Is Western democracy a one-size-fits-all?
Is Western democracy a one-size-fits-all?
Democracy has varied forms and pathways to success.
The reason why democracy cannot be uniform from country to country is that democracy, as a political superstructure, is not only based on a certain economic foundation but is also closely linked to the practices of the people of each country and its history and culture.
In 2022, President Xi Jinping had a meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden in Bali, Indonesia. President Xi Jinping said, "Just as the United States has American-style democracy, China has Chinese-style democracy."
The concepts of "American-style democracy" and "Chinese-style democracy" alone illustrate that democracy is a shared value and a common goal of humanity. There is no fixed model of democracy as it comes in many forms. Democracy does not equal "Western democracy" or "American democracy."
However, the thought that the Western political system is the "democratic system" or "Western democracy" is the only form of democracy, and "democracy" equals "Western democracy" is just a misunderstanding of democracy.
Democracy: varied forms and pathways to success
For the longest time, there was one question that once puzzled me, "Is bamboo a tree?"
I thought bamboo was a tree, but the correct answer is that "bamboo is grass, not a tree."
Yes, bamboo is a type of herbaceous plant, not a woody plant. Although both are "plants," of the same family, "trees" and "grasses" are different. Even among "grasses," the soft, sprawling ground-cover grass in the garden is different from the upright emerald bamboo.
The world is indeed marvelous; things that are essentially the same can take on many different forms. Democracy, which is a shared value of humanity, manifests itself differently in various countries around the world.
Not to mention whether "Western democracy" includes the democratic systems of countries other than the developed countries of Europe and the United States, such as those of East Asia and Latin America, the implications of democracy are ambiguously worded. Though developed countries in Europe and the United States share common values, their "democratic systems" are not the same. Experts in political science agree that the United States has a typical presidential system, the United Kingdom is the first constitutional monarchy to adopt a parliamentary system, Germany is a parliamentary republic, and France, after several changes, is now a semi-presidential and semi-parliamentary system. If we look at the history of the formation and development of democracy in these countries, we find that their democracies have their characteristics.
Obviously, equating "democracy" with "Western democracy" is not only a political misconception but also an intellectual misunderstanding. However, in places or periods where "Western-centrism" is popular, such a "misunderstanding" is often regarded as "common sense" or even "truth."
Different democratic systems at different times of development
In fact, the democratic systems of various countries have their own characteristics. A country may have practiced different democratic systems throughout its historical development, and there may even be repetitions, such as the restoration of an imperial system.
This is because democracy, as a political superstructure, evolves and changes with the progression of history, which includes a series of complex situations such as revolutions and restorations, advances and regressions. The motivation for its occurrence is fundamentally determined by the characteristics of its domestic economic and political development, especially the shifting social contradictions within the country.
France can be considered the most typical example. In the 18th century, France was a feudal monarchy. Following the French Revolution in 1789, France established a constitutional monarchy. In 1792, France established the First French Republic, adopting a democratic republican system. From 1804 to 1814, Napoleon restored the empire and established the First French Empire. In 1848, France established the Second French Republic, taking a democratic republic system. In 1852 Napoleon III restored the imperial system and established the Second French Empire. From 1870 to 1946, France established the Third French Republic, adopting a democratic republic system. From 1946 to 1958, France established the Fourth French Republic, a parliamentary democratic republic. From 1958 to the present, France established the Fifth French Republic, a semi-presidential, semi-parliamentary democratic republic. Experts believe that it remains to be seen in which direction the French system will evolve in the future.
Taking France as a case study, we note that the system adopted by a country, including democracy, is fundamentally determined by the objective condition of its domestic economic and political development, in particular the changes in its domestic social contradictions, although there are some subjective factors.
For example, how did such an event occur in France from the revolutions of 1848 that established a democratic republic to the restoration of the empire in 1852?
Karl Marx (1818–1883) made a detailed analysis of the revolutions of 1848 in France. He pointed out that after the success of the bourgeois revolution, the bourgeoisie soon betrayed the proletariat who had worked together to overthrow the feudal rule, and the domestic class contradictions were soon intensified. In 1849 and 1850, the commercial crisis caused by overproduction, together with the outbreak of the cholera epidemic, further intensified the internal contradictions in France. Especially contradictions in the French bourgeois revolution, such as heavy taxation, were put on the small-holding peasants, causing strong discontent among the numerous peasants in French society. The small-holding peasants, however, lacked political unity and could not assert their class interests in their own name. They expected Louis Bonaparte to bring benefits to the peasants as Napoleon did in 1789. But Louis Bonaparte cheated these peasants, relying on their votes to be elected President of the Republic, and then on December 2, 1851, Louis Bonaparte staged a coup d'état, dissolved the legislative assembly, and legitimized the coup through a plebiscite. A year later, on December 2, 1852, Louis Bonaparte declared the dissolution of the Republic and the establishment of the Second Empire. He took the title Emperor Napoleon III.
This case alone illustrates that there is no fixed model of democracy, nor a fixed model of "Western democracy".
Historical origins and cultural factors of democracy
The reason why democracy cannot be uniform from country to country is that democracy, as a political superstructure, is not only based on a certain economic foundation but is also closely linked to the practices of the people of each country and its history and culture.
We usually speak of "capitalist democracy" and "socialist democracy," which is approached in terms of the economic basis; "bourgeois democracy" and "proletarian democracy" in terms of the class basis; and "American-style democracy," "Western-style democracy," and "Chinese-style democracy" in terms of the country or region and its historical and cultural characteristics.
In the past, we did not pay enough attention to the historical origins and cultural factors of democracy. Along with the advancement and deepening of reform and opening up, we have become increasingly aware that historical origins and cultural factors have a very close relation with the forms of democracy and its characteristics.
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, written by Max Weber, a German sociologist, studies the relationship between the Protestant ethic, which was formed through the Reformation and rational capitalism.
Weber's study of "rational capitalism" was mainly about the economic form of capitalism and did not elaborate on the relationship between the Protestant ethic and capitalist democracy. However, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, written by Winston Churchill, who was once the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, elaborates on the relationship between the two with a wealth of historical facts. It outlines how the Renaissance, which emerged from the struggle against the medieval church, brought about the Reformation, and how Protestant churches sprang up in most parts of Europe during the Reformation. It narrates how the Protestant Reformation swept across England, and the struggle against Catholics from succession to the English throne which formed the "Whigs" and the "Tories," the two earliest political parties in the world, and how the party struggle replaced the brutal religious struggle. It argues that in the struggle against the restoration of Catholicism, the various classes established Protestantism as the state religion and limited the power of the king in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. The reason that the British democratic system is a constitutional monarchy is determined by the changes in economic and political development and historical and cultural characteristics.
In fact, this is not the case only in the UK. The reason that the United States takes a two-party system and France a multi-party system is related to the history and culture of the bourgeois revolution in their countries. China is no exception. Democracy in China is related to the democratic practices of the Chinese people and its history, as well as the long cultural tradition of the Chinese nation.
If we understand this, we will realize that there is no basis for the view or claim that democracy is equated with "Western democracy" or that democracy in a particular Western country is the only model of democracy in the world.
Developing democracy that works
Chinese President Xi Jinping once pointed out, "Political systems are used to regulate political relations, establish political order, promote national development, and maintain national stability, and therefore they cannot be one-size-fits-all or abstractly judged without reference to specific social and political conditions. There is a view that we are not as good as certain other countries because we don't practice their political systems, and that we should make up for this deficiency by copying them. Meanwhile, some believe that some of our political systems are superfluous because they are not used in other countries, and therefore we should get rid of them. Both views are simplistic, biased, and therefore incorrect."
It is worth mentioning that in recent years, the "waves of democracy" and the "color revolutions" in this country and that country, as well as the so-called "Arab Spring", have been trumpeted in the media both at home and abroad. How many of these have actually brought genuine "democracy" to the people involved?
In short, the Chinese people, who have a glorious tradition of the integration of theory and practice, also know that "Western democracy" cannot be equated with democracy, and that merely copying "Western democracy" will never succeed.
For most countries today, instead of discussing democracy in abstract terms or following other people's clamoring for democracy, it would be more beneficial to earnestly study the democratic practices within their own countries and develop a form of democracy that truly works for them.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of DeepChina
The author is Li Junru, the former vice president of the Party School of the CPC Central Committee.
Editor/ Liu Xian
Translator/ Chen Yutang
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.