BEIJING, Apr. 30
Few Chinese or foreign political scholars would reply in the affirmative to the question of whether or not China has undergone political reform in the past 30 years. The viewpoint expressed in a 1995 article entitled "Federalism, Chinese Style: The Political Basis for Economic Success in China," published in the magazine "World Politics," has greatly influenced the U.S. academic world and remains popular today. The introduction states: "Economic reform appears to have been successfully pursued without any political reform."
However, if we ask what kind of regime China had 30 years ago, and what kind of regime it has now, we must reconsider this question. Most people will agree that 30 years ago the Chinese regime fit the classic Western definition of a totalitarian state. Today, however, China's government is more aptly termed an authoritarian regime. Or in the words of Professor Xiao Gongqin (an advocate of authoritarianism) it is "an authoritarian regime in the post-totalitarianism era."
Is it possible for a country to transition from a totalitarian regime to an authoritarian regime without undergoing any reform of its political system?
In my opinion, in evaluating the political system of a modern state one should consider the following factors: first, the relationship between political, economic, social and cultural authorities; second, the relationship between the ruling party and the government; third, the relationship between the central government and local authorities; fourth, the separation of powers within the government; fifth, the source of the state's authority; and sixth, the process of competing for state power.
These six factors constitute a political system in the broad sense. Narrowly defined, a political system may be considered to include only the latter three. This is because only in contemporary times has there existed a one-party political regime. Neither was there a government that implemented a system of public ownership that included the tangible and intangible assets of the whole society, and closely united all political, economic, social, and cultural authority.
If one understands a political system in the narrow sense, one would say that China has had no political system reform during the past 30 years. It is fair to say that until now the source of the state's authority is still up in the air. This is similar to the situation before the reform that gave people the right to own property: the state declared the "ownership of the people" in name, but people did not in fact have any ownership.
In addition, the division of state power still remains a forbidden topic. Although the "judicial authority" no longer functions like the ear of a deaf man, and the "legislative authority" of the National People's Congress is no longer simply a rubber stamp, there is still a long way to go to build a structure where the three powers can actually restrain one another. What's more, touching upon the issue of competition for state power is like touching a 10,000 volt high-tension electric wire - this is impossible for a body made of flesh.
However, as economic reforms have deepened in the past 30 years, China has made some progress in separating the political, economic, social, and cultural authorities. The old system's birth-to-death control of every member of society has loosened. Great improvements have been made in granting people the freedom to choose their place of residence, employment, property, and other issues of personal freedom. Much success has also been achieved in separating the Party from the government, as well as in delegating power to lower-level authorities. The Communist Party's control and intervention in people's affairs is less pervasive. And the highly concentrated economic management system no longer exists -- the most successful example of this is the decentralization of financial authority from the Party's Central Committee to local governments.
Despite the fact that during the 1990s China strengthened the financial authority of the Central Committee, the decentralization pattern still exists. This decentralization has been termed "fiscal federalism" by Western researchers, or the "federal model with Chinese characteristics." This is one of the foundations of China's success in economic reform and development.
In addition, with the return of Hong Kong and Macau to Chinese sovereignty, Deng Xiaoping's "one county two systems" formula became the breaking point of China's single-party system, and made China take a pioneering step toward a modern decentralized government and complex state system.
The simple conclusion is that China's progress in reforming its economic system over the past 30 years has also impacted the political system and brought some reform there as well. It transformed China from a totalitarian regime to an authoritarian regime. This reform is extremely important. It has restored China from an extreme country that could not carry out political reform in the narrowest sense to a normal country that is able to implement some degree of political reform.
This is to say, China has in fact implemented political system reform, however limited.
--
(Wu Jiaxiang is a renowned economic and political scholar, based in Beijing, and a former visiting scholar at Harvard University's Fairbanks Center for East Asian Research. His research covers economics, politics, international politics, business strategy, and Chinese traditional strategy and thought. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese; the original may be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Wu Jiaxiang.)
However, if we ask what kind of regime China had 30 years ago, and what kind of regime it has now, we must reconsider this question. Most people will agree that 30 years ago the Chinese regime fit the classic Western definition of a totalitarian state. Today, however, China's government is more aptly termed an authoritarian regime. Or in the words of Professor Xiao Gongqin (an advocate of authoritarianism) it is "an authoritarian regime in the post-totalitarianism era."
Is it possible for a country to transition from a totalitarian regime to an authoritarian regime without undergoing any reform of its political system?
In my opinion, in evaluating the political system of a modern state one should consider the following factors: first, the relationship between political, economic, social and cultural authorities; second, the relationship between the ruling party and the government; third, the relationship between the central government and local authorities; fourth, the separation of powers within the government; fifth, the source of the state's authority; and sixth, the process of competing for state power.
These six factors constitute a political system in the broad sense. Narrowly defined, a political system may be considered to include only the latter three. This is because only in contemporary times has there existed a one-party political regime. Neither was there a government that implemented a system of public ownership that included the tangible and intangible assets of the whole society, and closely united all political, economic, social, and cultural authority.
If one understands a political system in the narrow sense, one would say that China has had no political system reform during the past 30 years. It is fair to say that until now the source of the state's authority is still up in the air. This is similar to the situation before the reform that gave people the right to own property: the state declared the "ownership of the people" in name, but people did not in fact have any ownership.
In addition, the division of state power still remains a forbidden topic. Although the "judicial authority" no longer functions like the ear of a deaf man, and the "legislative authority" of the National People's Congress is no longer simply a rubber stamp, there is still a long way to go to build a structure where the three powers can actually restrain one another. What's more, touching upon the issue of competition for state power is like touching a 10,000 volt high-tension electric wire - this is impossible for a body made of flesh.
However, as economic reforms have deepened in the past 30 years, China has made some progress in separating the political, economic, social, and cultural authorities. The old system's birth-to-death control of every member of society has loosened. Great improvements have been made in granting people the freedom to choose their place of residence, employment, property, and other issues of personal freedom. Much success has also been achieved in separating the Party from the government, as well as in delegating power to lower-level authorities. The Communist Party's control and intervention in people's affairs is less pervasive. And the highly concentrated economic management system no longer exists -- the most successful example of this is the decentralization of financial authority from the Party's Central Committee to local governments.
Despite the fact that during the 1990s China strengthened the financial authority of the Central Committee, the decentralization pattern still exists. This decentralization has been termed "fiscal federalism" by Western researchers, or the "federal model with Chinese characteristics." This is one of the foundations of China's success in economic reform and development.
In addition, with the return of Hong Kong and Macau to Chinese sovereignty, Deng Xiaoping's "one county two systems" formula became the breaking point of China's single-party system, and made China take a pioneering step toward a modern decentralized government and complex state system.
The simple conclusion is that China's progress in reforming its economic system over the past 30 years has also impacted the political system and brought some reform there as well. It transformed China from a totalitarian regime to an authoritarian regime. This reform is extremely important. It has restored China from an extreme country that could not carry out political reform in the narrowest sense to a normal country that is able to implement some degree of political reform.
This is to say, China has in fact implemented political system reform, however limited.
--
(Wu Jiaxiang is a renowned economic and political scholar, based in Beijing, and a former visiting scholar at Harvard University's Fairbanks Center for East Asian Research. His research covers economics, politics, international politics, business strategy, and Chinese traditional strategy and thought. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese; the original may be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Wu Jiaxiang.)
没有评论:
发表评论