Why Chinese Democracy is Better than Western Democracy According to Tsinghua Prof. Yan Yilong
"Let the light of Chinese democracy shine even brighter, so that China can ... contribute to the building of a better, higher quality [form of] democracy for humanity in the 21st century."
Dear Everyone,
Democracy is yet another field in which Beijing is competing with Washington and, more generally, with the West. China’s aim may not be to convince others to adopt its political system per se, but it certainly appears intent on demonstrating that Chinese “democracy” is superior to what the West has to offer.
This was once again evident at an event organised by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in March, just days before U.S. President Joe Biden co-hosted his second virtual “Summit for Democracy” alongside the governments of Costa Rica, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea and Zambia. The Beijing-based event, entitled “The Second International Forum on Democracy: Shared Human Values”, was attended by Li Shulei (李书磊), a politburo member and the current head of China’s Central Propaganda Department, and featured keynote speeches by a number of Chinese and foreign politicians and academics. Tsinghua University’s Yan Yilong (鄢一龙 ) was one of those taking part in this forum. His address is the focus of today’s post.
A big thank you to Daniel Crain for his parsing and translation of Yan’s speech.
SUMMARY
Although the West will not admit it, China’s “whole-process people's democracy” is not only true democracy at play, but is also a more functional type of democracy than that practised in Western countries.
Chinese democracy outclasses Western democratic electoral systems because of the complex processes it has developed which have allowed it “to move closer towards ‘the people being the masters of their own house’.” Unlike in China, procedural rather than substantive democracy best defines what is now practised in the West.
Chinese democracy recognises the existence of “the people” in its holistic sense. Only by doing so can one ensure the people’s “overall, long-term and fundamental interests”.
Chinese democracy belongs to the majority, not to a minority as in the West. Unlike in America, China is not “owned by the 1%, governed by the 1% and for the benefit of the 1%”. Low voter turnout in election-based political systems is another reason why, unlike in China, electoral democracies are not able to represent the people as a whole.
Western elections have become a “talent show”, where people vote for the best performer rather than for those who are best suited to govern.
The general population does not have the specialist knowledge nor the long-term perspective required to elect competent representatives who have their nation’s best interests at heart.
Chinese leaders are “tested through practice, not through votes”. Democracy in China thus ensures that “political amateurs with no experience or qualifications” cannot become its leaders.
Unlike in the West, China’s political system allows democracy to be practised “at both the input and output levels.” It is a system in which people are able to “participate fully” and one in which officials serve the people and actually get things done.
Western democracy encourages competition, confrontation and the fragmentation of interests, which leads to constant political bickering and deadlocks. Chinese democracy, in contrast, is a “consensus-finding process” that ensures that policymaking is always moving forwards with the country’s core objectives firmly in sight.
Yan concludes: “Let the flower of democracy in China bloom even more colourfully, let the light of Chinese democracy shine even brighter, so that China can help mankind transcend its narrow, superficial and inferior view of democracy and contribute to the building of a better, higher quality [form of] democracy for humanity in the 21st century.”
CHINA AND THE WEST HAVE PROVIDED DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO THESE SIX QUESTIONS ON ‘DEMOCRACY’
Yan Yilong (鄢一龙 )
March 2023
“Democracy is the common pursuit of all humanity. As such, [it holds] a rightful significance in modern politics. Modern democracy does not adhere to a single standard. It is not a single unique flower. It takes multiple forms, [like] a hundred blooming flowers competing for attention [百花争艳]. The West has representative democracies centred on competitive elections, while China has a whole-process people's democracy. These two types of democracy provide different answers to the [following] six questions on democracy.”
What is Democracy?
“The first question is: what is democracy? [Should we emphasise] its outward appearance [表相] or its substance [本体]? Aristotle once said that when one is trapped in a problem, it is as if one were bound by a rope and unable to move. In fact, a person trapped in narrow ideas can similarly be as unable to move as if they had been tied up with a rope. On the question of how to view democracy, what constrains the perception of many people in the world today is the view that representative democracy, centred on competitive elections, is the only form [表相] and only standard of modern democracy, when in fact it is but one of democracy’s [many possible] appearances [表相].”
“To understand what democracy is, we can use a concept from traditional Chinese philosophy —‘tixiangyong’ [体相用]: substance [本体], appearance [表相] and function [用途] [Note: Yan is referring to an idea found in the Confucian Analects and in Buddhist thought]. For example, the substance [本体] of a car implies that it must be a means of transport with a propulsion unit, a directional unit etc. At the same time, it comes in various shapes and sizes [表相], with different brand names and engine sizes. Its function [用途] is that it can carry people or goods, etc.”
“‘Tixiangyong [体相用]’ also applies to democracy. In terms of the substance [本体] of democracy, we have to go back to the original meaning of democracy, which is that the people are the masters of their own house [人民当家作主]. In other words, power should be in the hands of the people and, at the same time, should serve the people. The appearance [表相] of democracy refers to its various manifestations: democracy by lottery [i.e. sortition], democracy by election, democracy by consultation, direct democracy, indirect democracy and so on. In terms of its function [用途], democracy can be applied in different ways and is implemented by countries in order to improve the way they are governed.”
“Modern Western-style democracy is just one of the appearances [表相] that democracy can take on. Judging by democracy's historical development, it [i.e. Western-style democracy] has departed far from its original meaning [本意] and substance [本体]. The Western concept of democracy has degenerated from ‘direct democracy [直接民主]’, to substantive democracy [实质民主], and finally to procedural democracy [程序民主]. Meanwhile, since the 1980s, there has been what the recently deceased Taiwanese political scientist Chu Yunhan labelled the problem of democratic deterioration [民主劣质化问题]. To see this narrow, superficial and inferior form of democracy as a beacon of democracy [民主灯塔] is like viewing a rattling old car [老爷车] that is in disrepair as the benchmark for the modern car, while regarding all other makes and models as not [even real] cars.”
“China’s ‘whole-process people's democracy’ [全过程人民民主] has two qualifiers. The first one is ‘people’, which refers to the substance [本体] of democracy. ‘People’s democracy’ appears to be a tautology [同意反复]. In [the word] democracy, [the root demos] already signifies the people’ [人民], so why do we add the word ‘people’s’ [to people’s democracy] as a qualifier? It is precisely this qualifier that establishes the ontological [本体属性] nature of democracy: [it is something] which belongs to the people, to the majority, not to the minority. We [in China] guarantee this in our state system [国体], in our political system, and in the mechanisms we use to run our democracy [民主运行机制].”
“The second qualifier is ‘whole-process.’ Whole-process is defined based on the levels of appearance [相] and function [用]. Whole-process people’s democracy is a kind of complete chain consisting of multiple channels [多渠道], multiple levels [多层] and multiple settings [多场景]. Democratic [features] are implemented throughout this complete chain — from selecting and employing people, to decision-making, to management, to supervision. ‘Multi-channel’ refers to the Party's mass line [群众路线], representation in the National People’s Congress [NPC], democratic decision-making in government, democratic management, consultation via the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference [CPPCC] and various other channels. ‘Multi-level’ refers to the central government level, local government level, grassroots democracy [基层民主], and so on. [Democracy] also comes in different forms [形式], elections being just one of these. Consultation, deliberation and selection [of talents] are all forms of democracy. ‘Multi-setting’ means applying [democracy] to different settings. There are major settings such as national-level governance and decision-making. There are also smaller-scale settings such as community governance, mediation of civil disputes and rural poverty alleviation [乡村扶贫].”
“Why does whole-process people's democracy [全过程人民民主] seem so much more complex than competitive elections? This is because all [democratic] methods, forms and channels have their own limitations. [Employing] so many forms and methods maximises [our ability] to move closer towards ‘the people being the masters of their own house [人民当家作主]’ – the substance [本体] [of democracy].”
Who Does Democracy Belong to?
“The second question is: who does democracy belong to? Is it democracy for the majority or for the minority? Since Athens, the Western view of democracy has been that democracy does not belong to the majority. According to estimates, [Athenian] citizens [i.e. those who could vote], were probably only about one tenth of the total population. Women, foreigners and slaves were not considered citizens. In modern times, the push for universal suffrage in the West has been a long process. Although most countries today have achieved universal suffrage, this does not mean that democracy belongs to the majority: the people are essentially nothing more than voters. As [Giovanni] Sartori argues, from the perspective of modern Western democracy, the people are just specific individuals [who form] a majority [either] according to the principle of an absolute majority [绝大多数原则] or according to the principle of a limited majority [有限多数原则].”
“At the same time, one of the manifestations of Western democracy’s deterioration is declining voter turnout. Voter participation has been declining in presidential, parliamentary, and other types of elections. Statistics show that in 77 countries where a majority system was being used in the 1990s, voter turnout was only 60.4%. According to the simple majority-rule principle, a candidate can [therefore] be elected with just over 30% of the vote. This means that being elected does not equate to actually representing the [the will of] majority.”
“More importantly, although the people have the right to universal suffrage, voters are not familiar with the politicians themselves, but only with their personas as packaged by the media. [Furthermore,] voters have very little systematic understanding of specialist public policies, as they are more concerned with their [own] short-term interests. Such factors make it difficult for voters to make rational decisions. Since the general public has little say in public policy, the groups benefiting most from it remain a minority. That is why Joseph Stiglitz stated that America today is no longer owned by the people, governed by the people and for the benefit of the people. It is owned [he says] by the 1%, governed by the 1% and for the benefit of the 1%.”
“‘Whole-process people's democracy’ [全过程人民民主] is a democracy that belongs to all the people. At the same time, the [word] ‘people [人民]’ contains several important meanings:”
“First, [the concept of ‘the people’ points to] the individual. When we talk about the development of people's livelihoods, solving people's urgent needs and worries and guaranteeing people's right to vote, we are referring to ‘the people’ in the sense of individuals.”
“Second, [the concept of ‘the people’ points to] the vast majority of people [绝大多数人]. When we talk about this concept, we are always referring to this vast majority and we always have to be on the side of this majority. As the concept of ‘the people,’ has evolved, this category has come to include almost everyone. In legal interpretations, only counter-revolutionaries [反革命] and criminal offenders have been excluded from this category.”
“Third, [the concept of ‘the people’ points to] the people as a whole [整体意义]. Western-style democracy does not recognise ‘the people’ in a holistic sense. However, it is only when we recognise the existence of the people as a whole that we can ensure their overall, long-term and fundamental interests. High-speed rail is one such example. China and the United States had the dream of high-speed rail at about the same time. In 2011, President Obama ambitiously proposed that its coverage should reach 80% of the population. Today, the US only has a few hundred kilometres of high-speed rail, while China has built 42,000 kilometres. This is a case where the interests of the people as a whole [人民整体] are reflected effectively. If [China] were like the US [and had to deal with the] fragmented interests of different political parties, different states, different businesses, different interest groups and different individuals, thereby disregarding the interests [of the people] as a whole, it would be very difficult to be effective in the development of public infrastructure [projects] that have highly [positive] externalities and [thus] reflect the interests of all.”
“Fourth, [the concept of ‘the people’ points to] the middle and lower classes. This is related to the Communist Party of China’s primary purpose, whose core members [基本群众] are the working and peasant classes. [As such, the CPC’s] policies are tilted towards taking care of the lower and middle classes. We have just accomplished an impressive feat in the history of human poverty reduction by lifting nearly 100 million rural people out of poverty within a decade, [thereby] achieving an overall eradication of poverty among our rural population. Our next step is to continue to promote unremittingly common prosperity [共同富裕].”
Choosing Competent Leaders
“The third question is whether democracy chooses talents who are good at governing [治国人才] or talents who are good at putting on a show [作秀人才]? Western-style democracy, in which the leader of a country is elected primarily through competitive elections, poses the problem that certain businessmen, actors and other political amateurs with no experience or qualifications can become president. This is inconsistent with the basic logic of modern-day professional development. Almost all modern professions require a step-by-step process of advancement based on qualifications, competence, and performance. And yet, [Western-style democracy] assumes that a job of the utmost importance like the presidency can be achieved in one single step [一步登天] without climbing up the career ladder.”
“Another hypothesis, of course, is that the best people can be selected through the election process. However, the problem remains that those who are good at running for office may not be good at governing the country. There is a saying in the United States that politicians ‘campaign in poetry, but they govern in prose’. However, these two [skills] are not compatible. In these times where attention is king, one of the manifestations of democracy’s deterioration is that elections have become [like] a talent show; electoral competence has become the ability to perform in such a show [选举能力变成选秀能力]. Being good at raising money, setting issues, putting on a show, stirring up emotions and attracting attention is not the same as being good at governing a country.”
“Another indicator of democracy’s deterioration is the continued prevalence of party spoils [政党分赃] and rewards in politics [酬庸政治]. In the past, the US’s competitive electoral system had a party spoils system [政党分赃制]. Although this problem was subsequently addressed through various reforms of its civil service, in reality a [successful] election today still creates such spoils [战利品] that the winner then has the right to distribute. The US President has the authority to appoint around 7,000 government officials, of which only around 500 require the Senate’s approval. Overall, the appointment process is quite arbitrary. One can reward one's friends, relatives or those who helped out during the election process. Trump frequently alerted officials on Twitter that they were fired. But, in fact, other presidents have also done the same thing. It is just that Trump brought this [practice] into the open.”
“‘The prime minister must first be a provincial official and renowned generals must rise up the ranks [宰相必起于州部，猛将必发于卒伍]’ [Note: Yan is quoting, Han Feizi, the 3rd century BC Warring States Period Legalist. The quote has been used on a number of occasions by Xi Jinping]. Officials in China’s ‘whole-process people's democracy’ are mainly chosen through competitive selection [竞争性选拔]. In our country, many of our provinces have populations in the tens of millions or hundreds of millions, equivalent in size to the population of the world’s biggest countries. Ruling a province is thus equivalent to ruling a country. Before [being able] to join the Politburo Standing Committee, one has to familiarise oneself with local conditions first, followed by [China’s] national conditions. President Xi Jinping governed a village for 6 years, a county for 3 years, three cities for 11 years and three provinces for another 11 years. He was also trained in the party system, the administrative system, the National People's Congress system and the military system, then moved on to the central government where he gained [an extra] five years of experience before finally becoming the country's top leader.”
“[China’s] competitive selection system ensures that government officials have a wealth of practical experience. More importantly, [they] are tested through practice, not through votes. [They must go through] multiple layers of practice, testing, and selection before [they can] become leaders of our country. China's competitive selection system is a way of picking a team of capable and professional national administrators.”
Combining the Input with the Output
“The fourth question is: is democracy a one-way or two-way street? Political democracy is essentially a discussion on the relationship between the people and their government. Democracy should be reflected both in the inputs of public opinion and in the outputs of government, which is at the service of the people. Western democracy, whether Athenian, classical or modern procedural democracy, emphasises the input side of democracy. [This is where] democracy allows the people to draw lots (i.e. sortition), vote and participate. Whether or not the government actually does things for the common people is outside the scope of [Western] democratic theory. This is due to [its emphasis on] the polity in its line of thought. Otherwise, it would not be able to distinguish democracy adequately from monarchy or aristocracy. In terms of democratic practice, this one-sided way of thinking about democracy can lead to an enormous error in our search for democracy. It allows for the election of a government that may completely deviate from the will of the people or simply that does not do anything substantial for them.”
“Chinese style democracy is a [type of] democracy that combines the input side with the output side. A very important aspect of traditional Chinese political philosophy is its people-centredness, the idea that government policies must be for the benefit of the people. In effect, this means understanding democracy from the output side. Today, the Communist Party of China’s philosophy of democracy comes up from the masses and goes back out to the masses [从群众中来到群众中去]. It comes from the people [来自人民], depends on the people [依靠人民] and is for the people [为了人民]. It means practising democracy at both the input and output levels. While emphasising that the people participate fully, it also stresses that government officials take the initiative in serving the people and doing things for them. For example, during the process of [rural] poverty reduction, we have seen countless party cadres going to live with the people in their villages and working with them to find solutions to their real-life problems. This is democracy in its most realistic form.”
Procedural vs Substantive Democracy
“The fifth question is: is democracy procedural or substantive? The classical theorists of Western democracy once put forward the theory of substantive democracy [实质民主]. However, today Western democracy is what Schumpeter called ‘modern procedural democracy [现代程序民主]’, where politicians compete for popular consent to rule through a specific electoral process. But even if this process is perfectly legal, it may result in a situation that is substantively pointless or even at odds [with its original aim]. For example, one indicator of the poor quality of American democracy is that the people have almost no influence on policy and that competitive elections are little more than a psychological placebo [心理上的安慰剂]. Another indicator is the prevalence of short-term and superficial politics, where politicians focus on short-term issues and the democratic system fails to address long-term, fundamental problems, such as poor infrastructure, massive income and wealth inequality, growing levels of government debt, shootings, racial conflict and other problems that limit America's long-term development.”
“Chinese democracy is precisely the unification of procedural and substantive democracy, with procedural democracy placed in service of substantive democracy. The form in which popular sovereignty is realised is not through an empty social contract [虚拟的社会契约] that transforms power from a divine mandate [神授] to the people's will [人民授予], but through an intermediary that acts as a stand-in for the people — the Communist Party of China. The CPC has become the highest form of organisation of the Chinese people and the highest expression of their will. Self-rule by the people through the intermediary of a stand-in [i.e. the party] is based on a subject-object dialectic relationship [主客辩证关系] between the party and the people. The two are both subject and object of the other. First of all, the people are the masters of the house [主人翁], while the party is the instrument for realising the people's will [人民意志的工具]. The party's policies must [therefore] come from the people and reflect the will and ideas of the people.”
“Next, the Party is the highest form of political leadership in China. It is the backbone of the people, while the people are its followers. The dialectical relationship between the people and the Party is the essence of China’s people's democracy. The realisation of popular sovereignty [in China] lies precisely in this constant and close interaction between the people and the Party. Chinese style democracy is a closed tripartite cycle of public opinion [民意], democracy [民主] and the people's livelihood [民生]. It is similar to the process of making [Chinese] hot pot. Public opinion is like the various condiments thrown into the hot pot. The democratic process is the process of cooking the hot pot. And finally, since democracy must solve the problems associated with people’s livelihoods [民生问题], this hot pot must be brought out and served for everyone to enjoy. This is true democracy. Major policies in China, including [those from] the recently-concluded two sessions, comprise a large number of issues relating to people's livelihoods. And when we go out to various places to conduct research and investigate, we see that every year the government has a list of practical matters relating to people's livelihoods that needs to be dealt with.”
Stoking Divisions vs Consensus-building
“The sixth question is: does democracy seek to build consensus or stoke divisions? Western-style democracy was originally a mechanism to find a compromise [between divergent] interests and ideas. Competitive elections provided a mechanism for temporary compromise between different competing factions. At the same time, many coordination mechanisms were put in place, based on a system of the separation of powers and of checks and balances. However, one manifestation of the deterioration of [Western] democracy that we have observed in recent years has been the increasing difficulty for it to bridge such divides [弥合分裂]. The first indicator of this is the prevalence of veto politics, where decision-making processes are riddled with veto points and [politicians] veto simply for the sake of vetoing, engage in fruitless discussions, make decisions without implementing them, argue endlessly over a single policy issue, and often find themselves stuck in a political deadlock.”
“The second indicator of this is the polarisation of party ideologies. Previously, it was thought that the two-party system would converge towards the centre and would strive to win over median voters. But political developments in the US in recent years have shown that polarising ideological struggles and conflicts between the two parties are becoming increasingly pronounced.”
“The third indicator is the problem of policy flip-flopping [政策翻烧饼] when different political parties take power. As [George] Washington pointed out in his day, party politics is merely the temporary domination of one faction over another. It is a dictatorship taken in turns [轮流的专政]. Today, this problem is even more pronounced. Change in political parties [at the top] has resulted in policies constantly shifting back and forth between left and right. When George Bush Jr. pursued his ABC (anything but Clinton) policy, this meant doing anything but what Bill Clinton had been doing. After Trump [took office], he completely reversed Obama’s policies. Biden has [likewise] reversed most of Trump's policies.”
“Chinese democratic politics is a consensus-finding process. Although China’s 1.4 billion people have diverse interests and ideas, [they are] unanimous about the general direction of pursuing national rejuvenation and people's happiness. The relationship between the Communist Party of China and [China’s] democratic parties is not a competitive or confrontational one. Rather, it is a collaborative relationship, in which different actors take part and provide their opinions in the policy-making process, but do not act as veto players. The goal is not to restrain, but to make policies better. Through democratic discussions and consultations, different groups [seek to] find the greatest common divisor and sketch out concentric circles [同心圆]. A change of leadership is not about flip-flopping [翻烧饼], but about the passing of a relay baton [接力棒]. One after the other, successive governments continue to run forward and get things done. This has enabled us to persist in advancing the goal of socialist modernisation throughout our 100-year history.”
Conclusion
“‘A single flower does not make spring, while one hundred flowers in full bloom bring spring to the garden [一花独放不是春，百花齐放春满园].’ (Note: Xi Jinping has used this Ming Dynasty aphorism in several of his speeches.) In [humanity’s] search for democracy, different nations and ethnic groups will provide their own answers. They do not need to copy the so-called standard answer from the West. By comparing [democratic systems] with one another, [we] are certainly not trying to show that China’s whole-process people's democracy is perfect. Chinese-style democracy still faces numerous challenges and has many shortcomings. However, we must start by strengthening our confidence in our system. As Marx said in his day, ‘Here is the rose, here dance!’. At the same time, we must continuously advance the construction of [our] whole-process people’s democracy. We must unceasingly raise our level of democracy and its quality. Let the flower of democracy in China bloom even more colourfully, let the light of Chinese democracy shine even brighter, so that China can help mankind transcend its narrow, superficial and inferior view of democracy and contribute to the building of a better, higher quality [form of] democracy for humanity in the 21st century.”
 | A guest post by
|