Jacques:
There’s a widespread view in the West that China’s great weakness is its system of governance. Above all, the absence of a Western-style democracy is seen as depriving government of legitimacy. It’s certainly true that China lacks a Western-style democracy, but does that mean its government is shorn of legitimacy? According to Pew polls and other similar evidence, the Chinese government enjoys satisfaction ratings that are rather superior to those of their Western counterparts.
One
reason, of course, is China’s extraordinary economic performance. For more than
three decades, the economy has grown about 10 per cent a year, matched by a not
dissimilar rise in living standards. There’s a deeper reason, though. The
Chinese view government in a very different way from the West. In the latter,
government is seen in a utilitarian context, of what it can deliver for the
voter. In the Chinese tradition, government is regarded as an extension of the
family; indeed, government was modelled on the family. Far from being perceived
as a somewhat remote agency, the state is regarded as the head of the Chinese
family.
There’s
another fascinating difference. Western countries are nation-states. China, in
contrast, is primarily a civilization-state; it has only described itself as a
nation-state for little more than a century. Unlike Westerners, the Chinese see
themselves in civilizational terms – and they regard the state as the
embodiment and defender of Chinese civilization.
Finally,
in the Western tradition, the most important political value is democracy. For
the Chinese, it’s meritocracy. While we give overwhelming emphasis to the way
in which government is selected, the Chinese prioritize meritocracy, and the
competence of government, its leaders and the bureaucracy.
So, the
problem with the Western debate about the nature of Chinese governance is the
refusal to understand and engage with Chinese culture, the insistence on making
sense of China in solely Western terms. You can’t. China is profoundly different
and will remain so.
Does
this mean China won’t become more democratic? Not at all, if, by democracy, we
mean greater representivity, accountability and transparency. But it’s very
unlikely that China will become a Western-style democracy. The American
sinologist Lucian Pye observed that political cultures are fundamental in
shaping political systems. And political cultures are very diverse, as we can
see so vividly in the Chinese case.
Exactly
what forms the process of democratization in China will take is impossible to
predict. Certainly, there will be an increasingly open and vibrant media; the
boundaries of discussion will widen; new movements will arise; debates in the
Communist Party will become more accessible to society; voting will spread from
the villages to the cities. But given Chinese history, it seems likely that
state sovereignty will continue to take precedence over popular sovereignty.
Chinese governance will learn from the West while remaining profoundly different. But it won’t be a case of one-way traffic. Given China’s growing influence in the world, the West will be obliged to take a close interest in the Chinese traditions of meritocracy and competence. While the Chinese state is a remarkably competent institution, Western states leave much to be desired. Democratic they may be, but their governance remains singularly amateurish.
Chinese governance will learn from the West while remaining profoundly different. But it won’t be a case of one-way traffic. Given China’s growing influence in the world, the West will be obliged to take a close interest in the Chinese traditions of meritocracy and competence. While the Chinese state is a remarkably competent institution, Western states leave much to be desired. Democratic they may be, but their governance remains singularly amateurish.
