To enlarge the foundation of the ruling party’s legitimacy and
to promote China’s modernization
Yushi MAO is the executive board member of Unirule Institute of Economics, an independent think tank in Beijing. He is also the adjunct professor of economic at several universities in China. In 1986 Mao was a visiting scholar at Harvard and in 1990 was guest senior lecturer at the University of Queensland, Australia. The following essay has been translated by his granddaughter, Shangbin MAO.
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHINA’S POLITICAL REFORM AND ITS CURRENT STATE
For 160 years since the Opium War, we have struggled through countless tortuous paths in pursuit of modernization. Millions of people with lofty ideals sacrificed for it; a number of them were killed by those who resisted modernization, but even more died as a result of internal conflicts. People all had similar goals, but through their different approaches, they raged countless battles against each other, resulting in casualties too numerous to count. Fortunately, these deaths were not in vain. It taught a valuable lesson to the people of China. Finally, after the Cultural Revolution, people gradually started a new road to political reform. After twenty plus years of struggling, China has finally reached a relatively normal state. These past twenty years differed from the past one hundred in a sense that even though some people viewed modernization with extremely orthodox communism and others with extremely liberal capitalism, they didn’t clash with each other as in the past simply because of differences in opinions. On the contrary, the arguments between them were constructive, and eventually led them down the same direction and the right path. Now we have a preliminary framework of the market economy, democracy and law has been written into the constitution, and most importantly, at the end of 2001, China was accepted into the WTO, which marked its reception of internationally conventional practices and exploration of connecting rails across different systems. However, can China fully and successfully comprehend democratic constitution and modernization? There are still too many uncertainties. The light of dawn is upon us, but the sun has yet to rise over the horizon.
As far as political reform is concerned, we cannot say that there wasn’t one at all. We enjoy much more personal liberties as opposed to 25 years ago, and there is also an increase in protection of human rights, which is gradually being imprinted into people’s minds. The consciousness of safeguarding one’s interests has also been greatly enhanced. China is still far away from being rule of law, but it has already been widely brought to attention. People’s ideology is not the same as before. Without these changes, economic reform would be impossible. This is the light we saw at daybreak. For example, in the past, western classics of social sciences were translated with the intention of criticizing them. As time went on, only certain parts of them were critiqued. Now there are no more such harsh and superfluous words. In fact, if China continues as we have been in the past 25 years, democracy and rule of law could be accomplished. It is vital for China to maintain its current state of stability and continue reforming to overcome future uncertainties, which could potentially cause reform to halt to a stop.
What could be the main obstacle challenging our road ahead? It would be the political system of our country. Although the present political environment is much better than that of 25 years ago, there haven’t been any crucial changes in the system. People don’t know where they should go and how they would get there. Which step is feasible and safe for all parties? Which would be harmful for political reform and must be avoided at all cost? Although there have been much discussion on political reform (mostly on the internet), the amount of complaint and dissatisfaction is overwhelming compared to what’s left for cold analysis. Some of the visions are grand, but lack means of execution, while others are trivial and have less impact, which tend to be neglected by people, however, we must not forget that sometimes reform do begins with seemingly unimportant things.
The most crucial things for reform include the attitude we must hold for to discussion, the relationship between the people and the government, and lastly, the reaction of officials to people’s discussing of the political reform. It will be necessary to clarify these matters.
(2) WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR POLITICAL REFORM FOR THE GENERAL POPULOUS?
First of all, I believe political reform is a major event for the entire nation—it concerns not only the government, but also the people. Hence it requires everyone to participate in it and express his or her concerns and opinions about it. Before all else can take place, we must first arrive at a general consensus to establish what we should and should not do. This is perhaps the most important and most difficult step. If the discussion were calm and rational, then this goal would eventually be reached. As mentioned earlier, 20 some years of reform was full of disputes and differences in opinion, but fortunately, economic matters had been fairly open and without any drastic clashes. Had this not been the case, China would have been controlled by internal conflicts, never to reach any economic progress. Political reform is no different. If people could calmly and rationally discuss what should be done and what should be avoided, then half the task would already be accomplished. Ever since former Mr. Deng Xiaoping proposed political reform 20 years ago, discussion about it has been next to nothing. On the contrary, the atmosphere was tense, everyone was on his guard against another. If this continues, political reform would end in a deadlock. Therefore, we must eliminate such tension and create a good atmosphere for discussion.
Most people see this obstacle as a matter of freedom of speech. It may seem to be the case, but it is not entirely correct, because it implies that the government is at fault for the banning of the discussion and must be held responsible for it. However, the government has its own concerns. Due to the influence of imperial ruling in China over the past two thousand years, people are relatively poor with democratic education. The majority of the people believed in a benevolent rule led by a good emperor and didn’t see modern democracy as good politics. If the emperor were despotic or corrupt, then the people would revolt. In Chinese history, no one really had any experience of being a citizen. Peasants were either obedient or rebellious. Even scholars are no different, either to adulate the emperor or to slander the government. People have been exploring methods of finding how to use a responsible attitude to establish an active and productive social force. People hope to have freedom of speech and expect to begin the discussion by promoting political reform, not watching two parties in dispute. However, judging by what can be found on the internet concerning political reform, a clash seems more than likely. Therefore, the prerequisite for freedom of speech is a calm and rational atmosphere for discussion. Otherwise, we will only be occupied by the superficial issue and never reach the heart of the matter.
The government esteems its own authority greatly. Many people see this as its selfishness. However, a government with authority is what the people need and is indispensable for the people’s everyday life. If we look at the Soviet Union after its breakdown, we see how chaotic its situation was. The Mafia took control and the government was lead by corrupt officials. Prices skyrocketed, and people’s decades of savings vanished. In the end, everyone was forced to start over from scratch. Now, ten years later, President Vladimir Putin came into power. Even if we assume that everything goes smoothly from that point on, ten precious years had already been wasted. The level of education of the Soviets is higher than that of the Chinese, yet the loss of authority costed them greatly. It will not be hard to imagine what the situation China will be in if there was a government without authority. Both domestic and foreign history tells us that a country’s government could either help the economy grow or collapse. China’s economic reform was successful in the past twenty some years because it had a government with authority and a stable society. We must preserve these extremely important conditions for future development. None except for anarchists hope for turmoil, but perhaps there are people who wish a better non-communist government. Even if we ignore the problems and process of transition, where is the ideal government? What are its principles? Whom is it composed of? Will they be better than the communist government? Will they help the economy grow? A heap of unknowns is generated. Not only does the Communist Party have basis of past success in leadership, but also demonstrated intents of continuing reform, including political reform. Are there any more reasons for us to switch to anything else?
During the debate of political reform issues, non-party members showed a lack of respect for the Communist Party, which makes the Party concerned. To criticize Jiang Zemin is permissible, but we should respect him. Even common people should have respect for each other. Jiang Zemin is the leader of our country. How can we not respect him? Some people in order to emphasize democratic spirit, spoke out to the Communist Party in a contempt tone. That is going too far, and of no use. It only makes things more complicated, forcing people to be on their guard even more.
Criticism must begin from good intentions, making it easier for others to accept. Complaining and venting one’s anger is one thing, but seriously discussing an issue is completely different. Most of what we can find on the internet about reform are complaints, even scolding. To vent some dissatisfaction should be tolerable, but if everyone discusses political reform with this attitude, then it will be dominated by confusion and will not get anywhere. We need to know that freedom of speech is not equal to neglecting the consequences. Acknowledged or not, every word has its own consequence. We should only say words that will produce good outcomes, bring suspicions to reconciliation, and gradually establish mutual trust. In theory, one could say anything under freedom of speech. However, in order to generate productive results, one should only say words that are responsible, polite, consistent with democratic spirit, and open for consultation. Discussion among people must be based on these principles, and the Communist Party should provide places for these beneficial and harmless discussions. However, if the government still feels anxious, it could make a concession where the opinions will first be allowed to be freely expressed within the party, and non-party personnel could listen without contributing. If further concession is needed, the party could first speak amongst itself behind a closed door, where non-party members are not even allowed to listen. This is better than no discussion at all.
(3) THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT
During the liberation, the legitimacy of the Communist Government lay in the defeat of the unpopular Kuomintang. Across the nation, the Communist Party was warmly and joyfully greeted. There was a song at that time. The lyrics were, “Socialism is good… People in a socialistic country enjoy high status.” Those facts were the same as votes, or perhaps even more persuasive than votes. However, in the succeeding 30 years, as a result of the pursuit of the “great leap forward” and dictatorship of the proletariat, about 20 million people starved to death in the three years of great famine. Later, the Cultural Revolution put the nation into anguish. The legitimacy of the Communist Government had all been exhausted. If this continued, then the people would no longer believe in it. Fortunately, in 1978, Mr. Deng Xiaoping ordered to open up the economy and began to reform. This saved the Communist Party. These 25 years of success established the legitimacy of the present government. Some people may not agree with this viewpoint, but it was the most important nonetheless, because it was the starting point of the current political reform to establish whether the Communist Party is legitimate. As evidence of the success of reform and opening up, the answer is affirmative. However, some one pointed out that the Communist Party made a number of mistakes, namely the action taken on June 4th in 1989, and the policy toward Falungong. That is true, but what’s more important was that the growth of GDP was more than quadrupled. This was universally accepted by the World Bank and international communities, and was unprecedented in the history of China. In the end, the defects do not outweigh the merits. Going through such a dramatic change without making any mistakes is unrealistic. The challenge now is persuading the Communist Party to admit to those mistakes and prevent major mistakes in the future. No one can guarantee that big mistakes could certainly be avoided, but it might be possible if we have more democratic politics.
Now, there are still many people who regard the legitimacy of the Communist Government by the victory of Liberation War over Kuomintang and the mindset inherited from Mao Zedong’s rule. This is a big misconception. If the legitimacy is based on the very things we need to change, then promoting political reform will no longer be possible, and it would result in a self-contradiction. If we get bogged down in such out-of-date theories, reform would never begin. For example, if hiring workers is considered as exploitation, then should the problem of unemployment even be tackled? Take another example, Marxist’s thousands of mottoes in a nutshell is “to rebel is reasonable.” If that’s the case, then do we need to reform anymore? If such confused thoughts are not removed, how can we progress? It may be difficult to be through with the past, but it is necessary to make a distinct line between then and the present to advance forward. A good example is revision of the Constitution. There used to be many problems in the Constitution, but now revision has started and future conditions are being implemented. Slowly, it would become ideal.
Only after the problem of legitimacy is solved can reform begin. The Communist Party will then be no longer anxious and permit people to participate in reform discussion. If the legitimacy of the Communist Government is repeatedly questioned, the discussion will only focus on past issues and not upcoming ones. We must start from reality and improve it one step at a time. Only with such a consensus could political reform discussion carry on. Therefore, not only should the legitimacy of the Communist Government be accepted, but people also need to understand that the legitimacy was produced by the world-renowned accomplishment of reforming and opening up in the past 25 years.
(4) TO BROADEN THE FOUNDATION OF LEGITIMACY OF THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT
The leadership of the Communist Government is accepted by the people, but this does not means the Communist Party should be monopolism. Both party and non-party members must have the right to express their opinion, participate in discussion, and take action in practice in the state affairs. Currently, the Department of Propaganda of the party intends to monopolize state affairs, making it difficult to express any independent opinion. Any discussion of news or article about human rights, elections, corruption, judicial independence, June 4th, or Falungong, etc. are all seen as dangerous. A number of suggestions with academic value or proposition of policy is seldom given the opportunity to be published. The channel by which one’s words can reach the government is completely blocked, this is extremely unfavorable to political reform. As a starting point, we need to let these positive, friendly, and constructive suggests have the opportunity to be published. As for those unfriendly, antagonist opinions, the old methods may be used for now. Eventually, all reasonable opinions without insults could be published. Further down the line, perhaps even complaints and resentments would also get the chance to be heard. In the distant future, maybe leaders could even be depicted by caricature. If both good and bad opinions are prohibited from being published, and all discussions are monopolized, how can we identify it to be a democratic society? At the beginning of the year, Chairman Hu Jingtao suggested the Propaganda Department to broadcast less about leaders and more about the people. This worked for the first few days, but it didn’t last. Changing the propaganda style of 50 years is no easy task, and one cannot be too eager for success, but staying stationary on the same spot is unacceptable.
Non-party members should be allowed to become chief executive officer. Currently, the ratio of non-party member ministers and deputy ministers is even smaller than that of Mao Zedong’s era. To manage the nation as controlling the party is very abnormal. If we don’t pass this point, democracy and rule of law is just an empty slogan. Would the nation continue to be managed as the Communist Party, or would we follow the second article of the constitution, which says “all rights belong to the people”? This point must be carefully thought over without any ambiguity or wavering. Otherwise nothing would change. As a first step, the personnel composition of the lower echelon of government needs to be changed. There should be no distinction of party and non-party members in the three strata of village, town, and county, and people will be employed based on his merits without discrimination. Leaders of enterprises and non-government organizations (e.g. labor unions) need to be treated similarly. Presently, a lot of the difficulties in personnel arrangement are caused by identifying between party and non-party members. Also, the proportions of party members among representatives in the People’s Congress and People’s Political Consultative Conference should also be gradually reduced. One must know that distributing power also means distributing responsibility. In the past, the Communist Party assumes the responsibility of its own mistakes. An example is June 4th. In the future, people will help in times of need, and there will be more space and a larger foundation of stability. This in turn would also broaden the foundation of governmental legitimacy.
(5) TOLERANCE IS THE ESSENCE OF THE WHOLE PROCESS OF POLITICAL REFORM.
The success of political reform and the stability of the general public both depend on the tolerance of the society. In exchange for the policy of “be in class struggle every month, every day,” we received 25 years of stability. However, when compared to developed countries, we are still far less tolerant. Otherwise, if all parties are tolerant and hold each other in respect, then June 4th would not have resulted as such. To promote tolerance, we need to work in many ways. First we must establish this in jurisprudence and make a model of it. Education needs to be emphasized over punishment, which will only serve as supplementary means. We need to abandon the “more heavily, more promptly, and more severely” punishment. Presently, the number of criminals executed yearly perhaps is around 10,000. If we look at their level of income and education, perhaps the majority of them belong in the lower stratum. The society should assume some responsibility of their mistake, because of no adequate education, little help for mishaps, and too thin sympathy. On the other hand, the officials who graft Yuan by the millions might not be executed. It is apparent that there is a relationship between crime and social unfairness. Why are the people with low status punished so severely? Why so merciless toward the underprivileged group? Sentencing capital punishment leaves a pile of social problems for the individual. There would be no one to look after the children or support the parents. As a result, many people will be miserable for the rest of their life. During Mao Zedong’s era, there was a saying that “If the crime could be, but not necessary have to be, punished by death, then he will be given the chance to live.” So why must we regard death penalties so lightly now? I suggest gradually curtailing the number of death penalties, until it is reduced to one tenth of the current scale or less. Chinese people used to be a traditionally tolerable nation, but the Cultural Revolution destroyed this tradition. We have a thousand years of civilized history, and should be the model of tolerance for the world.
In addition, China has also improved a great deal in treatment of political prisoners. First, we eliminated the so-called counter-revolution crimes, which was ambiguous in concept. Secondly and most importantly, there has been no death sentence for political prisoner since the reform and opening up. This is a fundamental change in comparison with the past. However, there are still so called “political offenders”, even the government would not admit to it. As the next step, the government needs to change its attitude and treatment toward political prisoners who were convicted for political statements only. Perhaps, they cannot be exempted from punishment right away, but the term of imprisonment could be and should be greatly shortened. In the past, all well-known political prisoners were sentenced to more than 10 years in prison, a few to life imprisonment. For political offenders and criminal conscience one or two years imprisonment might be enough for deterrence. In theory, political offenders should not be punished at all. It is an improvement that the punishment changed from death penalty to imprisonment. It will also be an improvement when the long term imprisonment changes to short term in the future. If the Communist Party declares amnesty for political prisoners, its legitimacy will be enhanced, its international status will be elevated, and particularly, a more tolerant atmosphere for political discussion will be created.
Tolerance means willingness to pardon others. Political reform involves two sides—the government and the people—and both should have tolerant minds. It is not very difficult to cultivate this. All it takes is to see things from the other’s point of view. People usually expect a lot from the government, but do they also expect as much of themselves? If one cannot fulfill his own high demands, then he shouldn’t demand it from others. When one criticizes the government, he should not go to extremes. The same goes for the government. If it is so far from its own high standards, it has no reason to demand so much from its people. “Political prisoners” may have mistakes, but does that mean the government is right in all aspects?
(6) DEMOCRATIZATION IS A SLOW PROCESS AND CANNOT BE RUSHED THROUGH FOR SUCCESS
Democratization must be a slow process and require three or four decades. However some warm-hearted and hotheaded activists wishes the process to be completed overnight. They thought democratization has nothing to do with the people’s education and culture level, and that the gradual process is just the Communist Party’s excuse to delay the distribution of power.
If the democratization process were expedited and the people are unprepared, then they can only practice democracy under the direction of a leader, and the so-called great democracy would result in what we have seen in the past—a dictatorship. The Cultural Revolution was just such a farce. The leader, Mao Zedong, initiated it, and the people participated in it. Everyone put his imagination and motivation into full play under his direction. The Cultural Revolution was initiated and led by Mao, so he should have been held fully responsible for it, but since tens of millions of people contributed to it as well, we cannot say the masses shared no part in that responsibility. If Mao wanted to initiate that movement in the United State, there wouldn’t be much of a response, and the probability of his success would be zero. This shows how the function of people’s understanding of democracy would affect their actions. The type of people determines the type of government they will have. Therefore, the government is only a mirror reflection of the people. It is impossible for people who are either obedient or rebellious to have a democratic government. Democratization is a forever learning process for all. Only a tolerant spirit can bring them together.
Slow progress is acceptable, as long as it doesn’t stop. However, things cannot regress. China’s democratization must be achieved this way because not only is this a joint learning process, but is also least costly and can be easily accepted by the government and the people. If this view were accepted by all involved, then social tension would be alleviated. All this will be beneficial for China’s modernization and reform.
2004/01/07 edition
(The Translator: Shangbin Mao)
