Comparative politics show China far behind

By CHEN KUIDE, WASHINGTON DC, D.C, United States
Published: March 12, 2008

March has been a month of elections, with the primary polls in the United States and the presidential elections in Russia and Taiwan capturing attention. At the same time, China is holding its annual meetings of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference -- which have attracted little attention, as not many surprises are expected.

These four political events could be said to represent four different levels of political and civil development.

The election processes in the United States and Taiwan are dramatic and absorbing, with voters' attention fixed on the results of polls ahead of the final outcome. By contrast, the political meetings in Beijing are dull and routine. Delegates behave as rubber stamps, with no real guts or ability to meaningfully impact the agenda. Consequently, viewers lose interest in watching the proceedings.

The difference between the political system in China and those in the global mainstream is glaring. Among the three democratic nations, the political and civil processes in the United States, Taiwan and Russia are all different from one another, however.

The most dramatic and unexpected events are taking place in the United States, where for the first time there may appear a black president or a female president. Either one would be history-making.

The voters' zeal and high voter turnout is impressive. On the other hand, there is a high level of uncertainty concerning the final outcome, and a feeling that no one is in control. This is in fact inevitable in a real democracy. Therefore, the U.S. election process reflects a mature democracy. Whatever the result, this election will be considered a milestone in the history of U.S. politics.

Taiwan is another type of democracy. The after effects of the authoritarian politics of the former ruling party, the Kuomintang, and the populism of the current ruling Democratic Progressive Party, are both visible in this presidential election. Judging from their political behavior, the ruling DPP is acting like the opposition, while the KMT is speaking as if it were the ruling party. In other words, the current ruling and opposition parties are not fulfilling their proper roles.

Also, in Taiwan the independence of the judiciary is not yet very sound. As a result, the courts selectively interfere in the political process from time to time.

Objectively speaking, the issue of national identify that has long plagued Taiwan's democratic system does not seem to be prominent in this year's election. The colors of both the blue and the green camps have started to fade; the political struggle based on ethnicity has diminished. Instead, the focus has shifted to competition between concrete strategies that affect the people's livelihood.

Taiwan's March 22 presidential election is just around the corner, but the streets of Taipei are not full of impassioned campaigners and citizens filled with ardor. This is the biggest change compared with previous elections. Neither ubiquitous campaign posters nor vehicles with annoying high-pitched speakers blaring are in sight. The Taiwanese have apparently become mature and composed after all the political trials and hardships of recent years.

If no major incident occurs to impact the election, it can be said that Taiwan's democracy is on track, despite some abuses. Taiwan's two major political parties are contesting the election in a calm political atmosphere. This is good news for both Taiwan and China.

In the case of Russia's presidential election, which took place on March 2, Dmitry Medvedev was elected with 70 percent of the vote. However, among the four candidates it was clear that Medvedev would win, as he had the backing of incumbent President Vladimir Putin. No surprises were allowed in this election.

Before the election, speculation was rife in the international community as to whether Putin would advance or retreat after his eight-year presidency. Would this iron-fisted former KGB operative, who claimed himself the successor to Peter the Great, break the Constitution to renew his presidency, revise the Constitution to continue his presidency, or obey the Constitution, hand over power and become an ordinary citizen?

Such speculation makes sense in a country where the tradition of democratic constitutionalism is not yet deeply rooted and the president enjoys strong popular support.

But all the speculations went wrong, surprisingly. Putin adopted a creative approach by revealing his intention to become prime minister when his term as president expired. This announcement got the whole world talking. But careful consideration shows Putin's wisdom in taking this step.

His wish to take up the prime minister's position revealed Putin's strong desire to hold onto power. This is human nature, especially for those who have tasted power and become addicted to it. However, he didn't dare offend the whole world by either violating or revising the Constitution to allow him to retain the presidency.

Putin's action proves that Russian democracy is not mature. However, it does possess a certain threatening moral power. The system provided enough of a threat that it forced such a powerful political figure as Putin to subordinate his drive for power to the Constitution. Caught between the power of his desire and the power of the political system, Putin was forced to humble himself and take the post of prime minister.

People think that Medvedev will wield power under the shadow of Putin, but this situation is not likely to last long. Medvedev, in keeping with his own human nature and drive for power, will aim for full control of the administration. And the Constitution will back him up.

This Russian election has served as a weathervane and revealed the degree of authoritarianism still inherent in the leadership. It showed that freedom of the press is still inadequate and there are still many challenges on the path to democratic constitutionalism. Nevertheless, the foundation for rule by law has been built. The country cannot return to the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union.

In comparison with these three examples of the democratic process, China's two meetings pale into insignificance. This fact cannot be covered up by the country's booming economic growth. China has not yet mastered the basics of democracy; unfortunately, it is not even at the level of a beginner.

--

(Chen Kuide is editor of the Web site "Observe China," www.observechina.net. He is former executive director of the Princeton China Initiative, which he joined while a visiting scholar at Princeton University in 1990. He holds a Ph.D. degree in philosophy from Fudan University in Shanghai, where he was a professor and editor-in-chief of the magazine "The Thinker." This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Chen Kuide.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/03/12/comparative_politics_show_china_far_behind/4230/