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.