Emperor Xi Jin Ping?: Why China doesn’t need democracy for now…
October 25th, 2017
A sea of neatly ironed suits flock out a large convention hall, save a few seasoned faces, conjuring up polite and unsuspecting smiles complemented with sufficiently genuine gestures. Whatever doubt would soon be disguised with thunders of applause as China ushers its dawn to another 5 years under Emperor Xi Jin Ping.
Perhaps it’s all not so bad?…
The Communist Party of China (CCP) unveiled its leadership for the next five years. The new leadership was elected by the CCP’s 19th Central Committee (CCP-CC), which was elected by the Party Congress on October 24. Here lie almost “too familiar faces”, which is expected since the retirement age of 68 for Politburo members was respected. This controversial “no heir apparent” strategic move by the CCP only served to further cement Xi’s power for another 10 years judged by the fact that no 19th PSC members are younger than 58 and thus cannot serve two additional five year terms after 2022 under current age restrictions.
Prima facie, it would seem that the current politburo is stagnantly choked with ideologies of crusty old members whose outdated and possibly irrelevant political doctrines spurred from the aftermath of the cultural revolution may impose a foreboding future for China. Or do we in the West simply do not understand this and immediately condemn what may not necessarily work for our society as foreign, inferior and possibly “evil”? Given the unstable track record of democracy and a general consensus from its constituents that traditionally accepted paragons of effective government are now questionable, it’s not surprising to see frustrated individuals seek solace via a revival of ideas once considered treasonous and laughable.
From the rise of populist right wing movements like Golden Dawn (Greek political far right, nationalistic party)that currently plague Europe to the revival of Marxist theories to “fix capitalism” to a lack of faith in government fiscal management; the world seems desperate for a new solution of effective and credible government. It’s tempting to learn a few lessons from Emperor Xi Jin Ping? It’s even more tempting when you consider the context of China’s rise from the ashes of the cultural revolution into the “harmonious” society it is today; both a philosophy and image every Chinese leader has being trying to elicit upon the global political arena since the days of Deng Xiao Ping.
Perhaps we could do with some concrete, predictable centralised authoritarian decision making under a “democratic dictatorship”? However, careful consideration must be given to ensure that we do not create stable government at the cost of liberty and the freedom of expression.
How has China fared without democracy?
Winston Churchill had a very intriguing perspective into democracy.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
(House of Commons, 11 November 1947)
It is also worth noting that Plato the famous Greek philosopher, who lived in democratic ancient Athens was a strong critic of democracy. Plato argued in favour of “Philosopher Kings” and claimed that it was better to celebrate expertise as opposed to simply submitting to fickle whims and fancies of the public. He argued in Book 6 of ‘The Republic’ that the public couldn’t be trusted to make effective decisions that would better serve the interests of humanity and that such decisions should be left in the capable hands of those with the intellectual capability, prowess and charisma to do so — “ The Philosopher Kings”. Plato wasn’t alone in this regard, Socrates is also equally pessimistic on the merits of democracy as he too believed that “effective voting” is a skill that had to be taught and shouldn’t be accessible to susceptible members of the populace to rhetorical strategies who might inextricably vote for irrelevant and counterproductive reasons. This concept isn’t so foreign for most of China’s history. So long as the Emperor maintained the “Will and good favour” of heaven, his legitimacy was ensured.
China has lived most its 3,500 years of civilisation graced under the “Imperial mandate of Heaven”, only to lose it all following the 1912 Revolution which overthrew thousands of years of Imperial rule to pave the way for the rise of the CCP. Culturally and politically, the concept of a central, autonomous government accentuated through the execution of an autocratic ruler has been deeply embedded within the psyche of the Chinese people. Given the geographic and socio complexities of China’s ever evolving borders throughout history, there can be no unanimous political strategy broad enough to cater for the needs of roughly 1.379 billion people. To this day, the political boundaries and legitimacy concerning the annexation of the Uighur and Tibetan regions of China’s modern day empire are the subject of highly contentious political debates.
Whether it’s a question of a lacking infrastructure to precipitate the proliferation of ideas, a heavily censored imperial civil service system, a stubborn arrogance in Chinese superiority that witnessed China’s “Closed Door Policy” after Admiral Zheng He’s voyage to the South China Seas or a firm military grasp over its populace; it is undeniable that the imperial system has been responsible for many of China’s turmoils. Albeit to that, China didn’t fare much better under Sun Yat Sen’s vision shortly after the birth of its republic. No matter how idyllic its intentions, perhaps during the contextual era after Pu Yi’s abdication, the Chinese weren’t ready for a republic system of government both culturally and politically. Perhaps they never will be and don’t need to?
After all Dr Sun spent most of his years educated in some of the finest educational institutions of Hawaii and the “Western education” he obtained there was highly inaccessible and foreign to most of his Chinese counterparts under the Qin dynasty. However noble Dr Sun’s intentions were to foster the political implementation of his Republic, the democratic principles had enormous difficulty in being genuinely understood overnight as opposed to merely being exploited as blind rhetoric by hot-headed revolutionaries who would be happy with any system of government to replace Imperial rule.
Was Sun’s vision merely a case of “any solution is better than no solution” that witnessed a revolution that succeeded in the short term but inevitably failed simply because the Chinese people after the 1911 ‘Xinhai revolution’ weren’t ready for democracy yet?
Post abdication of Ai Sin Gioro Puyi; (the Qin dynasty Manchurian “Last Emperor” of China) witnessed the chaotic Warlord era which saw decades of devasatation within the Sinosphere only to be resolved after an equally if not more devastating Chinese Civil War which led us to the CCP’s China of today. The Warlord era, Chinese civil war and cultural revolution are amongst some of the darkest and bloodiest chapters in China’s post imperialist history that were made possible due to the existence of a political vacuum during the region, akin to the current political vacuum plaguing the aftermath of the Arab Spring which allowed for the rise of ISIS.
The ‘Bromance’ between East and West
Ironically, the ‘most powerful man’ leading the free world today seems to be a walking antithesis of democracy. He constantly ridicules his rivals, dismisses and conveniently fires anyone who might threaten his authority whilst tweeting away his perverse distorted reality, imposing it upon admirers and critics alike. He inspires right wing nationalistic ideals, struts around the Oval Office expecting others to pick up after his mess, threatens North Korea casually with no regard for the political consequences such reckless behaviour might ensue. Alas, this straight forward bravado is surprisingly highly admired by the Chinese. Following his visit to Beijing as part of Trump’s 12 day Asia tour, many Chinese fans are already referring to him endearingly as ‘Uncle Trump’. His daughter, Ivanka is also being referred to as “Princess/ Goddess Yi Wan Ka” — Is this a modern revival of the ‘Special relationship’ Bill Clinton & Tony Blair once shared?
Xi has taken advantage of Trump’s stance on bilateral trade agreement as opposed to multilateral ones. Key to this economic relationship will be $250 billion in new deals between U.S. companies and Chinese firms, the two leaders announced before reporters at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People on Thursday.
There, United States President Donald Trump and Chinese President XI Jin ping applauded as business leaders between the two nations signed trade deals on electronics, aircraft and soybeans among other goods. Business leaders from the U.S. included representatives from Boeing, Ford and Goldman Sachs.
“China and U.S. are the two largest economies and big engines of global growth,” Xi remarked. “We need to strengthen cooperation, pursue stable and balanced economic and trade relations.”
Many Chinese believe that Trump’s prowess and entrepreneurship ‘skills’ to be highly desirable traits. Interestingly, Sino — American relationships haven’t been better despite Trump’s rhetorical condemnation of China “Devaluing the Yuan to improve exports artificially”. Today, Trump China says, “Xi Jin Ping is a very special man” and their political intimacy puts even Nixon & Mao’s ‘Ping Pong Diplomacy’ to shame.
Has China won?
It would definitely seem to be China’s moment. The economy continues to grow at sustainable rates and a new leadership politburo has consolidated sufficient power to maintain stability. The party also voted to include Xi’s name and “Xi Jinping Thought” into the Constitution, which may ensure his legacy lives on even after he steps down.Never since Mao has any leader’s political theorems and legacy been immortalised into the Chinese constitution. Even Deng Xiao Ping’s ideologies were embedded posthumously. Now Xi plans to fill up the strategic vacuum left vacant by the US, who is trifled with domestic issues that it simply remains indifferent towards multilateral trade agreements and global leadership. With a stable political center and core, the CCP now has the resources and influence to endeavour several industrial, scientific and technological innovations.
Tesla’s $ 5 billion“gigafactory” in Nevada (a unit for measuring energy storage) producing clean energy in the form of lithium ion batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage is an impressive feat of industry. It will soon be dwarfed by China. Entrepreneurs are increasingly looking to China to fund battery research projects, with China expected to capture 65% of the battery market by 2021 according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 4.8 million number of electric vehicle charging stations is expected to operate in China by 2020, up from 156,000 this year. Also, 121 GWh is the projected annual capacity of China’s production of lithium ion batteries by 2020, enough to outfit more than 4 million electric vehicles. After all, China seems to have all the cash in the world. Perhaps this form of investment is less controversial as pumping up property prices in many Western countries whilst still being able to benefit the world via decreased carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels?
Then there’s the South China Sea to contend with. The South China Sea has roughly three trillion dollars worth of global trade passing through every single year, which means having the rights to these waters means having access to shipping lanes, fishing, oil and gas.
China and its neighbors, including Vietnam, Brunei, and the Philippines, have long vied for dominance over the strategic waterway, but Beijing has taken the most aggressive stance in furthering its expansionist ambitions, building artificial islands and constructing military installments.
With Trump preoccupied in neutralising the North Korean threat, possibly at the cost of reduced diplomatic relationships with Taiwan; there is little to stop Xi from annexing water territories after building artificial islands near contested petroleum reserves. With your only formidable military rival now as your new best friend, there’s no better moment for Xi to take advantage of this strategic move. Curiously, ‘strongman’ President Rodrigo Duterte’s of the Philippines has adopted a relatively passive approach despite vowing to take a ‘tougher stance’ during the APEC in Vietnam. As of this writing, China’s policy on the South China Sea remains undeterred.
If you believe the media hype and ‘click bait’ of political You Tubers, The Chinese regime has also laid out a detailed, comprehensive plan to invade Taiwan by the year 2020 according to Ian Easton’s book ‘The Chinese Invasion Threat’ — Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia.
I personally do not believe that the CCP will be foolish enough to undertake such an invasion. The 1979 ‘Taiwan Relations Act’ compells the US to come to Taiwan’s aid should it be invaded by the CCP. Considering how egotistical Trump is, to dishonour such a treaty would be a terrible display of weakness. However, it cannot be dismissed that Xi might be leveraging off his current “close relationship” with the US whilst being fully aware of the possibility of Taiwan acting as a “bargaining chip” in relation to solving the North Korean threat.
Ideally, Xi would want Trump to denounce its recognition of Taiwan’s legitimacy as the price for his support against North Korea. Some fear that U.S.-Taiwan relations would be downgraded in exchange for a stronger Chinese stance against North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Katherine Chang, the minister for mainland affairs, tells the Washington Post that Taiwan could become a “bargaining chip” in such a case.
Taiwan was not mentioned by either Trump or Xi during a joint news conference following their meeting in Beijing.
It is important to know that a prevailing factor that prevented China’s invasion of Taiwan in 1950 was their support of North Korea during the Korean War. With no impeding military threats in the region, the possibility of Xi invading Taiwan shouldn’t be completely dismissed.
Part of China’s recent success can be attributed to effectively planned decisions made by China’s “democratic dictatorship”. What if we all just concede power to an effective group of leaders at the cost of some personal liberties? Perhaps it’s a worthy price to pay?
So to answer the zillion dollar question, has China won? Definitely in the short term and in the near future, it would appear that China’s supremacy is resolute. But what of China’s long term grand political strategy? Are China’s policies interpreted in the global political arena to be too aggressive? Can the dragon be tamed? As with every success story, we only see the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what faulty cracks lie dormant in the foundations of the Chinese miracle?
Cracks in the iceberg? The things Xi doesn’t want you to hear…
Economic growth has slowed according to what has been disclosed, one can only speculate as to the what the real figures of economic growth are. Some of its current growth stems from government subsidies of state-owned enterprises that would otherwise likely fail. China’s debt is surging towards dangerous levels, with its desperate efforts to make employment less dependent on access to foreign markets is proving difficult. There have been many “ghost towns” of abandoned projects.
Despite the hype surrounding Ali Baba’s IPO (the largest one in history); shares have tumbled nearly 30 percent since launching the world’s largest initial public offering on September 19 2014, shaving off nearly $140 billion from the company’s market value since November’s peak, according to Reuters.
OBOR (One Belt One Road) parallels closely grand CCP political initiatives that would put Mao’s ‘5 year plans’ and ‘Great Leaps Forward’ to shame. It is a highly ambitious project that aims to reintroduce the “Silk Road” with a series of sophisticated railway infrastructure networks, with China being the economic center of it all. Highly flexible and full of promise, opaque in implementation plan, and vague in concrete measures of projects the OBOR’s unique features are well understood and practiced by Chinese political elites myopically, yet frustrate foreign partners both at the governmental level and in entrepreneurial communities outside China.
It is important for the Chinese leadership to not become too Sino-obsessed, and to retain a keen interest in what others want, expect, or fear from their interactions with China under the OBOR framework. Like many other issues in China’s foreign affairs it should not be forgotten that OBOR, whilst clearly dependent on Chinese objectives and actions, isn’t mutually exclusive and cannot be implemented in a manner that disregards the socio and political contexts of its neighbouring countries. Some of the African countries the OBOR network is proposed to encompass are highly unstable, and the costs of implementing such infrastructure may well outweigh the benefits.
Close scrutiny of the official OBOR document published in 2015 reveals it to be largely an effort to advertise the OBOR initiative. It suggests the proposed achievements of the initiative at the economic and strategic level, rather than referring any concrete methodology to achieve them. The document does not offer any time frame or deadline, and more importantly, does not suggest any business model to make the initiative work. Sooner or later, the Chinese government must have concrete answers to fill in those conspicuous omissions if OBOR is going to be a success.
A gripping challenge to any future Chinese leadership will be how to develop a global foreign policy that caters to both domestic and international interests. China has had a terrible track record of morphing great products, business ideas and to an extent media entertainment to cater exclusively to a Chinese market. Whether it’s a misguided measure of nationalism or a form of soft power to preserve the cultural sanctity of China’s populace, time will tell whether China learns from its dark mistakes of its “Closed door policy”. Or perhaps now they truly are capable of reviving the age old mentality that China is the “Center of the world”. Zhong Guo, when directly translated does mean the “middle kingdom” after all.
Prior to the 19th CCP Congress, China saw its own version of “Operation Valkyrie”. Two generals in China’s top military body planned to oust Chinese leader Xi Jinping in a military coup, according to a Hong Kong media report Sept. 27. The two, former Chief of Joint Staff Fang Fenghui and former Political Work Department director Zhang Yang, were allegedly dissatisfied with Xi’s military reforms.
Perhaps the CCP is desperately clinging on to nostalgic economic success stories and could soon run out of media aces to play? Whilst the swift decision making merits of an authoritarian regime cannot be denied, its long term sustainability is food for ardent and tenacious debate.
Democracy is not a finite concept, it is constantly evolving and learning from its mistakes the same way a creative is never fully satisfied with his or her creation. Democracy is experimental, and is ultimately a human construct, and like all things human; it has tremendous potential to be utilised for good as does it possess the equal power to be exploited.
Perhaps revolution is a necessary element of what defines humanity, a conduit that only precipitates the formation of more effective forms of government. Will we remove dictators only to replace them with new ones? No matter how violent, perhaps our humanity acts like a double edged sword where one has to “suffer” before one can learn “gratitude”? It is a symbiotic relationship, no matter how polarising and dichotomous; how the fates of democracy and dictatorships ironically complement each other — two sides of the same coin, the ying to each other’s yang?
Whilst it is turbulently dangerous for political upheaval to flourish in the name of democracy, It is even more dangerous if the capacity to “rebel” and “express freely” is removed altogether.
China’s heavy censorship resulting in the removal of its people’s ability to express must be monitored with caution if it is to ascend to a formidable and credible world leader.
China may not need democracy for now, but if it doesn’t revise its form of government, who knows how long the “Mandate of heaven” will bless China’s new long march for the future.