Burma). Often, they represent the national consensus, although one which may be outdated. Thats why their opponents tend to be seen as working against the "nation". The presence of a strong national consensus (often that is to be independent, modern and rich) is actually a source of great strength for many Asian nations. Which is also why it is difficult to transform into the single party state to a 2/multi party system.
However, political reform is an ongoing reality. To (mis?)quote, a well-known historianonce said that the study of human history taught him that only 2 things to be true. First, change when they occur happens slower than expected. Second, change when they occur happens faster than expected. Anywhere in Asia, driven by the larger trends of modernization and globalization of the economy, knowledge and (more gradually) of shared universal values, politics is changing. The only question is how much of it is taking place below the surface. On final analysis, bottoms-up change is more concrete than flashy news stories of dissidents, elections or anti-government protests. Due our Taoist heritage, we have a less difficult time understanding that when there is nothing there is something and when there is something there is noting (!). Westerners who sees everything in emperical terms - yes or no, black or white. Media and pundits simply look silly to read too much into events, read too little into the big picture and be impatient with history. Between the appearance and the substance of political reform lies most of the misunderstanding between Western and non-Western analysis of political reform in Asia.
Many observers also tend to (over)simplify things by saying that China is pursuing economic liberalization but not political liberalization. I would argue that is a false choice because one is also the other, two sides of the same coin, different means to the same ends. I support your assertion that consicously or not the Chinese leadership "already possessed some kind of road map towards the democratization process". Indeed, political reform is part of "reform and opening up"; just that in China changes happen when no one is looking. Compare today with 1978, it couldnt be further from the truth to argue that China had not democratised simply because it is still under CCP rule.
No, I believe the purpose of political reform is to creation of a stable modern political culture. In my view, the usual indicators such as free and fair elections, opposition parties, a free and critical press or other forms of overt political contests actually gives a false result on the health of the political reform because it stresses the process more than the conditions. It is like judging a marriage by the quality of the wedding. By discerning between appearance and substance, political reform is more about developing the pillars underpinnings of a stable modern political culture than elections. I would pay more attention to the development (often below the surface) of the following 5 pillars:
(1) rule of law - fundamentally important for independent institutions, ultimately a check on abuse of power by individuals and maintain credibility of the 'system';
(2) credible administrative system (incl. law enforcement) - even the best intentions is useless if incompetent. The rule of law must be seen to be enforced. More democracy are undermined by weak governments than by dictators;
(3) strong private sector - there must be enough wealth in private hands to counter the power of the state. the people should be able to vote with ballots, wallet and their feet;
(4) broad-based education - for rational and informed discussions and debate.
(5) respect for the private individual - including respect for private life, property, thoughts etc. far from only dealing with civil and political rights, many societies also need to deal with social justice: race, class, social mobility, meritocracy etc.
You can make great progress political reform without multi-party elections, but I'd argue also that rushing to the appearance of a multi-party democracy without investing reform in the preconditions will end up with a dysfunctional system. Interestingly, an autocratic power can probably be more successful in developing those 5 pillars.
Examples of political reform from an autocracy to multi-party democracy; the most successful Asian transitions to democracy took place in post-war Japan and in Korea and Taiwan in the 90s. Yes, there were timely acts of leadership in all those places but I'd argue that political reform that created those pillars for democracy were present all along. I'd say that the process is far advanced in Hong Kong and highly present in Singapore and Malaysia.
Political reform (defined as a modern liberal democracy) is arguably less advanced in Indonesia, Thailand or the Philipines even though they already have a multi-party system. The reality in Asia is that there are few if any examples of a genuine two-party system - Taiwan and India being nascent examples. The reality is often: intra-party factionalism like the LDP, India Congress party or personality-based political parties like we see in Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India amongst the regional parties. Mostly, these personal-patronage political system is another word for legal and systemic corruption. Here the people pay the costs of democracy without getting the fruits of democracy; voters do not usually even get a real difference whichever way they vote. To me this is not a healthy democracy. If Philippines is so democratic why would people need to topple the elected government twice in the last 20 years? Same argument for Thailand although its the military that does the toppling.
The irony is not lost on that single-party states like Singapore, LDP-Japan, KMT-era Taiwan, Korea under military rule can often actually deliver better economic freedom and even civil and political rights than a corrupt democracy. I'd argue that ultimately it is because their 5 pillars are better developed. So I would argue that the priority for CCP should be to develop, as much as possible, the 5 pillars a modern political system described above.
One can point out that the examples given are all wealthy places. Am I saying that the rich are better than poor countries at political modernisation? Is it because a growing and wealthy middle-class will cause political change? My answer is no with respect to causation. Political reform and economic growth both relies on the same 5 pillars I cited above. One does not cause the other because both were growing together. We may see the plant but we forget the roots were growing as well. In my view, over the last 30 years China has made arguably the greatest progress towards a modern political system since the fall of the Qing dynasty. Today the typical person (especially in the cities) enjoy more economic freedom, personal freedom and even civil and political space than almost anytime in history. This is to be appreciated.
You are right in citing elections in Hong Kong as a major catalyst. It is a great confidence building exercise for the CCP in experimenting with pluralism - although HK is far more developed in the 5 pillars. Taiwan is a great influence because a lot of people are following it in the mainland; and they can see first-hand the strengths and weaknesses. I believe that a de-facto common market across the straits is at hand in 5 -10 years. With mainlanders travelling to Taiwan, a population 3x bigger than HK and even closer linguistic and cultural background, Taiwanese in mainland will inadvertantly be a political catalyst too.
Like you, I too believe the tipping point will be around 2020-30 but I base it on demographics. By 2020, easily more than half the population will be born after 1978 and after 2030, very few will be old enough to actually experienced the Cultural Revolution - so as an optimistic generation grows up the fear for political change grow less that means more personal liberties at least at the grassroot level. On current trends for the first time in history every Chinese would have had schooling. I hope the CCP will maintain a strong and effective state but I also hope the CCP will push hard for social justice and ensure equal opportunities even for the poor minority farm boy/girl. As the economy grows more advanced, it can reasonably be expected to have a more robust rule of law. As you pointed out, by 2020-30 the leaders - western educated or not - would have spent their entire life working and dealing with the outside world. I like your analysis of the 6th generation leadership of the CCP. Although they may be more incremental rather than transformational in brining about major political changes, I believe that political reform ongoing at the fundamental level, political changes will occur very naturally, without upheaval but equally transformational.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
where is Pontiff 's mea culpa
Admittedly the Catholic Churches and her followers did a lot of good services, however, the Holy See constantly has an arrogant and holier-than-thou history incapable of tendering sincere apology when it is due. The Holy See's record remains appallingly disastrous.
To name a few from the history - the infamous Spanish Inquisition that culiminated in the successive repression of jews, protestants and the muslim over a period of 4 centuries was sanctioned by the Holy See.
Equally notorious was another Holy See's approved project - the Roman Inquisition that suppress the promotion of science and knowledge. Victims include scientist like Bruno Giardona who was burned at the stake as a heretic for promoting cosmological science. Another famous scientist Galilio Gallilei, was lucky to escape death by the fire, but not death in ignominy under the house arrest.
Not to mention the Holy See's tacit support for the Nazi's Jewish pogrom and territorial agression during the Second World War.
The latest expression of deep shame by Pope Benedict sounded like half hearted and avoid of emphathy. Whilst it is right for him to call the sexual abuse of children by the Catholic clergy as gravely immoral, the question is - what about his own moral duty - why did he not discpline the paedophile disguised in priesthood when he was vested with the cardinal power to do so before becoming the Pontiff? where is the unconditional apology and mea culpa?
To name a few from the history - the infamous Spanish Inquisition that culiminated in the successive repression of jews, protestants and the muslim over a period of 4 centuries was sanctioned by the Holy See.
Equally notorious was another Holy See's approved project - the Roman Inquisition that suppress the promotion of science and knowledge. Victims include scientist like Bruno Giardona who was burned at the stake as a heretic for promoting cosmological science. Another famous scientist Galilio Gallilei, was lucky to escape death by the fire, but not death in ignominy under the house arrest.
Not to mention the Holy See's tacit support for the Nazi's Jewish pogrom and territorial agression during the Second World War.
The latest expression of deep shame by Pope Benedict sounded like half hearted and avoid of emphathy. Whilst it is right for him to call the sexual abuse of children by the Catholic clergy as gravely immoral, the question is - what about his own moral duty - why did he not discpline the paedophile disguised in priesthood when he was vested with the cardinal power to do so before becoming the Pontiff? where is the unconditional apology and mea culpa?
Democracy in China only after 2022
Wu Bangguo, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National Peoples' Congress, in his latest article published in the CCP party journal - Jiushi, reiterate that CCP will pursue its unique form of political system with Chinese characteristics. According to Wu, it is not in the interest of China to copy the Western's multi-party system, the doctrine of separation of power and the bi-camera system of legislature.
Seeing this publication in the light of a number of elections held in and around China in the last one months from Korea to Taiwan, from Bhutan to Nepal, one cannot help asking the fundamental question when is democracy going to happen in China. If so, in what form?
Is Hu Jintao capable to introduce any serious intra-party democracy before his term expires?
I will give him a pass and move into the more likely scenario when his successor takes over the charge.
Xi Jinping, the widely acknowledged successor to Hu Jintao, is expected to succeed Hu by the 18th CCP National Peoples Congress in 2012. The conventional wisdom is that Xi will hold two terms before passing on to another by the 20th CCP National Peoples Congress in 2022. The question is whether Xi will promote, at least, intra-party democracy, allowing contest to the Politburo Standing Committee, if not, the Politburo.
Though Xi himself is a princeling, which by the conventional logic, is regarded as a conservative naturally inclined to safeguard the standard bearer's interest. On the other hand, he may have inherited some reformist gene from his late father Xi Zhongxun who was regarded as a liberal in the party. However, being a liberal in the CCP doesn't necessary mean that one is a political liberal. To sum up his late father's credential, the senior Xi was perhaps more of an economic liberal in the mold of Deng Xiaoping rather than Hu Yaobang. Further, there is no traits in Xi junior's earlier career in the provinces to show any sign of holding a liberal view on democracy. Of course, revealing one's view on such a sensitive topic of democracy would have been political suicide. It is therefore wise for any political aspirant to keep his view close to his chest in the present political climate.
Another young member of the Politburo Standing Committee, Li Keqiang, who is tipped to succeed Wen Jiabao as the Premier, had a PHD in law and was reportedly to have quoted the imiment English jurist Lord Denning in his thesis. He is also viewed as being more receptive to modern political values. Having briefly analized Xi and Li's background, it is to be noted that none of them received overseas education or have overseas experience.
I suppose, during Xi's term between 2012-2022, most of the retired political heavyweights like Jiang Zemin, Li Peng would have faded into the history. At the same time, many senior party leaders and technocrats in this period are likely to have received overseas liberal education earlier in the Western countries and more receptive to modern precepts of democracy, the rule of law and etc.
This and the successive generation of party leaders are those who have gone overseas following the economic liberation launched by Deng from the 1980s onwards and the first batch would have attained their political pinancle in the CCP 30 years later from 2010s. The successive overseas trained political leaders and cadres together with the more progressive locally trained colleagues are like to post and publish more and more progressive views post Hu's era.
With the advent of internet and greater economic affluence, it is to be expected that the emerging Chinese middle class, nationalist though they are, loyal to CCP yet they may be, they will definitely be more vocal in seeking for greater accountability on the part of the CCP which is her biggest weakness.
It is simply my speculation that the current CCP leadership had already possessed some kind of road map towards the democratization process for CCP and China. My premise is based on the report that CCP has given the indication that the Chief Executive of HK SAR maybe elected directly in 2017 and the HK legislative council election will also be universally franschised shortly thereafter. If this happen, this will happen during Xi's second term and it will not be too unreasonable to predict that CCP will relax and adopt some form of intra-party democracy between 2017-2022.
It is my honest view that CCP is not willing to relinguish it's hold on power (this would have required an amendment to CCP constitution) and is very likely to run PRC as a single party state at least for another 20 years. I am therefore not keen to speculate on China having a genuine plural democracy.
After all, democracy is just a mean to an end and it happens to be the least bad system of all systems. What matters ultimately are the liberty and welfare of the peoples even if the system has to be one party state. It follows therefore the natural evolution for the CCP is to become more like the PAP of Singapore or the LDP of Japan.
What I am willing to predict at this point is that the successor to Xi would have found the timing and the circumstances, from 2022 onwards, both ripe and mature, to introduce greater political choice and accountability whether via intra-party or what the Chinese calls, extra-party (dang wai) democracy.
Seeing this publication in the light of a number of elections held in and around China in the last one months from Korea to Taiwan, from Bhutan to Nepal, one cannot help asking the fundamental question when is democracy going to happen in China. If so, in what form?
Is Hu Jintao capable to introduce any serious intra-party democracy before his term expires?
I will give him a pass and move into the more likely scenario when his successor takes over the charge.
Xi Jinping, the widely acknowledged successor to Hu Jintao, is expected to succeed Hu by the 18th CCP National Peoples Congress in 2012. The conventional wisdom is that Xi will hold two terms before passing on to another by the 20th CCP National Peoples Congress in 2022. The question is whether Xi will promote, at least, intra-party democracy, allowing contest to the Politburo Standing Committee, if not, the Politburo.
Though Xi himself is a princeling, which by the conventional logic, is regarded as a conservative naturally inclined to safeguard the standard bearer's interest. On the other hand, he may have inherited some reformist gene from his late father Xi Zhongxun who was regarded as a liberal in the party. However, being a liberal in the CCP doesn't necessary mean that one is a political liberal. To sum up his late father's credential, the senior Xi was perhaps more of an economic liberal in the mold of Deng Xiaoping rather than Hu Yaobang. Further, there is no traits in Xi junior's earlier career in the provinces to show any sign of holding a liberal view on democracy. Of course, revealing one's view on such a sensitive topic of democracy would have been political suicide. It is therefore wise for any political aspirant to keep his view close to his chest in the present political climate.
Another young member of the Politburo Standing Committee, Li Keqiang, who is tipped to succeed Wen Jiabao as the Premier, had a PHD in law and was reportedly to have quoted the imiment English jurist Lord Denning in his thesis. He is also viewed as being more receptive to modern political values. Having briefly analized Xi and Li's background, it is to be noted that none of them received overseas education or have overseas experience.
I suppose, during Xi's term between 2012-2022, most of the retired political heavyweights like Jiang Zemin, Li Peng would have faded into the history. At the same time, many senior party leaders and technocrats in this period are likely to have received overseas liberal education earlier in the Western countries and more receptive to modern precepts of democracy, the rule of law and etc.
This and the successive generation of party leaders are those who have gone overseas following the economic liberation launched by Deng from the 1980s onwards and the first batch would have attained their political pinancle in the CCP 30 years later from 2010s. The successive overseas trained political leaders and cadres together with the more progressive locally trained colleagues are like to post and publish more and more progressive views post Hu's era.
With the advent of internet and greater economic affluence, it is to be expected that the emerging Chinese middle class, nationalist though they are, loyal to CCP yet they may be, they will definitely be more vocal in seeking for greater accountability on the part of the CCP which is her biggest weakness.
It is simply my speculation that the current CCP leadership had already possessed some kind of road map towards the democratization process for CCP and China. My premise is based on the report that CCP has given the indication that the Chief Executive of HK SAR maybe elected directly in 2017 and the HK legislative council election will also be universally franschised shortly thereafter. If this happen, this will happen during Xi's second term and it will not be too unreasonable to predict that CCP will relax and adopt some form of intra-party democracy between 2017-2022.
It is my honest view that CCP is not willing to relinguish it's hold on power (this would have required an amendment to CCP constitution) and is very likely to run PRC as a single party state at least for another 20 years. I am therefore not keen to speculate on China having a genuine plural democracy.
After all, democracy is just a mean to an end and it happens to be the least bad system of all systems. What matters ultimately are the liberty and welfare of the peoples even if the system has to be one party state. It follows therefore the natural evolution for the CCP is to become more like the PAP of Singapore or the LDP of Japan.
What I am willing to predict at this point is that the successor to Xi would have found the timing and the circumstances, from 2022 onwards, both ripe and mature, to introduce greater political choice and accountability whether via intra-party or what the Chinese calls, extra-party (dang wai) democracy.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Western Media and Protest
(KH's entry dated April 8, 2008)
This is a complicated time for relations between the 'West' and the Chinese. Today it's the fracas about the Olympic torch. I started off feeling annoyed and indignant but am working to shift myself above that feeling because that state of mind always lacks clarity.
But first let me share a few observations from my perch here...
First, Tibet is not really on the radar screen for most people in the US. The issue has no attraction as political capital for anybody so its not really played up. You know, the area around the UN is a popular place for protests - you find them on most days, about Kosovo, Palestine, Burma, Guinea, Iran, Taiwan, Syria, Haiti, Falungong ... you-name-it but. There were protests 2 weeks ago for 3-4 days but apart from one day last week they've stopped (or gone to London?). The protesters are Tibetans and their Chinese sympathisers ... hardly any professional activists and attention seekers.
The media attention on Tibet also faded quickly in the US. In the beginning there was the knee-jerk jaundiced description of Chinese "police state" but the expected massacres/brutal crackdown did not materialise. So instead the tone has changed to be more balanced. Even on the first day of the riot, the NYTimes led with a picture of Chinese Riot Police crouching behind riot shields and Tibetans threw stones (the message is "restrain" by Chinese). NYT now describes the issue fairly sensibly as "ethnic clashes" and "riots and subsequent crackdown"...in addition to talking about lack of civil liberty and religious freedoms, it also talks of economic envy and xenophobia driving Tibetans to rampage, the police melting away at first before armed riot police returned the next day to clamp down. The reporter from the Economist who was the only Western journalist in Lhasa during the riots was fairly balanced in reporting only what he saw too.
I find the reaction is Europe is quite different. The British press is all screaming and moaning. And now they are treating the malee around the olympic torch with a very cynical glee. Ironically, the more leftist the publication the more they rant and rave. One good sign is the choice of pictures - do you notice that whatever the story on China, the caption photograph is always "militaristic"... soldiers marching about or raising the flag or even sitting about some place...I think that shows naievity and ignorance. Probably (being on smaller budget) the European press rely on free lance correspondants to clobber up the story..and some ignorant graphic artist in London sticks in the photograph. But seriously, China should take a leaf from how the Jewish lobby protects Isreal in the West ......political contributions, spin doctors, pollsters, press junkets there is a way of dealing with the Western media. Isreal knows that. Taiwan knows that. Just looking around, China's Olympic PR in NYC is very amaterish.
Back to the torch run.... I read this article in the FT the other day, that for people to talk about boycotting the Olympics as a the highest form of pressure against China ... which after all, is a big party when the world is invited to China will rightly be viewed as frivolous self-indulgence. (I don't like you so I will make you suffer by skipping your party..hmmm?). I do not know who to feel more embarassed for ... anti-Chinese activists? Western media? China? Western nations? the Olympics? Free speech? I feel the protests are counter-productive... because it has hijacked whatever the cause they represent into (at best) self-indulgent publicity stunts and at worst, hooliganism. For any idea/cause to succeed, it must occupy the moral high ground. For free speech to be honoured, there need to be tolerance and respect. But what we are seeing is embarassing for free speech, esp for people watching from China. But my real concern is precisely the Chinese audience.
Historically, China benefits and grows when it is open to the world but racism and xenophobia is never far from the surface. The CCP has to resist the temptation to turn this into a propaganda coup for its victim-complex, otherwise it will sow the seeds for disasterous confrontations later (both with the West or domestically). So everyone loses (except for the Chinese polical system in the short run) but especially those who work for change in China because they lose the moral high ground with the only people who can change China (the Chinese people). I suspect whatever momentum for political openness and reform in China is set back by 10 years. Right now, it is important for China not to over react.
I would go as far as to say not to take this as anything to do with China. OK, I will explain. Do you remember the anti-globalisation protesters in the late 90s?? WTO in Hong Kong 2005? Seattle? G8 summit in Genoa?? Do they really care about globalisation? Now these activists in London and Paris, I doubt they really care about human rights for Chinese or Tibetans. In reality its a reflection of the fears and insecurity felt by a segment of the population in West. Loss of economic power, loss of jobs, and more importantly lack of meaning and unsure of their place and purpose in the world. Now, most activists are people of integrity who believe passionately in their belief and without passion there will be no progress in the world.... But I believe the crux of the issue is understanding what is driving this passion? Is it hope, compassion, understanding? Or is it fear, insecurity or anger?? Is it 'for' something or more about 'anti' something?? I do feel that this sudden interest in being anti-China is the rolled-up result of collective unease and insecurity in the West - may be more so in cynical Europe than in the more self-reliant US. If they really care about human rights in China I really doubt activist in London or Paris or San Francisco got excited about the Cultural Revolution or mass famines in the 1950s...or against discrimination in India or the Ukraine. No. Only world powers get to have other people's grievances projected to it. It comes with the territory.
By being dignified and balanced in its response, China can wrestle back the moral high ground. China always remembers that the world consists of more than just the West. The rest of the world also has an opinion. What many people in the West fails to appreciate is how the government is generally accepted or even popular in China. If a foreigner tries to douse the olympic flame in China he will be set upon by ordinary people (and the police will have to rescue him?!). That is what I'd do, if any one protests I'd have squads of grannies and aunties on hand to admonish and jeer them in front of the TV cameras. Then finally, the police will come and politely persuade the grannies and aunties to disperse to prevent injury to the protester. Treat it as a farce and it will stay a farce. That takes the confidence of a super power :)
This is a complicated time for relations between the 'West' and the Chinese. Today it's the fracas about the Olympic torch. I started off feeling annoyed and indignant but am working to shift myself above that feeling because that state of mind always lacks clarity.
But first let me share a few observations from my perch here...
First, Tibet is not really on the radar screen for most people in the US. The issue has no attraction as political capital for anybody so its not really played up. You know, the area around the UN is a popular place for protests - you find them on most days, about Kosovo, Palestine, Burma, Guinea, Iran, Taiwan, Syria, Haiti, Falungong ... you-name-it but. There were protests 2 weeks ago for 3-4 days but apart from one day last week they've stopped (or gone to London?). The protesters are Tibetans and their Chinese sympathisers ... hardly any professional activists and attention seekers.
The media attention on Tibet also faded quickly in the US. In the beginning there was the knee-jerk jaundiced description of Chinese "police state" but the expected massacres/brutal crackdown did not materialise. So instead the tone has changed to be more balanced. Even on the first day of the riot, the NYTimes led with a picture of Chinese Riot Police crouching behind riot shields and Tibetans threw stones (the message is "restrain" by Chinese). NYT now describes the issue fairly sensibly as "ethnic clashes" and "riots and subsequent crackdown"...in addition to talking about lack of civil liberty and religious freedoms, it also talks of economic envy and xenophobia driving Tibetans to rampage, the police melting away at first before armed riot police returned the next day to clamp down. The reporter from the Economist who was the only Western journalist in Lhasa during the riots was fairly balanced in reporting only what he saw too.
I find the reaction is Europe is quite different. The British press is all screaming and moaning. And now they are treating the malee around the olympic torch with a very cynical glee. Ironically, the more leftist the publication the more they rant and rave. One good sign is the choice of pictures - do you notice that whatever the story on China, the caption photograph is always "militaristic"... soldiers marching about or raising the flag or even sitting about some place...I think that shows naievity and ignorance. Probably (being on smaller budget) the European press rely on free lance correspondants to clobber up the story..and some ignorant graphic artist in London sticks in the photograph. But seriously, China should take a leaf from how the Jewish lobby protects Isreal in the West ......political contributions, spin doctors, pollsters, press junkets there is a way of dealing with the Western media. Isreal knows that. Taiwan knows that. Just looking around, China's Olympic PR in NYC is very amaterish.
Back to the torch run.... I read this article in the FT the other day, that for people to talk about boycotting the Olympics as a the highest form of pressure against China ... which after all, is a big party when the world is invited to China will rightly be viewed as frivolous self-indulgence. (I don't like you so I will make you suffer by skipping your party..hmmm?). I do not know who to feel more embarassed for ... anti-Chinese activists? Western media? China? Western nations? the Olympics? Free speech? I feel the protests are counter-productive... because it has hijacked whatever the cause they represent into (at best) self-indulgent publicity stunts and at worst, hooliganism. For any idea/cause to succeed, it must occupy the moral high ground. For free speech to be honoured, there need to be tolerance and respect. But what we are seeing is embarassing for free speech, esp for people watching from China. But my real concern is precisely the Chinese audience.
Historically, China benefits and grows when it is open to the world but racism and xenophobia is never far from the surface. The CCP has to resist the temptation to turn this into a propaganda coup for its victim-complex, otherwise it will sow the seeds for disasterous confrontations later (both with the West or domestically). So everyone loses (except for the Chinese polical system in the short run) but especially those who work for change in China because they lose the moral high ground with the only people who can change China (the Chinese people). I suspect whatever momentum for political openness and reform in China is set back by 10 years. Right now, it is important for China not to over react.
I would go as far as to say not to take this as anything to do with China. OK, I will explain. Do you remember the anti-globalisation protesters in the late 90s?? WTO in Hong Kong 2005? Seattle? G8 summit in Genoa?? Do they really care about globalisation? Now these activists in London and Paris, I doubt they really care about human rights for Chinese or Tibetans. In reality its a reflection of the fears and insecurity felt by a segment of the population in West. Loss of economic power, loss of jobs, and more importantly lack of meaning and unsure of their place and purpose in the world. Now, most activists are people of integrity who believe passionately in their belief and without passion there will be no progress in the world.... But I believe the crux of the issue is understanding what is driving this passion? Is it hope, compassion, understanding? Or is it fear, insecurity or anger?? Is it 'for' something or more about 'anti' something?? I do feel that this sudden interest in being anti-China is the rolled-up result of collective unease and insecurity in the West - may be more so in cynical Europe than in the more self-reliant US. If they really care about human rights in China I really doubt activist in London or Paris or San Francisco got excited about the Cultural Revolution or mass famines in the 1950s...or against discrimination in India or the Ukraine. No. Only world powers get to have other people's grievances projected to it. It comes with the territory.
By being dignified and balanced in its response, China can wrestle back the moral high ground. China always remembers that the world consists of more than just the West. The rest of the world also has an opinion. What many people in the West fails to appreciate is how the government is generally accepted or even popular in China. If a foreigner tries to douse the olympic flame in China he will be set upon by ordinary people (and the police will have to rescue him?!). That is what I'd do, if any one protests I'd have squads of grannies and aunties on hand to admonish and jeer them in front of the TV cameras. Then finally, the police will come and politely persuade the grannies and aunties to disperse to prevent injury to the protester. Treat it as a farce and it will stay a farce. That takes the confidence of a super power :)
Maoists better in Ballot than Bullet
Congratulation to the Nepal's Maoists, a group of former guerrillas, for their audacity to swap bullet for ballot and winning a remarkable victory in a historic election after years of misrule and civil war. The election, although tainted with some violences, was seens as legitimate by the UN observers who offerred praises.
However the biggest congratulation goes to the people of Nepal who have voted for sweeping changes to the constitutional and political system.
Firstly, the Peacock throne, after 240 years, will be retiring into pages of history. Abolishing the monarchy which was once seen as divine by the Himalayans who are famous for their religiosity is perhaps the most incredible event in the modern history. This supreme courage demonstrated by the Nepalese shall be celebrated everywhere by anyone who applauds rationality and meritocracy.
Secondly, it is a refreshing change to see the end of years of misrule by a group of upper caste brahmins or hereditary aristocrats in the form of Nepal Congress Party. The Maoists' promise to end the millenium-old discriminative caste system and to introduce peoples equality are all good news. Further, Prachanda, the Maoists leader, also promise that the party will institute "capitalist democratic revolution". It is hoped that the Maoists keep its words and deliver a good governance and a better livelihood to Nepal's 29 million population.
Lastly, the poll result can be seen as a clear rebuttal by the Nepalese objecting to foreign influence at the geo-political level. Democratic countries such as USA and India are both known to have supported the old regimes for ideological and political reasons. Let's wish this new Himalayan Republic and her peoples well in the years to come.
Note: edited version appeared in the opinion page of SCMP on April 20, 2008
However the biggest congratulation goes to the people of Nepal who have voted for sweeping changes to the constitutional and political system.
Firstly, the Peacock throne, after 240 years, will be retiring into pages of history. Abolishing the monarchy which was once seen as divine by the Himalayans who are famous for their religiosity is perhaps the most incredible event in the modern history. This supreme courage demonstrated by the Nepalese shall be celebrated everywhere by anyone who applauds rationality and meritocracy.
Secondly, it is a refreshing change to see the end of years of misrule by a group of upper caste brahmins or hereditary aristocrats in the form of Nepal Congress Party. The Maoists' promise to end the millenium-old discriminative caste system and to introduce peoples equality are all good news. Further, Prachanda, the Maoists leader, also promise that the party will institute "capitalist democratic revolution". It is hoped that the Maoists keep its words and deliver a good governance and a better livelihood to Nepal's 29 million population.
Lastly, the poll result can be seen as a clear rebuttal by the Nepalese objecting to foreign influence at the geo-political level. Democratic countries such as USA and India are both known to have supported the old regimes for ideological and political reasons. Let's wish this new Himalayan Republic and her peoples well in the years to come.
Note: edited version appeared in the opinion page of SCMP on April 20, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Emperor Akihito must apologise for war crimes
I refer to SCMP David McNeil's "A movie laid to rest" on April 3 and Kevin Rafferty's "Japan Inc shuts its door to the past" on April 5 that discuss the Yasukuni Shrine issue.
All the Second World War victims by the Japanese's agression and brutality, are unlikely to get a wholehearted apology and or expression of remorse from the Japanese Government and the people of Japan.
Japan, in its collective psychology, thinks it lost the second World War because it faced a mightier for in the form of the USA - not because it was morally wrong to attack and occupy other country.
To make matter worse, Emperor Hirohito who ruled and not just reigned during the WW II, was not tried as a war criminal by the High Command of the US occupation forces in Japan in the immediate aftermath of Japan's unconditional surrender.
General MacArthur found it expedient to co-opt Emperor Hirohito as an ally in the newly emerging cold war era against the Soviets.
The subsequent adoption of a pacifist constitution and the democratization process introduced in Japan provided a purportedly legitimate sense of self-redemption for the Japanese, yet they suffer from frequent bout of amnesia and sometimes make denials regarding their WW II guilt.
The Liberal Democratic Party that was in power for almost the entire post war period up to today with the brief exception of 1993-1996 period was formed by a group of the right wing conservatives, who were previously the members if not the supporter of the Imperial Japanese Government during the WW II.
If Japan is sincere to repent her WW II crime, it has to start with the present Emperor Akihito to apologise on behalf of his father who was, as the ruling and reigning head of state, responsible for allowing Japanese agression during the War
Without this deed of repentance, the souls of the victims by the Japanese agression, from Korea to China and from the Allied force to the non-combatan civilians everywhere, will not rest in peace.
Emperor Akihito is now old and wise and should have the courage his father did not possess!
All the Second World War victims by the Japanese's agression and brutality, are unlikely to get a wholehearted apology and or expression of remorse from the Japanese Government and the people of Japan.
Japan, in its collective psychology, thinks it lost the second World War because it faced a mightier for in the form of the USA - not because it was morally wrong to attack and occupy other country.
To make matter worse, Emperor Hirohito who ruled and not just reigned during the WW II, was not tried as a war criminal by the High Command of the US occupation forces in Japan in the immediate aftermath of Japan's unconditional surrender.
General MacArthur found it expedient to co-opt Emperor Hirohito as an ally in the newly emerging cold war era against the Soviets.
The subsequent adoption of a pacifist constitution and the democratization process introduced in Japan provided a purportedly legitimate sense of self-redemption for the Japanese, yet they suffer from frequent bout of amnesia and sometimes make denials regarding their WW II guilt.
The Liberal Democratic Party that was in power for almost the entire post war period up to today with the brief exception of 1993-1996 period was formed by a group of the right wing conservatives, who were previously the members if not the supporter of the Imperial Japanese Government during the WW II.
If Japan is sincere to repent her WW II crime, it has to start with the present Emperor Akihito to apologise on behalf of his father who was, as the ruling and reigning head of state, responsible for allowing Japanese agression during the War
Without this deed of repentance, the souls of the victims by the Japanese agression, from Korea to China and from the Allied force to the non-combatan civilians everywhere, will not rest in peace.
Emperor Akihito is now old and wise and should have the courage his father did not possess!
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Constitutional Convention for New China
The numerous challenges faced by China over Taiwan unification, Tibetan separatism, HK's quest for democracy and all other internal forces are the same i.e. how can being part of China be more than about subservient patronage under CCP's (benign?) domination? Because in that sense, the CCP's view is no different from Imperial China towards the barbarian kingdoms. And there lies China's fragility and insecurity. Coming up to a new consensus on the self-identity of China as a nation is more important than democratisation. Democracy can be part of the solution but without an essential consensus on the question of identity, that is just a recipe for disintegration and infighting.
This is the comment I made in response to this very perceptive question : what does it mean to be part of China and indeed what is China itself.
China, as it is today, is essentially an expanded political construct based on historical/imperial inheritance with accommodation of nationalism. I make my case based on firstly, the modern China's claim of territory and sovereignty, internationally recognized, follows that of Ching's dynasty. Secondly, the constant reference of China being a nation with 56 ethnics by ruling KMT and CCP is a reverence to the modern nationalism forging together a nation based on unity by the 5 major ethnics: Han, Mongol, Manchu, Tibet and Uighur together with the other minorities.
The question is do they all subscribe to Chinese nationalism. The answer is rather obvious - there remains sizeable Tibetan and Uighur who oppose this Chinese nationalism. They are talking about Uighur and Tibetan independence to what the Chinese calls separatism. In spite of the substantial material progress brought to these two provinces and in particular the substantial liberty brought to the majority Tibetan who were serf themselves in the old Tibet, this China nation founded on national unity has not succeeded in the mind of these minority. The reason is because there was no common set of value that bind them together. This applies to Taiwan as well.
The reference to ideology whether Sun's sanmin zhuyi, Mao's Maoism or Marxism or Deng's socialism with Chinese characteristic are more for political expediency rather than the constitional basis of a nation. Sun's ideology is arguably coming close to a set of higher value of what a modern China is about. However, it was never given a chance to be into practice by KMT whether in mainland or in Taiwan.
The battle cry of the revolutionaries overthrowing the Manchu house was very much racial taunting of inequallity and subsevience by the majority Han. It was subsequently modified by the progressive to more of a national concept accommodating different ethnics. The Sanmin Zhuyi was an afterthought by Sun when he was in exile.
Mao's Maoism or Marxism was about seizing power through class struggle to build an idealized Communist nation. It succeeded in creating a nation very much by force and propaganda for the large number of peasant and progressive tired of corruption, injustice, oppressive governance by KMT. We can say PRC was formed on ideology but that ideology and Mao's subsequent handling drove China to a constant state of internal turmoil until 1976.
Deng's socialism with Chinese characteristic is pragmatism put in action. Welfare and economy become the basis of CCP's mandate. The proviso of Chinese characteristic, in my opinion, is not anti-Western rather it is to let CCP to continue in power to deter multi-party democratization, to stop wholesale importation of international rules and opinion to sway the nation. Chinese charaterictic is to describe in theory what exceptionalism is about. One country two system is an exceptionalism. The Special Economic Zone is also exceptionalism. With Deng's pragmatism in practice, China today sees tremendous progress albeit also significant social, economical and environmental inbalance. This alone is not sufficient to pull the heart of all different peoples whether in mainland, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan together to constitute a new China.
Jiang's theory of 3 represent or Hu's theory of harmonious society are all aimed at not rocking the boat by making gradual improvement. Any attempt at creating a new and purposeful China unifying a nation by common value would require hopefully, a Contitutional Convention. Realistically, CCP must be given the dominant say however it must also make a lot of compromise to make it happen. The trouble is, as my good friend KH correctly observe, the conditions for dramatic change are not present: transformational leadership and the very serious challenge that rocks the status quo. To define what China is is really easy but to define what China stand for in value is difficult.
Referring to the civilizational aspect of what constitute China is not helpful because the Chinese civilization is inevitably referring to the dominant Han Chinese culture which is not all consistent with the current universal values.
China can take many form whether federal or unitary state or even a hybrid one but the larger issue is one of values that go straight into the heart of the peoples. China is unlikely to be America whereby peoples of different creeds of nationality can become an American one day living the American dream. China cannot offer the same dream but She can aspire to be more tolerant and inclusive that the early Tang. It will be difficult to imagine there will be an African Chinese or a Latino Chinese or a white Chinese but China can always and should have mainland Chinese, Tibetan Chinese, Uighur Chinese, Mongolian Chinese, Taiwanese Chinese and etc.
That requires a constitutional settlement to give China a new self identity base on values rather than the older concept of national unity. The values China has to espouse must include the rule of law, liberty, welfare, democracy, justice, fairness, meritocracy and etc.
I agree that economic integration alone across the Strait is no answer to the Taiwan issue. This is partly evident from Tibet where economic is not everything about a nation. Further Taiwan has lived in a different political system completely different from that in mainland. The apeal of common root in history and civilization are just not adequate. Postponing the Taiwan issue and various political hot potatos is merely political expediency. Now, with the victory of Ma offering a small window of opportunity in history, we hope the present CCP leadership has the courage to take the lead to accommodate all including engaging Dalai Lama to give a new sense of identity and belonging for the 1.3 billion people to be able to live a new China dream. The primary duty is upon CCP to reinvigorate a new China.
This is the comment I made in response to this very perceptive question : what does it mean to be part of China and indeed what is China itself.
China, as it is today, is essentially an expanded political construct based on historical/imperial inheritance with accommodation of nationalism. I make my case based on firstly, the modern China's claim of territory and sovereignty, internationally recognized, follows that of Ching's dynasty. Secondly, the constant reference of China being a nation with 56 ethnics by ruling KMT and CCP is a reverence to the modern nationalism forging together a nation based on unity by the 5 major ethnics: Han, Mongol, Manchu, Tibet and Uighur together with the other minorities.
The question is do they all subscribe to Chinese nationalism. The answer is rather obvious - there remains sizeable Tibetan and Uighur who oppose this Chinese nationalism. They are talking about Uighur and Tibetan independence to what the Chinese calls separatism. In spite of the substantial material progress brought to these two provinces and in particular the substantial liberty brought to the majority Tibetan who were serf themselves in the old Tibet, this China nation founded on national unity has not succeeded in the mind of these minority. The reason is because there was no common set of value that bind them together. This applies to Taiwan as well.
The reference to ideology whether Sun's sanmin zhuyi, Mao's Maoism or Marxism or Deng's socialism with Chinese characteristic are more for political expediency rather than the constitional basis of a nation. Sun's ideology is arguably coming close to a set of higher value of what a modern China is about. However, it was never given a chance to be into practice by KMT whether in mainland or in Taiwan.
The battle cry of the revolutionaries overthrowing the Manchu house was very much racial taunting of inequallity and subsevience by the majority Han. It was subsequently modified by the progressive to more of a national concept accommodating different ethnics. The Sanmin Zhuyi was an afterthought by Sun when he was in exile.
Mao's Maoism or Marxism was about seizing power through class struggle to build an idealized Communist nation. It succeeded in creating a nation very much by force and propaganda for the large number of peasant and progressive tired of corruption, injustice, oppressive governance by KMT. We can say PRC was formed on ideology but that ideology and Mao's subsequent handling drove China to a constant state of internal turmoil until 1976.
Deng's socialism with Chinese characteristic is pragmatism put in action. Welfare and economy become the basis of CCP's mandate. The proviso of Chinese characteristic, in my opinion, is not anti-Western rather it is to let CCP to continue in power to deter multi-party democratization, to stop wholesale importation of international rules and opinion to sway the nation. Chinese charaterictic is to describe in theory what exceptionalism is about. One country two system is an exceptionalism. The Special Economic Zone is also exceptionalism. With Deng's pragmatism in practice, China today sees tremendous progress albeit also significant social, economical and environmental inbalance. This alone is not sufficient to pull the heart of all different peoples whether in mainland, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan together to constitute a new China.
Jiang's theory of 3 represent or Hu's theory of harmonious society are all aimed at not rocking the boat by making gradual improvement. Any attempt at creating a new and purposeful China unifying a nation by common value would require hopefully, a Contitutional Convention. Realistically, CCP must be given the dominant say however it must also make a lot of compromise to make it happen. The trouble is, as my good friend KH correctly observe, the conditions for dramatic change are not present: transformational leadership and the very serious challenge that rocks the status quo. To define what China is is really easy but to define what China stand for in value is difficult.
Referring to the civilizational aspect of what constitute China is not helpful because the Chinese civilization is inevitably referring to the dominant Han Chinese culture which is not all consistent with the current universal values.
China can take many form whether federal or unitary state or even a hybrid one but the larger issue is one of values that go straight into the heart of the peoples. China is unlikely to be America whereby peoples of different creeds of nationality can become an American one day living the American dream. China cannot offer the same dream but She can aspire to be more tolerant and inclusive that the early Tang. It will be difficult to imagine there will be an African Chinese or a Latino Chinese or a white Chinese but China can always and should have mainland Chinese, Tibetan Chinese, Uighur Chinese, Mongolian Chinese, Taiwanese Chinese and etc.
That requires a constitutional settlement to give China a new self identity base on values rather than the older concept of national unity. The values China has to espouse must include the rule of law, liberty, welfare, democracy, justice, fairness, meritocracy and etc.
I agree that economic integration alone across the Strait is no answer to the Taiwan issue. This is partly evident from Tibet where economic is not everything about a nation. Further Taiwan has lived in a different political system completely different from that in mainland. The apeal of common root in history and civilization are just not adequate. Postponing the Taiwan issue and various political hot potatos is merely political expediency. Now, with the victory of Ma offering a small window of opportunity in history, we hope the present CCP leadership has the courage to take the lead to accommodate all including engaging Dalai Lama to give a new sense of identity and belonging for the 1.3 billion people to be able to live a new China dream. The primary duty is upon CCP to reinvigorate a new China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)