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.