LI ZHINING
BEIJING, China, Dec. 27
The term "democracy" as used by China's state leaders has a different meaning from that understood in the West, according to Andrew J. Nathan, China expert and professor of political science at Columbia University in New York.Chinese officials are not elected in any real sense; they are chosen by the Chinese Communist Party, which represents a major divergence between the Chinese and U.S. concepts of democracy.
However, Yu Keping, a Beijing official and scholar famous for writing the widely discussed article "Democracy is a Good Thing," has claimed that the criteria for democracy includes not only direct elections but also public supervision of those in power and citizens' participation in government. Further, Yu said China cannot simply copy the democratic model of other countries, but must walk its own path.
Actually, the Chinese scholar's statements attempt to turn simple concepts into complex ones in an effort to appear profound. In fact they are an embarrassment. China's current social systems have nothing at all to do with the word "democracy." In the hands of those potentates, the word "democracy" is merely a "thing" to be used to convey lies.
It is not rare to hear such Chinese "scholars for imperial use" label anything that pleases those in power "a good thing." On the other hand, for anything that harms the interests of the potentates, those scholars will concoct a new form, give it an extreme makeover and take away its essence until it becomes "a good thing" for the potentates.
This is how the word "democracy" came to become "a good thing" for the Chinese.
In fact, democratic politics have never been acceptable to Chinese authorities throughout the nation's history. The suggestion that the people should be granted the right to choose their government through open elections remains taboo, even now.
Nevertheless, the rulers have encountered some trouble in this regard. Since the May 4th Movement of 1919, the word "democracy" has been etched into the minds of the Chinese people. It was the standard by which advances and counter-revolutionary moves were judged. As a result, it's difficult to negate democracy and openly advocate autarchy.
The Chinese rulers' solution to this problem is to adopt the word "democracy" in name but completely change its essence.
Take Mao Zedong, who obviously did not approve of democracy, for example. In his critical article "How to Correctly Handle the Internal Struggles of the People" he openly stated that democracy was a means rather than an end. Therefore, we could conclude that there is no need for China to implement a democratic system. In fact, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping after him both insisted on political autarchy. Not even they could publicly identify democracy as counter-revolutionary.
The mindset remains the same today. Obviously, the "scholars for imperial use" cannot condemn democracy as a reactionary thing, which will undermine its value. Thus, they adopted Mao's practice of using it as the means to a different end, proclaiming that "democracy is a good thing." But in reality, they have taken away the bones and muscles of democracy and made it into a new dish. The scholars first presented this delicacy to the leadership to be sure it pleased them, then they offered this false dish to the people.
This is in fact a mediocre and uncreative approach. It is like adding the term "with Chinese characteristics" to the term "socialism" to create something that is not socialism at all. The tem "with Chinese characteristics" has also been attached to "democracy" to create something that is not democracy at all. .
As a matter of fact, there are no unique or odd national conditions in China to justify this approach. The scholars always chatter shamelessly about China's unique "national conditions." But what nation in the world has unique national conditions? Why is it that most countries in the world are capable of implementing democracy, but not China?
Yu Keping's definition of democracy, which includes supervision of those in power and citizens' participation in governance, is not the practice in modern China. The people are still not the real owners of the nation. The citizens' participation in governance is exactly as much as the rulers wish to grant them. If it is none, then the people have no such right. The Chinese people do not even possess the freedom of speech; what other kind of participation can they even imagine?
Democracy cannot be divided into Western and Eastern styles. If the Chinese rulers do not want national elections and separation of the three major powers of government, they should be brave enough to say so publicly; at least that would be considered honest. But now, the scholars are playing around with language and spreading false ideas to fool the people. They want to mislead the people into thinking they have democracy. Their purpose is to make the people feel grateful and indebted to the rulers, so they will not cause troubles or create mass incidents.
It has been said that to applaud dictatorship is to despise the people. Unfortunately, many Chinese scholars do not seem to care much about this point. Moreover, the rulers and the scholars control the media in China, which prevents people from probing more deeply. Otherwise the leaders would not be able to handle the barrage of questions they would face.
---
(Li Zhining is an independent thinker and writer. He was formerly a researcher at the Economic Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Li Zhining.)
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2007/12/27/chinese_scholars_for_imperial_use/9050/
However, Yu Keping, a Beijing official and scholar famous for writing the widely discussed article "Democracy is a Good Thing," has claimed that the criteria for democracy includes not only direct elections but also public supervision of those in power and citizens' participation in government. Further, Yu said China cannot simply copy the democratic model of other countries, but must walk its own path.
Actually, the Chinese scholar's statements attempt to turn simple concepts into complex ones in an effort to appear profound. In fact they are an embarrassment. China's current social systems have nothing at all to do with the word "democracy." In the hands of those potentates, the word "democracy" is merely a "thing" to be used to convey lies.
It is not rare to hear such Chinese "scholars for imperial use" label anything that pleases those in power "a good thing." On the other hand, for anything that harms the interests of the potentates, those scholars will concoct a new form, give it an extreme makeover and take away its essence until it becomes "a good thing" for the potentates.
This is how the word "democracy" came to become "a good thing" for the Chinese.
In fact, democratic politics have never been acceptable to Chinese authorities throughout the nation's history. The suggestion that the people should be granted the right to choose their government through open elections remains taboo, even now.
Nevertheless, the rulers have encountered some trouble in this regard. Since the May 4th Movement of 1919, the word "democracy" has been etched into the minds of the Chinese people. It was the standard by which advances and counter-revolutionary moves were judged. As a result, it's difficult to negate democracy and openly advocate autarchy.
The Chinese rulers' solution to this problem is to adopt the word "democracy" in name but completely change its essence.
Take Mao Zedong, who obviously did not approve of democracy, for example. In his critical article "How to Correctly Handle the Internal Struggles of the People" he openly stated that democracy was a means rather than an end. Therefore, we could conclude that there is no need for China to implement a democratic system. In fact, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping after him both insisted on political autarchy. Not even they could publicly identify democracy as counter-revolutionary.
The mindset remains the same today. Obviously, the "scholars for imperial use" cannot condemn democracy as a reactionary thing, which will undermine its value. Thus, they adopted Mao's practice of using it as the means to a different end, proclaiming that "democracy is a good thing." But in reality, they have taken away the bones and muscles of democracy and made it into a new dish. The scholars first presented this delicacy to the leadership to be sure it pleased them, then they offered this false dish to the people.
This is in fact a mediocre and uncreative approach. It is like adding the term "with Chinese characteristics" to the term "socialism" to create something that is not socialism at all. The tem "with Chinese characteristics" has also been attached to "democracy" to create something that is not democracy at all. .
As a matter of fact, there are no unique or odd national conditions in China to justify this approach. The scholars always chatter shamelessly about China's unique "national conditions." But what nation in the world has unique national conditions? Why is it that most countries in the world are capable of implementing democracy, but not China?
Yu Keping's definition of democracy, which includes supervision of those in power and citizens' participation in governance, is not the practice in modern China. The people are still not the real owners of the nation. The citizens' participation in governance is exactly as much as the rulers wish to grant them. If it is none, then the people have no such right. The Chinese people do not even possess the freedom of speech; what other kind of participation can they even imagine?
Democracy cannot be divided into Western and Eastern styles. If the Chinese rulers do not want national elections and separation of the three major powers of government, they should be brave enough to say so publicly; at least that would be considered honest. But now, the scholars are playing around with language and spreading false ideas to fool the people. They want to mislead the people into thinking they have democracy. Their purpose is to make the people feel grateful and indebted to the rulers, so they will not cause troubles or create mass incidents.
It has been said that to applaud dictatorship is to despise the people. Unfortunately, many Chinese scholars do not seem to care much about this point. Moreover, the rulers and the scholars control the media in China, which prevents people from probing more deeply. Otherwise the leaders would not be able to handle the barrage of questions they would face.
---
(Li Zhining is an independent thinker and writer. He was formerly a researcher at the Economic Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Li Zhining.)
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2007/12/27/chinese_scholars_for_imperial_use/9050/
没有评论:
发表评论