China Q&A | How is democracy reflected in China's One-Party system?
China Q&A | How is democracy reflected in China's One-Party system?
China terms its form of democracy "whole-process people's democracy."
The principle of "one person, one vote" does not constitute the only morally legitimate democratic approach. It is not a substitute for other democratic methods; it is only through integration with these methods that a solid democratic framework can be created.
Q: In China, where the Communist Party of China (CPC) leads and makes key decisions, how is democracy reflected in the nation's political life?
A: Far from being rejected by China, democracy is highly esteemed and is an integral part of its political landscape.
For the governing party, the fundamental requirement of democratic governance is to rule the country based on the constitution and laws. The Constitution of the CPC explicitly stipulates: "The Party must act within the scope of the country's constitution and laws." This means that the Party's proposals must be translated into state will through established legal processes.
Upon the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the CPC solemnly constructed a framework for democratic governance.
At that time, Premier Zhou Enlai took on the pivotal role of drafting the Common Program of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, which served as the provisional Constitution of China. In the draft, he initially named our nation the "Chinese People's Democratic Republic." However, delegates from other political parties disagreed with the inclusion of the term "democratic" in the state's title, arguing that "republic" already encompassed the concept of democracy, and questioning how a nation of the people could be undemocratic. Consequently, the name of the country was amended to the "People's Republic of China."
A second question then emerged: What was the connection between the "People's Republic of China" and the "Republic of China" which preceded it, and does it continue to represent Taiwan under the governance of the Kuomintang? Zhou Enlai and some of the delegates proposed that the official name of the country be recorded as the "People's Republic of China (Republic of China)." To address this, a dedicated discussion was convened with leaders from non-CPC parties. Situ Meitang, Chairman of the China Zhi Gong Party, a veteran who had participated in the Revolution of 1911 and the establishment of the Republic of China, voiced his dissent. He argued that the name "Republic of China" was inherently positive but had been tarnished by the actions of the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek. He suggested that they should proudly use the name "People's Republic of China" instead, as it could also represent present-day Taiwan. Other senior figures from the Kuomintang concurred with this view. In the end, the designation "(Republic of China)" was dropped from the official state name.
In another example of broad consultation, the newly convened Political Consultative Conference invited the public to submit designs for the national flag. Marshal Zhu De, a founding member of the CPC, also crafted a design, sending it to the committee responsible for the flag's selection. After extensive review, the committee chose a design submitted by a citizen from Shanghai as the final flag.
It can be seen that under the leadership of the CPC, significant political issues have been addressed and resolved through democratic deliberations among various political parties, avoiding any intense conflicts or physical confrontations.
Q: That was certainly true regarding the CPC's work in constructing a democratic platform more than seven decades ago. How do people in China today understand and feel about the current democratic atmosphere?
A: Let me talk about young people in China today. There's an online community called "Douban," primarily populated by individuals aged 20 to 35. It serves as a platform where young people express their views, discuss and vent about their life experiences, and find emotional support and shared values.
This internet community encompasses more than 5,000 discussion forums on a diverse array of topics, collectively referred to as "Douban Groups." These groups are organized into 27 broad categories, with each boasting a membership in the millions. Discussions within the groups cover a variety of themes, such as apartment rentals, relationships and marriage, travel experiences, graduate school applications, debates, culinary skills, job hunts, fashion trends, pet ownership, and securing discounted airfares.
Within these groups, young people dive into a diverse array of knowledge. They explore and create concepts like "Life Hacking," which discusses short cuts for simplifying difficult things; "Dream Recorder," dedicated to chronicling dreams; "Rental Group," for sharing insights on renting accommodations; and "The Frugal Female Alliance," which offers advice on financial management. These discussions are innovative, practical, and witty. Prior to making major life decisions like getting a divorce or changing careers, many turn to their "Douban friends" for counsel.
While members of the Douban Groups may complain when things don't go their way, they are increasingly finding more channels through which to articulate and advocate for their personalized demands.
Q: While young people apparently have their own platforms for expressing their opinions, how does this relate to the concept of democracy?
A: On October 25, 2020, the British newspaper The Sunday Times published an article entitled Who Needs Democracy? China's 400 Million Millennials Prefer iPhones. Published at the time of strident rhetoric about China during the U.S. presidential election debates, the article stated that China's burgeoning millennials were becoming "an increasingly confident and assertive cohort."
In reality, the democratic ideals upheld by the United States appear to be less compelling for some than the stability provided by the CPC. "A Chinese 30-year-old has experienced 32-fold per-capita GDP growth since birth, compared with a threefold increase for an American born in 1990."
The author of this article further cites viewpoints from Chinese individuals he interviewed: "I think the Chinese are often confused about how chaotic and 'indecent' American election politics could be. To a large extent, it signifies the undesirability of the western democratic system to the Chinese and the genuine conviction in China that the US system is flawed." "Outsiders might think my generation is brainwashed, but we're not, we're aware of the outside world, we've travelled and studied abroad. But we're proud of our country and what we've achieved. We certainly have the feeling now, after the virus, that the Chinese system has worked better. We're comfortable and safe."
Q: Another reason why the West has a bad impression of the CPC is that it believes that it has indiscriminately copied the practices of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but is this in fact the case?
A: At the founding of the People's Republic of China, the country indeed drew upon the Soviet Union's model for governance, focusing on the management and administration of the state. However, there are considerable differences between the two systems.
Throughout its revolutionary period, the Soviet Union championed the cause of "exterminating the wealthy and the capitalists," a policy which the CPC chose not to emulate. In the Soviet system, the Communist Party stood alone, with no other political parties permitted, and no representation of the bourgeoisie in the governance of the state. In his 1936 address concerning the draft of the constitution, Stalin made it explicitly clear that the Soviet Union was to recognize only a single party, the Communist Party, and no other.
Contrary to that approach, on the establishment of the People's Republic of China, within the six vice-chairpersons of the Central People's Government, there were three Communist Party members and three from other political parties; among the four vice premiers of the Government Administration Council of the Central People's Government, two positions were filled by members of other political parties; out of the 21 members of the Government Committee, nine were non-CPC members; and within the 105 ministerial and deputy ministerial positions, 49 were non-CPC individuals. Similar proportions were observed in the government institutions of several provinces.
Q: Within the context of concrete policy deliberations, what role do the non-CPC political parties, also called "parties participating in the management of state affairs," play in the governance process?
A: Premier Zhou Enlai made the following remarks on June 19, 1952, during a high-level internal meeting of the CPC:
"At administrative conferences, representatives of the bourgeoisie frequently articulate perspectives that reflect bourgeois ideology. "
Within these gatherings, a spectrum of viewpoints emerges, including those of the bourgeoisie, the progressive gentry, and the petty bourgeoisie; some are valid, while others may be flawed. Exposure to this array of opinions can stimulate our thinking. Comrade Mao Zedong often said, "One sees clearly by listening to all sides, but remains blind by hearing only one." In managing a nation of such magnitude, it is imperative that we heed a diversity of perspectives.
In 1956, Mao Zedong addressed the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie, stating: "You have come to know the nature of our government well; it operates on the principle of consultation with the populace, engaging in dialogue with workers, farmers, capitalists, and members of non-CPC parties to manage affairs. This could aptly be termed a government of consultation."
Within the essential political framework of China, there is a "cornerstone" known as the "system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CPC." Before major national governance decisions and policies of the CPC are formally implemented, they are first presented to non-CPC parties and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce for their feedback and suggestions.
China also has a political platform of greater scale and higher authority known as the "Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference" (CPPCC), which exists at every level from the central to the county. Its role encompasses political consultation, democratic oversight, and involvement in the policy-making process. Individuals who participate in the CPPCC are designated as CPPCC members. They represent 34 distinct sectors, encompassing a range of non-CPC political parties, the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce, ethnic minorities, religious associations, various fields of industry, and other segments of society.
Just like the People's Congress, the CPPCC at all levels convenes annually to submit a multitude of proposals and motions. They are then entrusted to the corresponding government departments for execution. Upon completion, the government is obligated to report back to the CPPCC members, detailing the steps taken and the outcomes achieved. For any matters that cannot be addressed immediately, a clear explanation of the underlying reasons is required.
Q: Elections and voting are the most common forms of democratic governance. The leadership role of the CPC as the sole governing party in China is often misunderstood in the West. Is this because it is perceived as hindering people's freedom to choose through elections?
A: While China may not exhibit the intensely competitive, zero-sum election dynamics characteristic of Western democracies, it is incorrect to assert that China is devoid of democratic elections and a voting-based political process. The elections for the CPC Central Committee, the selection of party and state leaders, the voting for people's representatives at various levels, and the deliberation of significant matters and key personnel decisions by people's congresses at all levels are all determined by means of a voting procedure.
In fact, if we want to be more precise, the one-person-one-vote electoral system is not as convincing as it is often made out to be. Take the United States presidential election for example: although it appears to be one-person-one-vote system, it is in fact an indirect election conducted by the Electoral College, employing a winner-takes-all system, which favors states with smaller populations. This can result in a scenario where the candidate with fewer popular votes beats the one with more. Certain American politicians also consider this system less than ideal, and if they could redesign the system from the ground up, they would opt for a different approach. Yet, overhauling and starting anew is a formidable challenge. Even with its imperfections, once a system is set in place, Americans often still regard it as justifiable, seemingly not overly concerned with whether the democratic principle of "one person, one vote" has been genuinely fulfilled.
What's more significant is that if citizens are roused to action solely during elections, only to return to passivity immediately afterward; if they are subjected only to lofty campaign rhetoric and have no voice in governance post-election; if they are only courted for their votes and then left to themselves after the election, this is not genuine democracy.
The principle of "one person, one vote" does not constitute the only morally legitimate democratic approach. It is not a substitute for other democratic methods; it is only through integration with these methods that a solid democratic framework can be created.
The democratic platform constructed under the leadership of the CPC integrates both electoral and consultative aspects of democracy. This entails the establishment of a process for multi-party engagement in governance and policy deliberation, as well as democratic consultations with various societal sectors, prior to voting on significant decisions. Through extensive discussions, a consensus that maximizes the common ground of societal opinions is sought. This form of democracy is designed to ensure that major decisions are aligned with the fundamental and long-term interests of the populace and embodies the true meaning of people's democracy.
Besides electoral democracy and consultative democracy, there exist additional platforms for democratic administration, decision-making, and oversight. These platforms hold equal importance and significance. Democracy that is only present during the voting process but vanishes post-election raises doubts about its authenticity.
Accordingly, China terms its form of democracy "whole-process people's democracy," which integrates process-oriented democracy with results-oriented democracy, procedural democracy with substantive democracy, direct democracy with indirect democracy, and people's democracy with the will of the state. It pursues a model of socialist democracy that covers all aspects of the democratic process and all sectors of society.
Chinese citizens do not treat democracy as a mere ornament for show; rather, they employ it as a tool to tackle issues of concern to the populace and to exercise oversight over the governing party and governmental bodies. Assessing a nation's democracy goes beyond the presence of voting rights; it also involves the whole breadth of opportunities for public participation. It goes beyond campaign promises to examine how effectively these pledges are put into action after elections. It involves more than the political protocols and regulations enshrined in institutions and legal codes; it also encompasses the actual enforcement of these frameworks. It is not merely about the democratic nature of the rules and procedures governing the exercise of power but also about the genuine accountability and control exerted by the people over these powers.
The leadership of the CPC, complemented by broad and robust democratic platforms, fortifies the capacity for political implementation. It circumvents the pitfall of interminable deliberation without decisive action, ensuring that initiatives that are both aspirational and feasible, along with opportunities that are ripe for the taking, can be effectively pursued. It also guards against the potential for national and public interests to be commandeered by special interest groups and mitigates the risks of incessant shifts in the nation's core policies, thereby facilitating the consistent application of long-term developmental strategies.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of DeepChina.
The interviewee is Chen Jin, Former committee member of the Institute of Party History and Literature of the Central Committee of CPC.
Editor/ Liu Xian
Translator/ Zhang Rong
Related articles
Chief Editor/ Yang Xinhua
Coordination Editor/ Liu Xian
Reviewer/ Liu Li
Copyeditor/ Zhang Weiwei
Image Editor/ Tan Yujie
About DeepChina
DeepChina is an elite academic initiative that offers objective and rational analyses on a broad spectrum of topics related to China, encompassing politics, economics, culture, human rights, diplomacy, and geopolitics.