Is a Chinese Democracy Really in the World's Best Interest?

21^st century Neoconservatives have taken the torch from 20^th century Wilsonian liberals in support of an American lead spread of democracy across the earth. However, the frequently referenced Democratic Peace Theory has not lived up to its promises in Middle Eastern experiments such as Iraq, Iran, and Egypt.  All three of these democracies brought disastrous results in their own ways. Iran established the world’s first and only Islamic Republic, which has adopted an extreme anti Western worldview. Iraq’s new republic is fragile at best and Egypt’s short-lived republic stripped social liberalism from Egyptian society and attempted to enforce a religious tyranny of the majority by implementing strict Muslim practices as opposed to a secular rule of law. Therefore, despite the expansion of democracy around the world, Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations appears to be closer to reality than the utopian liberalism adopted by John Stewart Mill. This leads me to believe that a democratic China could prove equally destabilizing and destructive to the Asia Pacific as Egypt has to the Middle East for a few key reasons.

Reason number one. Throughout its history, China has been ruled by a strong, unified, hierarchical and well-organized bureaucracy. This is why Communism adapted so well to the Chinese system (but was horrible in terms of results).  If you are familiar with Chinese history, you are well aware of its cyclical nature. Dynasties rise, a period of peace and prosperity leads to economic growth, social satisfaction, religious harmony, and an explosion of artistic expression, which then descends into a period of chaos when the dynasty falls. The lesson to take away from Chinese history isn’t that Chinese people need to be controlled, it’s that China works best under a tyrannical, cautious, and organized system of governance because that is how China has developed as a society.

Reason number two. China would not be any less corrupt under a democratic system than it currently is under “communism”. Those of you who believe that democracy leads to less corruption than all other system’s of government obviously don’t watch the news very often. But one doesn’t need to look to the American Congress to know that democracy hasn’t always provided the best results.

A better example in relation to China would be India. India’s economic growth is less impressive than China’s. This is due to the fact that India’s democratic system cannot freely manage and economy, extract resources, and organize labor as quickly as China’s undemocratic government. While China is swiftly connecting all its cities with bullet trains, India’s trains are still characterized by passengers hanging off the sides and sitting on the roofs of the cars. While China’s building impressively tall glass tours amongst wide freeways and boulevards, India’s cities are still plagued by the smell of raw sewage and miles of urban slum. The Chinese economic growth rate would certainly slow under a democratic government and China would prove unable to build infrastructure projects as swiftly as they had in the past. However this may prevent hastily built engineering monstrosities such as the Three Gorges Dam. 

Furthermore, India’s political system is hindered by bribery and corruption in the same way as China’s political system. This is because the majority of voters in India are poor, uneducated, and ignorant. A majority of Chinese citizens would vote in very much the same manner as their counterparts in India by supporting hot-aired politicians who claim to represent the poor but merely end up representing their own interests. Chinese democracy would not be able to remove the Chinese system of Guanxi (relationships) from its political process. In China’s current socioeconomic position, Chinese democracy would resemble something more like the American Gilded Age rather than a healthy liberal democracy. In fact, China attempted to establish a Liberal Republic in 1911, only to descend into fascism under the Nationalist Party a few months later.

Reason number three. China views itself as the center of Asia. For more than 150 years, China’s role as the most powerful country in Asia (the pillar of peace and security if you will) was lost to it by European imperialism, Japanese invasions, and the failed economic policies of the Mao Era. However, since China’s capitalist transformation, its economic and military position has improved while America’s has declined. This has lead China to become more assertive within the East Asian region. As part of its “historic rights to sovereignty” China has claimed maritime territory in the East and South China Sea that is disputed by Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam, as well as continental territory disputed by India, Russia, and North Korea. The most dramatic of these disputes, the Diaoyu Islands dispute with Japan, triggers anti Japanese protests throughout the China on occasion. Chinese citizens target Japanese businesses and the Japanese embassy when an event causes the dispute to resurface.  Often I will see 日本狗 (Japanese Dog) painted on the sidewalk or scribbled on one of my student’s desk. Due to China’s long history as a great civilization, Chinese people are usually very patriotic, and when the spirit of the Chinese people is released, nothing stands in the way of its fury (if the Cultural Revolution is any constellation).

While the Communist Party certainly condones anti Japanese sentiments, it also realizes the importance of retaining a somewhat peaceful political relationship with Japan, a valuable business partner and an ally of the US. If necessary, the Communist Party will prevent violent actions against Japan to preserve the status quo. If anything, Anti Japanese rhetoric from party sources is pontificated to distract the Chinese public from domestic problems.  A democratic government with the threat of populist backlash during an election would be much more willing to adopt a military response to territorial disputes in Asia than the current government.

Even more troubling is the possibility of anti foreign populism being directed at the US and other western powers. The current government is already paranoid about an American strategic encirclement of China through various alliances with regional rivals. A democratic government might prove more cantankerous towards US interests. For instance, a democratically elected Chinese government may be less willing to purchase US debt as opposed to the current government, which is focused primarily on economic expansion as opposed to Chinese economic independency. A democratic government might prove more confrontational in the South China Sea, which the US vows to protect as an area of free trade. There is also the possibility that the US, Europe, and even Australia might be characterized as barbaric outsiders attempting to overthrow the great Chinese civilization and once again force China to submit to unfair trade practices.  I could entertain the idea of “Remember the Opium War” campaign slogans blasting the airwaves during a Chinese election year. What is important to remember here is like the US, China is a proud culture with a vibrant history and a rightful claim to the status of an extraordinary human civilization.  While the Communist government certainly plays this up to encourage patriotism and political optimism, a democratic government may unleash a dangerous sense of unified nationalism that could lead to violent illiberal results.

However, there are a few benefits that a Chinese democratic state could bring about. First, Chinese minorities would be empowered if China adopted  a federal system of democracy. Minorities dominate several Chinese provinces. In a national election, minorities such as the Uighur, Miao, Hui, Zhuang, and Tibetan peoples would have electoral clout in the provinces of Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, Gansu, Ningxia, Yunnan, Guangxi, and Sichuan. Imagine if Latino voters dominated three states and Native Americans dominated six in an American national election. This essentially illustrates the picture you get with minorities in China. Therefore, minorities would have the capability of achieving a greater sense of social mobility in China instead of their current status as subjects of a humiliating form of forced affirmative action. However, there is also the possibility of a backlash against racial minorities through a racist nativist political party similar to India’s BJP and France’s United Front. Despite the fact that minorities would have more of a voice in China, they would still are minorities that live with the possibility of marginalization.

Another positive result of a Chinese Republic would be a greater sense of transparency in the government. The Communist Party is currently experiencing a political crisis due to the sudden public revelation of corruption within the party by several high profile members, the most infamous being Party Boss Bo Xi Lai of Chongqing. The new President Xi Jin Ping has hailed that he will punish both the “tigers and the flies” who have committed acts of corruption. However, little has been done besides punishing whistleblowers in the name of stopping “libel”. People of any society will eventually do away with their government if it is not viewed legitimately. The current lack of transparency between government and society leads to a greater perception that the Chinese government is illegitimate which in turn leads to instability. A Democratic government would remedy this issue and make the Chinese government more trustworthy to the Chinese people.

Furthermore, a democratic government would attempt to tackle issues that matter more to the average Chinese person such as housing prices, air quality, and social security. For the past 30 years the Chinese government has focused exclusively on economic liberalization and growth. A democratic government would give Chinese people the perception that they can have control over their own destiny and that they can influence the government to address a problem that matters to them. This would create a healthier society and a stronger sense of civic involvement.

Finally, a Chinese democracy would greatly benefit China scholars by making the Chinese political system far more interesting to observe. Once you’ve seen one meeting of 10,000 people clapping in the Great Hall of the People you’ve seen them all. A Chinese Republic would reveal greater social and political divisions in Chinese society, making China far more vibrant and colorful. You’d be able to see religious fanatics, labor socialists, free market capitalists, social traditionalists, progressives, and agricultural interests duke it out on the political stage in a competition to win the hearts and minds of 1.8 billion people. Such a spectacle would be much more entertaining than the selection of a new chairman at the next meeting of the National Peoples’ Congress. In conclusion, to simply except the Democratic Peace Theory as absolute is an incomplete, if not lazy, argument when considering the results of a democratic Chinese government.

Social Experiment

Last week I was able to conduct an interesting social experiment in my classes. The lesson topic was Super Heroes and the language objective was reinforcements of basic plurals and singulars. Out of this mixture arose an interesting game, which required critical thinking and consideration of ethics.

I set up six teams in the classroom and gave each team a few super heroes. I then gave the class a series of scenarios where two different locations needed help at the same time, one an individual one a group.

There were several different choices to consider such as whether to save a woman who had been kidnapped by pirates or a group of old women who had their money stolen and between helping cars in a traffic jam or a broken down bus full of school children. I got several interesting and amusing answers such as: I will help the woman because she’s sexy, I will help the old women because the elderly should come first, I will help the old women because I like money, I will help the bus because children are our future and they need an education, and I will help the cars because I hate school. 

But the scenario I thought produced the most interesting results was a choice between a political official (Xi Jin Ping/ Li Ke Qiang) who had been kidnapped and a robbery where several peoples’ lives were in danger and the bank account of hundreds of people could potentially be stolen. In almost all the classes, the results were half and half. I got quite the diversity of answers.

Some groups chose to save the political official because he is important for the country, but others would pick the people. One boy said he would pick the people because the loss of all that money would severally damage the economy. Another girl said that she would save the people because another leader could always be selected to replace the assassinated leader but a country would be nothing without its people. Another boy made a very bold statement when he quoted Mao Zedong as saying that all people are equal regardless of position, pretty much stating that it doesn’t matter how important Xi Jin Ping is. In a choice between saving lives, the many always comes before the one. One kid plainly blurted out that he didn’t like Xi Jin Ping at all and so he wanted to save the people!! Instead of gasped this statement only received laughter from his fellow students.

This game demonstrated to me that even at a young age, Chinese people have little patriotic obsession over their technocratic leaders, and in the right setting you can get a lot of dissenting opinions out of them.

However this doesn’t mean that Chinese people completely speak freely about their opinions regarding political officials. In one class, a group of educators sat in and observed the session. They seemed to generally enjoy the lesson, but they did have an effect on student answers in regards to this scenario. Only one team picked the people in the robbery over the political official in this class, and all the answers in support of saving the official came off as a bland statement referencing how important Xi Jin Ping was for the country and how China wouldn’t be able to progress without him. Given the circumstances I decided not to press the students on their answers.

However, I don’t want to give the impression that all teachers and educators mindlessly support the Communist Party. While party members usually head school administrations, I have talked to a few teachers at my school (all female too) who have openly denounced the effects of the Cultural Revolution on Chinese society. But like their students, these teachers are far less bold in front of their superiors.

Also my neighborhood in Shenzhen (Overseas Chinese Town) is unique in China. Shenzhen itself is sort of a bubble. It’s a special economic zone that has been officially capitalist for thirty years. It’s right next to Hong Kong where newspapers and books with views not condoned by the Communist Party can be easily purchased. Most people in the inner districts own their own computer and even in the outer districts an Internet Café isn’t too far away. Most importantly, the economic prosperity, wealth, and opportunity that can be found in Shenzhen has bolstered a vibrant Middle Class in areas such as my neighborhood of OCT/Window of the World.

An area dominated by a Middle Class is more likely to have a louder and more diverse array of opinions as opposed to some village in Guizhou where people don’t have the luxury to ponder the socioeconomic issues facing 21^st Century China.  Shenzhen is way ahead of most of China in regards to political and economic perspectives. However, Shenzhen is a good place to observe changing Chinese perspectives that within 10-20 years very well could be the norm. 

Loony Toons with Socialist Characteristics: Analyzing Chinese Cartoons

While Chinese animation isn’t nearly as developed and fruitful as American or Japanese animation, there are a few shows that adopt the typical cartoon formula that draws in young audiences. The most famous cartoon in China ix Xi Yang Yang (Pleasant Goat) who co starts with his arch nemesis Hui Tai Lang (Big Bad Wolf).

The cartoon has received numerous awards over the past 10 years and is widely known by children throughout China. It’s simple cheerful music and mild violent antics make for great entertainment for those who are learning Chinese like me. The language is easy to follow and the plot line is predictable. Hui Tai Lang always tries to capture Xi Yang Yang and his other sheep friends for dinner only to find that his plans were in vain when Xi Yang Yang discovers a clever and painful way to defeat him. In many ways Xi Yang Yang is the Chinese Loony Toons, applying the plot line of a hunted underdog hero who always overcomes his bumbling hunter antagonist. However, Xi Yang Yang is not without its Chinese characteristics and when looked at closely, the show reveals a socialist theme.

Unlike the witty Bugs Bunny who defeats the Odious Elmer Fudd and erratic Yosemite Sam single handedly, or Road Runner who leads Wile E Cyote into his own traps, Xi Yang Yang is amongst a community of other sheep. It is Hui Tai Lang, the antagonist who is outnumbered, which leads the viewer to support a unified community over that of a single malicious individual who strays from the pack. Hui Tai Lang is depicted in dirty peasant clothing with a scar across his face, and it’s not hard to discern that his murderous actions are self-seeking.

However, Hui Tai Lang is not completely without company. He has a wife who he always refers to as La Po (my love/ honey-pie). The style of La Po’s outfit couldn’t be farther from her husband’s. She is dressed in a Queen’s robe with a crown adorn in jewels and their abode is a dark castle inn the woods. La Po also is characterized by her hot temper, which frequently leads to Hui Tai Lang being whacked in the head by a frying pan when his plans fail to bring positive results, which of course they never do. He also has one son (the gift most Chinese parents want), who often betrays his farther by siding with Xi Yang Yang who he views as a friend. To his chagrin, Hui Tai Lang’s failure to catch Xi Yang Yang reveals the lack of power he has over his own household as he cowers under the threat of his wife’s frying pan.

Essentially, Hui Tai Lang is the unlucky capitalist; seeking to destroy the community paradise the sheep live by attempting to eat them for personal gain. These attributes, according the show, are not virtuous and they lead to Hui Tai Lang flying off into the distance in Team Rocket fashion due to some explosion or crash screaming “Xi Yang Yang wo hui lai!!” (Xi Yang Yang I will be back!). Even Hui Tai Lang’s son is forced to forsake his father for the stability of the community over individual selfishness.

Xi Yang Yang isn’t the only Chinese cartoon to do this. Another cartoon involving an overly confident hunter and some bears and other various forest animals also employs the group protagonist vs. individual antagonist dynamic. What’s even more amusing about this cartoon is the hunter is dressed like a typical American redneck in full camou attire, toting ridiculously large guns and a superfluous supply of bullets.  This may be a jab at the lack of American gun control provisions. Private gun ownership is illegal in China.

Given Xi Yang Yang’s success in advancing socialist ideals to children, one would think that the Chinese government would support its broadcast. However, due to a recent incident in Jiangsu Province involving the burning of a child by another child who was imitating the show, the government has had the show censored until it can produce episodes devoid of violence, meaning devoid of typical cartoon antics, which is the whole point of animation. Still, if the show continues to run, you can expect the community protagonist structure to continue to be in play. 

On American Exceptionalism

Following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s statement to the American people in the New York Times, a tirade of responses washed upon the media from all sides of the political spectrum.  CNN’s Crossfire provided a perfect example of left and right America’s united condemnation of Putin’s curt denial that America is an exceptional nation when Van Jones joined Newt Gingrich in trumpeting America’s exceptional status.

Jones and Gingrich went on to say that America is indeed an exceptional nation due to its founding ideals and the historical progress to materialize the promise of those ideals from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. The pair referenced how America redeemed itself from slavery, its original sin, through the struggle of the Civil War. They also discussed how present day American society provides equal opportunity to all people through the virtue of personal liberty. While there is plenty of truth to this illustration of American exceptionalism, none of what Jones and Gingrich actually said responds to the points Putin was making in his Op Ed.

Vladimir Putin’s article directly referred to American foreign policy, by asserting that it is dangerous to rationalize military action on another country based on some self righteous assumption that the ideals guiding your government’s decision making are somehow exceptional. Historically speaking, Putin is right. From the Spanish American War onwards, American foreign policy has been far from exceptional. For 130 years, America has been on a slow path towards empire that has ended in reluctant hegemony.

America is no more exceptional than the British, Spanish, or Roman empires of the past. Far from being a beacon of hope, America has merely continued to carry the torch of the Western imperial tradition. America has often sold its ideals for pragmatism by supporting oppressive regimes around the world including the Iranian Shah, General Diem in South Vietnam, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

In 1898, following the overthrow their Spanish imperial overlords, the so-called beacon of hope crushed the Philippines’ right to democracy and self-determination by refusing to grant the island nation independence. Since the 1950s our government has consistently sided with the Pakistani side of the partition instead of India the largest democracy on earth, despite the fact that Pakistan is ruled by a corrupt dictatorship frequently plagued with military coups and has proven to be an untrustworthy ally by providing a haven to America’s greatest enemies.

Time and time again throughout the 20^th century, America seemed to be on the wrong side of freedom and revolution. Many of the past century’s George Washington’s including Nelson Mandala, Salvador Allende, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, and even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were enemies of the American government.

Instead of inciting a progressive path towards the global implementation of America’s ideals in the freedom from want and freedom from fear, our government has done the opposite. After bailing out Europe and Japan with the Marshall Plan following World War Two, the American government refused to pass the successful program onto the third world. Instead, in the 1980s, The Reagan Administration established a system of structural adjustments that the developing world must abide by to receive economic aid from the IMF. As a result, the developing world has been forced into accepting a perpetual state of dependency on the developed world thereby ensuring that there will always be a world defined by a separation of excess and hunger.

In the 21^st century, America’s imperial identity has only gotten worse. Following the September 11^th attacks, the American government responded with a series of security reforms that led to the atrophy of liberty. The feelings of fear and anger following the 2001 terrorist attacks eventually led to an unwarranted attack on Iraq despite unanimous worldwide opposition.  The War on Terrorism has led to a new evolution of warfare conducted by unmanned aircraft ignorant of national borders and secret courts and prisons blind to ethics and justice.

Has there been any good that has come from the American empire? Sure we had a few successes in post war Germany, Japan, and South Korea. American global leadership has also seen the rise of the UN, the worldwide economy, and the Internet. But every empire leaves something good behind. For instance, the British Empire left the world Singapore, Hong Kong, and they left India a system of government, a unified language, and a national train system.

The American empire is very real and it is potent if you are willing to accept it. By doing so you accept the fact that America is not an exceptional nation in terms of the issues that Putin is discussing. Instead of Roman phalanxes or white helmets with monocles, our empire comes in the form of formally dressed businessmen clad in custom made suits armed with brief cases full of figures, derivatives, algorithms, and contracts.

This is simply a reality that we must accept as the global hegemon. By recognizing this perhaps we as Americans can learn to think introspectively about the consequences of our actions be they military or diplomatic instead of simply accepting the intellectually lazy argument that we our special and we can do no wrong. That is what Putin is trying to remind us, so perhaps we should heed his word of caution.