Are the Chinese redefining democracy? Or is the Chinese FANG-SHOU, policy making process, going to lead to another authoritarian reaction?
Democracy is a word few illustrate but plenty will mimic. The post-industrialized world thrives on command terms such as this. China, the sleeping giant by which Napolean was most awe-inspired, has awaken or become more aware, rather, of its capabilities and potency. One a global scale said prowess is inherent to authority. Especially when it’s obstensively backed with these words of play and methods of suggestion for a government that would evolve–change. China is one such country; its face is painted with some liberties, a tint of globalization, a hue of cultural affectations, and her complexion is appealing most would say. The facade of a democracy is more of a turn on for external actors than the stark truth that China is quite knowledgeable about current events in other countries and the state of affairs within its own boundaries. China’s leadership has managed well to keep a closed fist over everything that warrants an opposition, or in this case a lethally wrong opinion.
Communism has not collapsed in China due to the mobilization of the people under its rule. Primarily started by the cultural revolution, the masses have become incorporated (or led to think so)
by way of economic and social reforms in China. With implementation of principles encouraged and supported by Mao, it backed the ideal of the peasant existence and all in the community to participate in
government (values of efficacy) with the precepts of massline, egalitarianism and collectivism for China. He forged a different path, a new standard of efficacy for those economically, intellectually and socially inhibited by traditionalist values and a seemingly isolationist country. Xioaping followed suit but instead of embarking on the central values of the communal features superimposed by the government/ party in China, he took a more outward concept and adhered it to the external actors of China. His motions for open trade sparked globalization, increased productivity, and overall boost for morale.
Xioaping and Mao are among the few innovators of cultural and economic revolution for China. Mao pressed for power of the peasant class and held strong to the soviet model with an acclimation to Chinese cultural values. Xaioping was a Cinderella story and inspired hope that an individual could climb the rungs of PRC, politic, and even with guanxi, efficacy existed for the Chinese because they believed in it; a cult of their personality, perhaps. And even with the new principles for modernization and plans for change, the blatent reality remains. The one party rule has saturated all politics and governmental exchange, like that of linkage institutions, and maintains the status quo. It is by this paradox that efficacy is granted to the people on certain lower levels, such as with local elections and dissertation between peasants and cadres, but not on the highest levels of government, like the standing committee, and their politburo decisions because they are the vanguard elite.
Even still, the political climate revolves around the appointment for some efficacy for differing views so long as they pose no threat to communism and it’s authoritarian thumb. Nonetheless, Chinese culture is dominated by a central value of discipline, sometimes equated with a harsh rule (even when it means offing a few individuals to get the point across). The definiton of Democracy for Great Britain, for Iran, for Russia, and perhaps the U.S. has never formulated a tautology; different values but the same principle. The difference between these nations and China is not so much that China is provoked by protesters, demonstrators and advocates against said factions in higher levels of appointment, or even that China is on a different playing field when compared to these other countries’ governments and their development, but more so a comprehensive scale that China is its own nation. China has tread through months of devastation and prosperous times, due to various reasons. No economy is perfect. Democracy is for the bold and idealistic: that trisyllabic word is loaded. China took the time to develop the notion of democracy, but authoritarianism has been embedded in China’s ways since before the cold war, before world war II, etc. Democracy in China is not Democracy; but by any other name, this cat, this feline, has prowled and become more apt to handle the qualms of the citizens, its prey, and keep its eye on the movement; Russia was too swift, Iran was too lethargic, and the UK was too distracted, but China is more than patient. China keeps its legitimacy as a powerful government because it only makes its moves when they are needed, it does not indulge and it certainly does not waste any opprtunity. There are no gaps, no big tent theories, to bombard their union to the people because their is one party and one party alone to claim association and to pay homage. Democracy would do more than suggest efficacy at such a point, because new margins, new strings would exist. Ties to perception, an overall sense of protected liberty, and interest groups, are not areas of government and impending political culture that China is willing to part ways or sympathize ideologies for any reason. Although it appears China has become modernized and globalized, at best, China is holding strong, as do the political leaders, to these values. There is no misconception. China has kept things tidy because there is little opportunity for anything other than nationalism, which is the foundation for china’s social cohesion and seemingly homogeneic nature.
