Russia's unique 'succession democracy'

By WU JIAXIANG
March 07, 2008

WEIHAI, China, Dmitry Medvedev, elected the new president of Russia last Sunday with 70 percent of the vote, was clearly the choice of President Vladimir Putin, who was quick to congratulate him on his victory.

This news somehow reminded me of an interesting story about Russia revealed in the biography of the late British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Russell's grandmother was the wife of the British prime minister toward the end of the tsarist era in Russia, more than 100 years ago.

One day the wife of the prime minister received the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom in her home. As British parliamentary elections had just concluded, the topic of the elections naturally came up.

"May God bless Russia! Let Russia take the path to parliamentary democracy at an early date," she wished sincerely.

"My honorable Madam, the god Russia believes in may be different from the one the United Kingdom believes in; the god we Russians pray to may not necessarily approve of parliamentary democracy. We pray Russia will not go that way," said the Russian ambassador with smile.

Now more than 100 years have passed. The Russian god has neither helped the country move toward parliamentary democracy as Russell's grandmother wished, nor protected the tsarist state the ambassador prayed for. In fact, a unique Russian democracy has emerged, which I would like to call "succession democracy."

The characteristics of this system can be easily described -- the voters simply choose what the predecessor has chosen. This allows the people to conclude that Medvedev won the election, rather than claiming it as Putin's victory.

One look at a video used in Medvedev's election campaign tells it all -- Putin is holding Medvedev's hand and walking in the snow, like a father taking care of his child. Even if Putin's strong recommendation and support was not the only factor in Medvedev's election, it was certainly the most significant one.

The late Boris Yeltsin, another father-like Russian president, did a similar thing several years ago. Yeltsin actually announced his retirement before the end of his term in office and had Putin assume the throne without going through the election procedure. This colored the selection process of the Russian president and set the tone for "succession democracy."

My purpose is not to analyze the motive behind the behavior of these two retired Russian presidents. What interests me is why the Russian people not only accepted, but apparently appreciated, this kind of arrangement. The answer cannot be found in Russia's despotic or tsarist history.

Russia is one of the biggest countries in the world, and it has a large number of minority ethnic groups. According to my hypothesis, the bigger a country is and the more diverse groups it includes, the stronger the need for stability. As a result, this kind of Russian succession democracy appears to create a balance between freedom and peace as well as authority and stability.

What deserves praise is that the Russian leaders have become more and more confident as the country has built up its economy and recovered its political stability. From Yeltsin's direct succession to Putin's indirect succession, the element of democracy has increased, and that is the merit of this presidential election in Russia. It has removed the shadow of diminishing political freedom.

--

(Wu Jiaxiang is a senior researcher of China Research Center for Public Policy at the China Society of Economic Reform. He is a renowned economic and political scholar and a former visiting scholar at Harvard University's Fairbank Center for East Asian Research. His research areas include economics, domestic and international politics, business strategy, and Chinese traditional strategy and thought. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at http://blog.sina.com.cn/wujiaxiang and www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Wu Jiaxiang.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/03/07/russias_unique_succession_democracy/3228/

China needs transparent tax system

By LIU JUNNING
BEIJING, China

As red ideology fades in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people and social transition progresses, the phenomenon of the taxpayer has emerged once again in China. There has been little resistance to the reintroduction of taxes, except from some extreme leftists. People may have different views about their identity as taxpayers, but the undeniable fact is that all Chinese citizens are now paying taxes, directly or indirectly, to the ruling party or to the government.

However, although the people's legal status as taxpayers is recognized, the rights that should accompany this status do not apply. There is no system by which representatives of the taxpayers can oversee or monitor the tax-collection practices and procedures. There are no effective measures to prevent the various levels of government, the tax consumers, from extending their hands into the purses of the taxpayers. The taxpayers are not informed as to the amount of tax revenue collected or how it is spent; they have no say concerning the imposition of taxes or the expenditures of the state.

Unlike taxpayers in countries with a democratic constitution, those in China hold a dual position: they are owners of the state -- though without any seat in the government -- and at the same time they are a disadvantaged class. On one hand, the legal position of the taxpayer is supreme. Every citizen, not the ruling party, is supposed to be the owner of the state. A republic ruled by a constitutional system is owned not by any social class or political party, but by all the taxpayers.

On the other hand, however, in front of the ruling party's unrestricted political power, all the taxpayers in China are a disadvantaged class. Under the taxation system, everyone is a victim. What differs between them is merely that some taxpayers -- those who are not just citizens but also power holders -- can make up for the disadvantage of being a citizen by using their power.

But unfortunately, most taxpayers are powerless and truly disadvantaged. Whether they are rich or poor, they cannot argue with those in power. Moreover, if the rich do not conspire with the powerful, their losses could be greater. Those who impose taxes not only make various excuses to force the taxpayers to open their purses, they also censure some taxpayers for tax evasion in order to threaten and bully them. However, the powerful never make public the properties they own, or pay taxes on the illicit money they gain through corrupt deals.

Increasingly, economists, jurists, social leaders and media are addressing the topic of taxes, while the peoples' tax burden only grows heavier. China holds a high rank in the world for the number of people living in poverty, who therefore suffer under the taxation system; this has become a hot issue in society. Thus, a mechanism should be put in place to monitor the taxation system.

Monitoring the tax system would mean evaluating the services rendered by the government in exchange for the taxpayers' money, in order to ensure the fairness and justice of this exchange. This task should begin with the citizens, who must safeguard the taxpayers' purses. In brief, monitoring the system would mean organizing the taxpayers themselves to defend their rights as citizens, to advocate a proper, legitimate, transparent and reasonable system of taxation, to monitor the usage of tax revenue and offer suggestions for preventing abuse by both tax collectors and taxpayers. Taxpayers should be educated to know their rights and know what services they are paying for.

The tax monitoring system would be perverted if the government viewed it as a method of seeking new tax revenue. Its fundamental purpose would be to appeal to the authorities to impose taxes properly and righteously, at the lowest practical level, to allow citizens to hold onto their wealth. Eventually, the taxpayers should be able to assume their position as the true owners of the country.

--

(Liu Junning is a researcher on social issues at the Institute of Chinese Culture under China's Ministry of Culture. He was formerly a political researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and a visiting scholar at the Fairbanks Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original may be found at www.ncn.org and http://liujunning.vip.bokee.com/ . ©Copyright Liu Junning.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/01/25/china_needs_transparent_tax_system/9670/

Lessons of Taiwan's elections

By LI ZHINING

BEIJING, China

Published: January 17, 2008

Scenes from Taiwan's elections are always exciting. Despite the struggles between parties, these democratic elections never strike terror in the hearts of the people like the struggles that took place in China during the Cultural Revolution. At that time violence often broke out when factions struggled against each other.

However, most elections in the world proceed in peace. In immature democracies there is sometimes cheating, such as in Eastern Europe during the so-called "color revolutions." Another example is Iraq. On election day, the people were afraid of bombs that could go off at any moment, yet they rushed in large numbers to the voting booths to express their hopes for peace.

Why are elections usually peaceful while the Cultural Revolution was so violent? It is because the struggle between factions during the Cultural Revolution lacked proper procedures aimed at a certain result. With no clear aim, one faction defeated the other through violence.

Neither faction had a clear purpose, nor would either one admit that the other had won. All they could do was continue to fight until the central authority "expressed its attitude" in the conflict. As soon as the official "attitude" was made clear, the losing faction would be overwhelmed.

This is because there was no culture of elections, only a culture of violence. Therefore there could be no result other than a decision or opinion from a major leader or the central authority. The majority of the people could not decide anything; only the autocratic leaders held the right to make decisions.

If there had been a culture of elections, where every citizen had a vote, there would not have been a Cultural Revolution. Of course, small conflicts occasionally break out during Taiwan's elections, but they do not affect the whole situation.

As Taiwan's democracy matures, it provides lessons for the future democratization of mainland China. The behavior of Democratic Progressive Party politicians led to their resounding defeat in Saturday's legislative elections.

Immediately after the election, in which the Kuomintang won a strong majority in the legislature, analysts began commenting that if the party also wins the presidential election on March 22 it may represent a loss for democratic politics. The fact that people are concerned about a return to authoritarianism demonstrates the growing maturity of democracy in Taiwan. But Ma Ying-jeou, the KMT's presidential candidate, behaved responsibly as a politician and was not overwhelmed by the party's election victory.

Furthermore, commentators reminded everyone that the KMT's victory was not the result of the party's good work, but rather the result of voter dissatisfaction with the ruling party. Thus, if the KMT takes back the ruling power, it definitely must not resort to "dirty money politics" again. Otherwise it will not be able to retain that position.

The Taiwanese also recognized that there was no significant shift in the fundamental voter bases of the blue and green camps in terms of the legislative elections, despite the blue camp's win. The blue KMT won 5.01 million votes, while the green DPP won 3.61 million. The remaining minor parties shared the rest of the 1.16 million ballots. In total, the pan-green camp won about 4 million votes, not a small figure.

In the presidential election of 2000, the DPP won with just over 30 percent of the vote because the People First Party split from the KMT, dividing the blue camp. Among the three candidates, Lien Chan, representing the KMT, got just over 20 percent of the vote. This was similar to the situation in South Korea in 1987, when the result of struggles between Kim Young-Sam and Kim Dae-Jung benefited Roh Tae-Woo, who won with 36.6 percent of the vote.

If Taiwan's election law had required a candidate to win over 50 percent of the vote or face a second round between the two top contenders, Chen Shui-bian would not have won the presidency.

This time, it appears that the KMT could win in the March presidential election, having obtained somewhere between 51 and 58 percent of the votes in the legislative elections. However, in 2000 the combined ballots cast for the blue camp -- for Lien Chan from the KMT and James Soong from the PFP -- surpassed 60 percent. Still, the winner was the DPP team of Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu. In Saturday's election the pan-green camp won 40 percent of the vote, despite the administration's troubles over the past eight years. What does this mean?

If the KMT does not stay alert and ignores the nearly 40 percent support for the green camp, the story of Chen Shui-bian could be repeated. This is the way party politics should be.

Some senior KMT supporters think that Chen's party lost in the latest elections due to his tactics in eliminating the halo surrounding former President Chiang Kai-shek and his son. But I hold the opposite opinion.

If Chen had not done so, his losses would have been greater. His major problem was his poor administration, not the Chiang issue. Otherwise, with his record of poor achievement, corruption, scandals, weak economic development and poor international interaction, the DPP should have collapsed. But the pan-green still controls 40 percent of the vote because the campaign to remove the Chiangs' halo touched their hearts.

Therefore, if the KMT insists on holding on to the corpse of Chiang Kai-shek, it will one day lose even the pan-blue supporters. The KMT should have paid attention to opinion polls on the deep-blue camp's support for the Chiangs -- only about 5 percent of the people supported this. Undecided voters supported the KMT this time in hopes of improving the falling economy, not to bring back the memorial tablets of the great leaders and place them in the hearts of the people again.

--

(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/2008/01/17/lessons_of_taiwans_elections/2623/

What America Must Do: The China Syndrome

By Yang Jianli

January/February 2008

Showing that U.S. friendship is not for sale will earn the respect of a billion people.

EDEL RODRIGUEZ FOR FP

Related to this article:

· What America Must Do

· Author Interviews:

o Yang Jianli

o Kenneth Rogoff

o Reza Aslan

o Dmitri Trenin

o Jessica T. Mathews

For additional Web extras from the January/February 2008 issue of FP, click here.

Many people think that the United States’ influence has waned and its image has been tarnished. I have yet to arrive at the same conclusion. Since I was released from a Chinese prison in April 2007, having served five years for investigating labor unrest, I have spoken to a great number of people around the world about this very topic. In my mind, the United States remains a great country, and its people a great people. It continues to be the only global force with the authority to promote democratization and safeguard freedom and security.

I do believe, however, that the United States has a consistency problem. It is a country that was founded on the principles of freedom, democracy, and certain inalienable rights of the common people, but the desire to meet short-term interests tends to compromise faithfulness to these principles. That inconsistency weakens American credibility.

Since the violent crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989, U.S. policy toward China has been fickle, even erratic. One day, trade is used as leverage to promote human rights in China, and the next day a thousand reasons are given why that leverage should not be used. Many people wrongly assume that pressuring the Chinese government on human rights triggers ill will toward Americans on the part of ordinary Chinese citizens. In fact, it is the United States’ constant seesawing that reinforces the popular belief that Americans only act for their own material gain. The lofty statements followed by inaction have led the Chinese people to conclude that some American politicians, scholars, and businesspeople are hypocrites. Their self-imposed censorship when dealing with the Chinese government is disappointing. I have never opposed trading with China, but I cannot support a policy that is so wholly inconsistent.

The next American president can take concrete steps to demonstrate that U.S. policy on China cannot be bought and sold. Human rights conditions, no matter how small, should be attached to every issue the United States brings to China. Little by little, the United States must push for change. The administration should systematically and publicly engage Chinese democrats both within and outside China, with the long-term goal of helping to establish a constitutional democracy. And finally, the United States should push China to hold local elections. Beijing is not wholly opposed to the idea, because it may help diminish the local corruption and abuses of power that the central government is eager to curb.

Promoting democracy and freedom around the world will panic dictators and even puzzle those who have been brainwashed by their rulers, but it will not lead to disrespect. Only paying lip service to cherished beliefs or failing to follow up promises with actions will court disdain.

Yang Jianli is president of the U.S.-based Foundation for China in the 21st Century. In April 2007, he was released from prison in China, where he was tortured and held in solitary confinement, after serving five years on political charges.

Chinese scholars for imperial use

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/

Democracy with Chinese Communist characteristics

GUAN JIAN

BEIJING, Sep. 12

For the first time ever, the Chinese Communist Party has made public the list of delegates to its 17th Party Congress, which will convene on Oct. 15. Moreover, in newspaper articles and television broadcasts it has emphasized the democratic process by which delegates to this Congress were chosen. All this publicity makes the whole exercise seem quite serious. Actually, the Party has never released the list of delegates since 1949. This is truly unprecedented.

As to whether or not the selection of delegates was truly democratic, the CCP's Organizational Department claims it was, and no Party members have said it was not. This is not easy for an outsider to judge.

However, the propaganda surrounding the Congress has been similar to that which preceded the National People's Congress -- the focus in selecting delegates has been on "model workers" and "advanced personnel." The emphasis is on their outstanding work performance, not their political perspective. This ensures that, even if they are chosen through a democratic election, the chosen delegates will be in political accord with the CCP's top leaders. This is in direct contravention to the democratic principle that Party leaders should be accountable to the Party Congress. Instead, the Congress is accountable to the Party leaders.

As a matter of fact, ahead of this Congress, as always, the top officials of the CCP are locked in a keen power competition behind the scenes. They must work out the distribution of power ahead of the Congress, so as to ensure unity among the 2,000 delegates. Then they will conduct the performance of "inner Party democracy."

For the past five years the people have observed the performance of President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, and realized that they will not voluntarily carry out any political reforms. Therefore, pressure must be brought to bear on them to implement reforms. A debate on reform has been taking place ahead of the Party Congress, along with a debate on the guiding ideology of the CCP. Yet consensus has already been reached on the issue of democracy within the Party.

The power of the leftist faction within the Party has largely declined. Some open-minded members have suggested that the Party carry out contested elections. Some have suggested an even more radical change -- that Party leaders should be accountable to the Party Congress, and that a regular system should be implemented with fixed terms for delegates and annual meetings.

The CCP promotes individuals designated as "model workers" and "advanced personnel" as a means of avoiding real political discussion. The tradition of avoiding political confrontation is well established within the Party. Therefore, in order to avoid the issue of "inner Party democracy" and other issues, delegates' political positions are not considered prior to the Party Congress. Only their work performance is judged to determine their "advanced nature" and justify their selection as delegates to the Party Congress. Any Party member who has no links with corruption can be considered "progressive" and can meet the qualifications to be a delegate. Being free of corruption is a rare and outstanding quality among Party members nowadays.

By setting such qualifications, the Party is able to round off any rough edges among the delegates and ensure that they embody the "Party heart" and remain politically attuned to the central leadership. The requirement to conform to the official Party heart destroys individual passion and political idealism -- these eventually fade away into depression. "Individual progressiveness" replaces positive political ideals and ambition.

Fang Lizhi, the famous physics professor who was exiled to the United States after the 1989 democracy movement, used to encourage young people to join the CCP and invest their idealism and passion into transforming the Party. However, under the current reality of the CCP, the success rate of this strategy is very low.

It is important that the CCP establish the principle of making the Party leaders accountable to the Party Congress. Progress toward the so-called "democracy within the CCP" could have a real impact on China's democratic reforms. The key is whether or not the Party can change the tradition whereby the entire Party membership is subordinate to the Central Committee of the Party. Instead, the entire Party membership should be accountable to the Party Congress. This would be in keeping with the spirit of Marxism, the Chinese Communist Party's Constitution and the principles of democracy.

--

(Guan Jian is the pen name of a commentator on China affairs for New Century Net. He is a former researcher at an institute of state economic reform. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Guan Jian.)
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/09/13/commentary_democracy_with_chinese_communist_characteristics/

Can China's Communist Party implement democracy? (Part 2)

WU YONG

BEIJING, Jul. 20

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/07/20/commentary_can_chinas_communist_party_implement_democracy_part_2/

If the Chinese Communist Party intends to implement democracy within the Party, as it has stated, it must first fully guarantee freedom of speech within the Party. This suggestion was made by Li Rui, former secretary to Mao Zedong, at a committee meeting of the 16th National Congress last year. This suggestion was sincere and represented the views of others as well as Li.

Freedom of speech is a critical aspect of democracy. Without it, Party members cannot express their will and the Party cannot draw on their collective wisdom. It is the antidote to the Party's mindset that leaders are more intelligent than their subordinates, and to the "I speak, you follow" mode of operation of the Chinese Communist authorities.

Li Rui suggested that Party members should be allowed to express different opinions about major decisions at Party meetings and in its publications. They should also be allowed to criticize other Party members, including the top leaders. For the Communist Party, which has insisted on "one voice" among its members, this would represent substantial progress if it were implemented.

Second, the Communist Party must allow people who share similar political viewpoints to form groups within the Party, or even divide into different organizations, which is a necessary step for the democratic process to occur.

Different political opinions are the result of observation and reflection on social conflicts from different angles. Considering various arguments is helpful in fully understanding the social conditions and meeting different demands in a balanced way. It reflects the vitality of the social organism. In order to guarantee fair competition, we should not restrict different political viewpoints. Instead we should support open discussion, comparison and evaluation of various views, as multiple views are an essential element of democracy.

The Chinese Communist Party has long implemented a strictly closed and unified policy, discouraging competitiveness and resulting in a lack of vitality. A well-known professor of law at Beijing University, He Weifang, said frankly, "We love the Party very much, that's why we must speak our minds." He expressed the hope that the Party would allow two factions to form within it to reflect different views. This would invigorate the Party.

In reality, there is already confrontation between right and left views within the Party. It would be better to allow open debate between these factions rather than have them struggle in secret.

The Communist Party does not now exist as only one organization, one principle, one leader, and one voice, as dictated under Lenin and Stalin. In a democratic environment, communist parties have taken different forms. There are at least three active communist parties in India; the Japanese Communist Party has experienced many changes since its founding, which is normal. Whether the Chinese Communist Party dares to allow different factions to emerge, or even to form different groups, is a severe test of the substantive will to promote democracy within the Party.

Finally, abolishing "democratic centralism" is essential for the growth of intra-party democracy, as this concept is the rationale of autocracy.

The implied meaning of "centralism based on democracy and democracy guided by centralism," as written into the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party, was declared publicly by Mao Zedong: democracy is only a tool to bring about centralism. It was not intended that the two concepts would be equally applied. In fact, the essential intent was to allow the autocrats to deceive the people in the name of democracy.

The renowned Marxist theoretician and professor at People's University, Gao Fang, has researched this point. He has said, "The organizational principle of the Communist Party should be democracy, not democratic centralism." He has also commented, "There is no democracy that is not centralized, but there is centralism that is not democratic," and pointed out that nowadays many Communist Parties no longer refer to democratic centralism.

Of course, as an autocratic party, the Chinese Communist Party finds it hard to accept these advanced ideas of democracy. As a decaying and declining party, it may not be able to withstand such significant surgery.

What we are seeing now is that the Party, observing worldwide trends toward democracy, is suggesting that the Party may be revived by implementing internal democracy. Yet it is only proposing perfunctory and symbolic reforms to prolong its life. If there is no inner strength or determination within the Party to transform the old into the new, these external reforms will have little effect.

--

(Wu Yong is a former senior journalist and editor in China. He is now a freelance writer who frequently publishes commentaries in overseas media. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original may be found at www.chinaeweekly.com and www.ncn.org. cCopyright Wu Yong. )

Can China's Communist Party implement democracy? (Part 1)

WU YONG

BEIJING, Jul. 19

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/07/19/commentary_can_chinas_communist_party_implement_democracy_part_1/

Zhu Houze, former minister of China's Propaganda Department, took the unusual step last year of criticizing the concept of "New Democracy," saying it was in fact "fake democracy." This may have been the first time for a prominent Communist Party figure to make a strong and thorough criticism of this theory of democracy since it was introduced by Mao Zedong in 1940.

The reason New Democracy is fake democracy is that it is centered on the "leadership of the Communist Party," in other words, under the control and autocracy of the Party. It follows the Party's standard of right and wrong -- as a result, it is not democracy at all. Its natural destiny is a one-party dictatorship. By examining the essence of the Communist Party leadership, and its viewpoint on democracy, we can see the dictatorial nature of the Party and understand that the "democracy" it promises has nothing to do with the people's rights or ownership.

Of course the Party would not reveal its autocratic nature directly. Instead, it tactfully uses the name of democracy as a pretext while practicing one-party dictatorship in order to fulfill its own purposes. It also attempts to create a theory of the unity of interests between the Communist Party and the people.

The Party confuses and hoodwinks people by equating Party members and their privileges with ordinary people, who hold no rights. What's more, it has put the concept of one-party dictatorship into the Constitution to threaten those who question and oppose the system. It can then punish them for violating the Constitution. It uses both soft and hard approaches to entwine people in the network of dictatorship under the name of democracy. This is the scheme that the Chinese Communist Party has been carrying out, manipulating the name of "democracy" throughout the years.

The Party has said that without democracy there is no socialism, without democracy there is no modernization, and it has advocated democratic elections, democratic decision making and democratic governance. At present it is especially advocating "democracy within the Party," which appears to be something new. Some people are hopeful about this and think the Communist Party is going to implement internal democracy first. As a matter of fact, learning from many past examples, we should not be too optimistic about the so-called "democracy within the Party."

As far back as the 8th Party Congress meeting in 1956, the Party Constitution stipulated that the Party's representative assemblies above the county level should meet once a year and members should have fixed terms. This already showed a little progress toward democracy within the Party. Now, after 50 years, the system of fixed terms is still in the pilot stage. According to media reports in January 2003, the Jiaojiang district of Taizhou city in Zhejiang province became the trial site for the fixed-term system in 1988 -- 32 years after the 8th Party Congress meeting.

Top Party authorities said they thought this trial would "by all means bring progress to democracy within the Party." Thus, at each year's representative assembly in Jiaojiang, the Party Central Committee's Organization Department and that of the Provincial Party Committee of Zhejiang sent people to instruct the assembly. What was the result? Due to resistance from privileged people, the trial ended without any success. Observers must question whether the Chinese Communist Party really wants to carry out "democracy within the Party," or merely wants to use democracy as an ornament.

Wang Guixiu, a professor at the Central Party School, has commented on the result of the Jiaojiang pilot project. "Reform of the political system and democratic political construction must achieve substantive progress. They should not keep skirting the central issue," he said.

China's leaders must see clearly the difficulties they face, both inside and outside, and not view the country with complacency as a "rising power." They should no longer deceive the people with promises of democracy within the Party either. Instead, the leaders should show real determination to implement reforms, including democracy within the Party, through substantial actions.

(To be continued.)

--

(Wu Yong is a former senior journalist and editor in China. He is now a freelance writer who frequently publishes commentaries in overseas media. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original may be found at www.chinaeweekly.com and www.ncn.org. cCopyright Wu Yong. )

Only democracy ensures human dignity

LIU JUNNING
BEIJING, Jul। 6
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/politics/2007/07/06/commentary_only_democracy_ensures_human_dignity/

Recently exposed cases of enslaved child and adult laborers in China's inland provinces have drawn nationwide attention. There are different opinions as to the causes behind this phenomenon, but everyone seems to agree that the owners of the illegal kilns are "evil-hearted."

In history there have been plenty of evil people and evil deeds. The question is, how could such evil deeds persist over a long period of time? This cannot be explained by the evil hearts of the kiln owners.

Some have put forward "capitalism" as a scapegoat, concluding that collusion between capital and political power has penetrated all aspects of Chinese life. Such collusion indeed exits extensively, but this viewpoint accuses the capitalists without blaming those in power, which is inappropriate.

The evil of the illegal kilns is that they treat people as slaves. Slavery was widely practiced before the era of capitalism and the market economy. This is not denied even by Marx's theory of the stages of social development.

The fact is that every slavery system in history was supported by political power. The illegal kilns prospered because of support from local authorities. Thus the key to this issue is not capital, but authority. On the surface the illegal kilns appear to be enterprises, but when they depend on political authority to enslave workers, they cannot be considered enterprises.

The kilns do not operate by the logic of capitalism, which requires freely signed contracts with those who labor. Instead, they operate under the political authority of the government, which makes them appendages of those in power, not entrepreneurs or businessmen. Such illegal operations are the extension of power. Therefore what is needed is a change in the old system, not a withdrawal from the market economy.

Some think the illegal kilns are the result of an evil alliance of interests between the local government and business groups with capital. These allies bully others who are not strong enough to forge such alliances, the theory goes.

This explanation has points in common with the one that blames capitalists, but raises a new question: Why is it that under the present system some people can form alliances for mutual benefit, while others cannot? For example, why can't laborers form an alliance with a local government? What would happen if everyone had the same rights and opportunities to form alliances, if the law effectively restrained the power of each alliance, and if laborers could establish labor unions? Who allows the kiln owners to behave so unscrupulously?

While the public condemns the kiln operators as evil individuals, what is actually evil is the system, not the people. Such a system is certain to mold evil people. Under a problematic system, the behavior of officials will naturally be problematic.

Over the past several hundred years, innumerable things have changed in Chinese society. However, what never changes is that the people's rights are not protected, and people's dignity is still trampled upon. The market economy should not be blamed for the enslavement of laborers. Blame must be shared by the officials, the owners of the kilns and the system, which does not protect individual rights of life, freedom and property.

The breakthrough in this incident came only after direct orders to investigate came from central government and provincial authorities. The question is: Why wasn't the law implemented without such direct political intervention? Obviously, it is orders that govern the country, not a legal system.

In addition, when the parents of the child laborers went to the kilns to search for their missing children, they were provided no assistance from the local police. Instead, they were threatened by the police. The purpose of a government is to protect people's dignity and their rights to life, freedom and property. People support these functions with their taxes. But in the places where the illegal kilns were found, local authorities served none of these functions.

It appears that the central government could not assume full control over the local government. Also, local citizens could not direct the local authorities. In other words, the people were not the masters. The local government is responsible to the central government, not to a local constituency. If the local officials' authority were based on the people's votes, if laborers could form alliances freely, if the local authorities had been interrogated by the media and by parents of the missing children every day, if there were full freedom of speech and of the media, if there were opposition politicians to pressure the officials, then such phenomena as the illegal kilns would automatically become extinct.

If the judicial authority, the labor department, and the public security agencies were all subject to publicly elected officials, they could not abuse the rights of the people for their own benefit. As long as authority does not originate from the people and political power is unrestricted, such evils will continue.

Some people might say that this case of slavery in illegal kilns is an isolated incident, and we cannot use one case to represent the whole of society. However, media reports have confirmed that this type of slavery exists in many places and many occupations. This labor problem cannot be separated from the problematic system.

The response to this kind of incident is not to return to a planned economy. Rather, we need to rebuild the political system and establish a political order that truly protects the people's rights to life, freedom and property.

--

(Liu Junning is a researcher on social issues at the Institute of Chinese Culture under China's Ministry of Culture. He was formerly a political researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and a visiting scholar at the Fairbanks Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original may be found on South City Weekly and www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Liu Junning.)