Category Archives: Politics in China

The documentary we watched in class, “Please Vote for Me” was funny but insightful look in how democracy is viewed in China. First off was the complete lack of knowledge of what democracy is among the grade schoolers, which is always strange to hear from an American perspective. Also strange was the similarities between many of the Chinese traditions of synchronized ‘pledges of allegiances we saw and our pledges here in America, at least in public schools. Even stranger however was the response from one of the parents when a student asked what democracy was. The exact quote I don’t remember, but the general gist of it was ‘When your voice is heard and matters’ which struck me as odd coming from a Chinese man on camera and teaching his child, given we tend to think of Chinese as less then friends on the international stage, we do not often think of their people being sympathetic to our values.

All in all, I can see this documentary being very popular in China, showing arguably the worst aspects of democracy on display. The turn to demagoguery, the phony promises and the needless pandering and lies… In the end it’s the kid that handed out cookies that won despite the great effort the other two went through to win. As per the question in at the end as whether China is ready for democratization, I don’t think the video is a good means of gauging that, as democracy is at its core an uncontrollable and easily self-destructive ideology. Democratization is a process and has to be built from the top down in the elite as well as the bottom up, I believe it is possible, but like anywhere else (to include the west) it will need decades to come about and thrive if it would ever.

HR: https://www.ft.com/content/0f534aa4-4549-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996

The lack of interest in the west towards Africa has always confused me, the continent is so huge and has suffered so much and could easily become an economic powerhouse akin to East Asia in the coming decades. Who in the IR sphere was predicting that the 21^st century would be the Chinese Century and that China’s command economy would overtake the United States’ as the most powerful on Earth? With Chinese eyes and money rapidly turning towards Africa, the US and Europe should seriously reconsider whether they want to let this potential powerhouse fall by the way side and become China’s first sphere of influence.

The geopolitical aspect of the move makes perfect sense, looking at one particular state China is dumping infrastructure dollars into, Ethiopia, offers no real strategic resources but is located right by the Red Sea, the Suez Canal and the oil rich Middle East with geographical positioning like that I find the Chinese narrative of 3^rd world solidarity very unsatisfactory. Even in the language used by Chinese themselves: “To have 54 African [nations as] friends is very important for China,” says Jing Gu, director of the Centre for Rising Powers and Global Development” its very clear China wants to Africa as its own international developmental playground and resource bank. And for Africans, this is welcome, as the article says, China offers a choice away from the failing policies of ‘carrot and stick’ aid from the West and overbearing charity.

The biggest downside is the incredible amount of debt African nations are building to China, the relationship is in no way equal and many African intellectuals are beginning to piece that together. Outside of France’s Emmanuel Macron of France, the west’s postion to Africa is that the nations are ‘shit holes’ and American investments remain dwarfed by Chinese. How the Chinese involvement in Africa plays out remains to be seen as Africa develops across the board, however Africa’s growth will increase going into the 21^st century, if the west wants the profits of that growth and influence they will gain going to China, so be it.

HR: Baogang He reading assignment

I feel that to often we in America to often look at China as a singular entity, more of a monolith or star trek style ‘Borg’ then a collection of more than 1.5 billion individuals spread out across an area roughly the size of the US. Even I personally am guilty of this, and often find myself having to remind myself China is a federal entity with probably even greater authority delegated down the chain then the United States. Not one singular government can hope to enforce direct rule across that many people in that big of an area.

Keeping this in mind, He’s writing on deliberative democracy in rural China piqued my interest. Most of these areas are neigh-impossible for the state government to reach and often to small to be of any tangible interest to the state government; many of the issues facing the villagers as well (namely property rights, halting corruption and avoiding social conflict) are nearly identical to the driving issues John Locke wrote about in his Treatsies of Government, the bedrock of western liberal thought, so to see it appear naturally in China is interesting.

He’s findings show (as he states) “contained some practices, ideas and principles of deliberative democracy, such as mutual respect, participation, public deliberation, equality of opportunity, and empowerment in terms of the impact on policy making.” Homegrown small-scale democracy seems to be a good way of laying a groundwork of a more pure democratic thought in China and in places unlikely for it to attract to much attention, possibly serving as a means of checking growing authoritarian tendencies in Beijing. The institutions described by He, involving outside mediators, efforts to curb the ‘cadre’ and establish a sense of ‘equality under the law’ are not ideas and phrases one often hears when reading or discussing Chinese politics and internal affairs.

HR: Mao’s Bloody Revolution

2018 came like all years before it with parties and celebrations sweeping the globe as the clock struck midnight in time zone after time zone, 2018 however brought with it sets of geopolitical crossroads not seen since the turn of the last century. American power and influence, which has since the end of WW2 and especially since the close of the Cold War been the final say in all global matters, is slowly being eroded by poor foreign policy choices since the turning of the 21^st century. The war on Terror obviously being the biggest example of this, with 20-year multitrillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the global deployment of troops and an overarching influence towards non-consequential and an almost intentional ignorance towards the rise of various regional powers. This is to say nothing of self-inflicted wounds like the election of Donald Trump who has openly questioned and challenged key American economic and strategic interests like NATO, free trade and has shown the world the bitter internal divide gripping the global hegemon.

The global reaction to this increasingly multipolar world is as interesting as it is terrifying, as the old powers of Europe debate whether to unify their efforts or turn inwards, Putin’s Russia continues to be able to influence and hit well above its weight class and even smaller powers having much more say in global affairs, Canada taking the head of TPP negotiations being one of the better examples of such. The biggest and most talked about up and coming powerhouse is China, who since the 70s and 80s has been maturing into what will quickly become the largest economy on the planet despite its rocky beginning.

In the documentary we watched in class, Mao’s Bloody Revolution, detailed the colossal and expensive failures that were the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. With millions of lives lost and an unknowable (but obviously disgustingly high) amount of economic/intellectual potential, its shocking that within a few decades of Mao’s death China would be predicted to overtake the United States in economic might and now, potentially even (while a stretch in the short term) global leadership. After lecture on the January 29, and the writings of Chong and Wang, I would attribute China’s incredible rise to power with the successful policies and reforms instituted by primarily, Mao’s and Richard Nixon’s decision to open China up for trade and the economic/political reforms of Deng Xiaoping.

The decision to reengage with the west shows an interesting turn in Chinese nationalism of which Mao was most definitely a product of. Chong describes this nationalism as being unique amongst other nations as Chinese nationalism focuses around ‘righting the wrongs’ of the century of humiliation, dealt out by the hands of western powers like the United States, Germany, England, France and Portugal and powers aspiring to western ideals of imperialism like Japan. To quote directly Chong describes a central tenant to Chinese identity was that “foreign actors consistently and unequivocally victimized China” and thus to reopen relations with the US, is an interesting move but has undoubtedly prevented the colossal failures of the 1960s to follow China into the later years of the 20^th century.

Most notable is the rise of Deng Xiaoping and his “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” which while any bleeding heart, true leftist would decry as selling out the country, has undoubtedly been one of the most successful national policies in the past several decades. His decentralizing reforms were also large successes, described by Wang as moving from local government to businesses and to society at large, laid the seeds of growth in what should have been a stagnant and slowly crumbling communist nightmare like the Soviet Union. Deng’s ever-increasing push towards stability and development is undoubtedly the key to China’s success story. Back to the modern day, Xi Jinping, the current leader of China continues on Deng’s example of pushing for long term stability and carefully building and growing China as a regional power, exemplified by his building of the Chinese military and activity in Korea/South China Sea and as an international power by engaging in trade deals and economic development across the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

HR: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/world/asia/china-xi-jinping-authoritarianism.html

https://www.cfr.org/blog/china-likely-enter-another-long-period-severe-dictatorship

Yu (2014) and Vogel readings

Last week came potentially the biggest singular shakeup in the geopolitical landscape perhaps since 9/11 and only continues to reaffirm that a slow-approaching death may be looming on the liberal democratic order that has prevailed since the end of WWII. The dramatic shake up is the abolition of term limits on Xi Jinping, the head of state of the People’s Republic of China, effectively making him ruler for life if he so chooses. On the world stage this is yet another blow to the liberal world order as well as resounding roundhouse kick to the western idea that China could, given enough time, liberalize and enter the world stage as a true member and believer in the institutions that currently dominate it. China has in one day upended that notion and with it perhaps (as Xi says directly) puts the Chinese system of authoritarianism in direct competition with western democracy for other developing states to follow. The move also reaffirms the massive push of the world towards authoritarianism and nationalism; with several strategic states already embracing the ideology through their heads of state, namely Erdogan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, cracks are appearing across Europe with the rise of the right-wing in Hungary, Poland, Italy, Greece, even the UK as well as the USA with the election of Trump. The lack of outcry from the west leaves me personally scratching my head and deeply concerned with the seeming voluntary American abandonment of the global system we built and fought for.

But what does this mean for China directly? First and foremost, it gives Xi Jinping more power then has ever been enjoyed by one individual since Mao in the PRC and shows a denouncing of the legitimizing factor term limits have for a government, especially one for a country attempting to gain recognition in the global community. The sharp break from norms established by Deng and reinforced since then must certainly be a cause for alarm among Chinese elites. Vogel’s work on Deng’s leadership style, pushing for moderation and building policy with consideration of public support, seems to paint a picture of a China aiming more in the line with what it is trying to escape from in the Mao era. To sum up best, the Council on Foreign Relations described the policy switch as such: “There must be great grumbling and concern among the country’s elite and educated, especially since the same Party “proposals” that have eliminated term limits have also confirmed the establishment of the National Supervisory Commission that will make the regime more repressive and more free of legal restraints than ever, imposing what amounts to “the Inquisition with Chinese characteristics.”