China has long been idolised by many countries in the developing world as a power that stands up for the rights of the downtrodden masses in world bodies. They see it as a counterweight to many countries in the West that had colonised them decades ago.
That is certainly the image that China sought to project to the world during the Winter Olympics in Beijing. The leaders of many developing countries showed up in Beijing to show their solidarity with China, even if they had only one or two athletes competing in the games.
China is a self-styled People’s Republic. Big decisions are made in the Great Hall of the People. The military is called the People’s Liberation Army. Even the party organ is called The People’s Daily.
Despite all this egalitarian rhetoric, it is open for debate as to how much the people’s voice is actually heard. The Communist Party of China (CPC) governs the country with an iron hand. When the communists under Mao Zedong took over in 1949, they were ushering in a revolution led by the peasants, in an extension of the Marxian doctrine according to which the workers would take over the affairs of the state and create a dictatorship of the proletariat.
As Marx conceived it, the majority class would run the affairs of the state, as opposed to the minority capitalist class. The socialist state would treat everyone equally, ultimately giving everyone according to their needs. Eventually, the state would wither away.
It has been 72 years since the CPC seized the reins of power, but there is no sign of everyone being treated equally, let alone of the state withering away. Opposing voices are smothered wherever they arise, not just the voices of the Uighurs in Xinjiang.
How did things come to such as a sorry pass? Will things ever change? Professor Cai Xia, in an essay published in Foreign Affairs, provides a long answer. A shorter essay appears in The Economist. Her views have been widely cited in periodicals such as The Guardian.
Cai explains how the Communist Party of China under Mao created an authoritarian state akin to what Stalin created in the Soviet Union and how President Xi, who has ruled China since 2012, has transformed himself into a larger-than-life figure cut in the Chairman Mao mold.
Professor Cai Xia taught at the Central Party School of the CPC, which was once headed by Xi himself. Cai has published four books and more than one hundred journal articles. She was born into a peasant family that took an active part in Mao’s revolution. Cai grew up as an ardent admirer of the Chairman and was fully committed to implementing his philosophy.
As the years progressed, she rose in stature, becoming a central part of the CPC apparatus. It was then that she began to see the contradictions in what the party espoused and what the party did. To her chagrin, she discovered that only one point would be accepted within the party’s sessions, and that point would be whatever the party chairman was putting forward. It was only late in life that she came to know of the Great Famine during Mao’s reign and the massacre of civilians in Tiananmen Square in 1989. She was appalled at the treatment meted out to Dr. Li Wenliang in Wuhan who had given early warning of Covid-19.
Xi’s initial pronouncements had given her hope. He seemed to suggest that change was in the air and that China was heading toward a liberal democratic arrangement. When that proved to be a chimera, Cai began criticising the party for its lack of openness and tolerance for dissent. At that point, she became the target of ridicule. In 2019, she was forced to flee for her life and has lived in the US since.
Cai says that the CPC’s transformation of China from an agricultural to an industrial economy was indeed impressive but it hid some ugly realities. The “uniquely Chinese path,” trampled on human rights. She warns, “People around the world should not be misled by its outward appearance. The reality is that Chinese society is fragile because of the country’s one-party dictatorship, and adopting democratic practices would strengthen it.”
Sounding an alarm, Cai says the one-party system portends “a disaster for China’s development and human society.” Her contention is that the CPC is using rapid economic growth to maintain internal stability. The ultimate objective is to create a “rich country, strong army” that can compete with the US and become a global hegemon.
To thrive in the long run, Cai argues that China needs to follow the general trend of freedom and democracy in the world: “However, the one-party system is fundamentally opposed to freedom and democracy. It is not only a huge obstacle to China’s development, but a catastrophe in terms of civil liberties.”
In chilling detail, she cites how the CPC “confiscates academic works published abroad, and forbids discussion of foreign academic ideas. Some universities do not even allow foreign-language departments to use foreign-language textbooks. This cutting off from the achievements of human civilisation will undoubtedly block the knowledge and intellectual horizons of Chinese youths, and make it harder to cultivate creative thinking. As a result, China will lack the talent it needs to lead in the future.”
We learn that drafting documents for the Central Committee is a highly confidential process: “My colleagues and I were forbidden from leaving the premises or receiving guests. When the Propaganda Department convened a meeting, those who weren’t invited weren’t allowed to ask about it.”
Xi’s thought is being given the high status that Mao’s thought was accorded when the Red Book was published during the Cultural Revolution.
Cai has raised some very troubling questions about China’s governance. As long as the CPC is in power, it will never open itself up for general elections like those in a liberal democracy, and will prevent China from become a constitutional democracy, commensurate with its economic standing in the globe.
One assumes that Prime Minister Imran Khan is only too painfully aware of China’s failings. That is why his conception of the welfare state seeks to marry China’s economic system with Sweden’s democratic values and Islamic norms.
While such a hybrid state combines the best features of three diametrically opposing systems can be postulated in theory, it may prove impossible to realise in practice. Small wonder, then that Imran Khan’s Naya Pakistan remains a distant dream, and perhaps an illusion.
That is certainly the image that China sought to project to the world during the Winter Olympics in Beijing. The leaders of many developing countries showed up in Beijing to show their solidarity with China, even if they had only one or two athletes competing in the games.
China is a self-styled People’s Republic. Big decisions are made in the Great Hall of the People. The military is called the People’s Liberation Army. Even the party organ is called The People’s Daily.
Despite all this egalitarian rhetoric, it is open for debate as to how much the people’s voice is actually heard. The Communist Party of China (CPC) governs the country with an iron hand. When the communists under Mao Zedong took over in 1949, they were ushering in a revolution led by the peasants, in an extension of the Marxian doctrine according to which the workers would take over the affairs of the state and create a dictatorship of the proletariat.
As Marx conceived it, the majority class would run the affairs of the state, as opposed to the minority capitalist class. The socialist state would treat everyone equally, ultimately giving everyone according to their needs. Eventually, the state would wither away.
It has been 72 years since the CPC seized the reins of power, but there is no sign of everyone being treated equally, let alone of the state withering away. Opposing voices are smothered wherever they arise, not just the voices of the Uighurs in Xinjiang.
How did things come to such as a sorry pass? Will things ever change? Professor Cai Xia, in an essay published in Foreign Affairs, provides a long answer. A shorter essay appears in The Economist. Her views have been widely cited in periodicals such as The Guardian.
Cai explains how the Communist Party of China under Mao created an authoritarian state akin to what Stalin created in the Soviet Union and how President Xi, who has ruled China since 2012, has transformed himself into a larger-than-life figure cut in the Chairman Mao mold.
Professor Cai Xia taught at the Central Party School of the CPC, which was once headed by Xi himself. Cai has published four books and more than one hundred journal articles. She was born into a peasant family that took an active part in Mao’s revolution. Cai grew up as an ardent admirer of the Chairman and was fully committed to implementing his philosophy.
As the years progressed, she rose in stature, becoming a central part of the CPC apparatus. It was then that she began to see the contradictions in what the party espoused and what the party did. To her chagrin, she discovered that only one point would be accepted within the party’s sessions, and that point would be whatever the party chairman was putting forward. It was only late in life that she came to know of the Great Famine during Mao’s reign and the massacre of civilians in Tiananmen Square in 1989. She was appalled at the treatment meted out to Dr. Li Wenliang in Wuhan who had given early warning of Covid-19.
Xi’s initial pronouncements had given her hope. He seemed to suggest that change was in the air and that China was heading toward a liberal democratic arrangement. When that proved to be a chimera, Cai began criticising the party for its lack of openness and tolerance for dissent. At that point, she became the target of ridicule. In 2019, she was forced to flee for her life and has lived in the US since.
Cai says that the CPC’s transformation of China from an agricultural to an industrial economy was indeed impressive but it hid some ugly realities. The “uniquely Chinese path,” trampled on human rights. She warns, “People around the world should not be misled by its outward appearance. The reality is that Chinese society is fragile because of the country’s one-party dictatorship, and adopting democratic practices would strengthen it.”
Sounding an alarm, Cai says the one-party system portends “a disaster for China’s development and human society.” Her contention is that the CPC is using rapid economic growth to maintain internal stability. The ultimate objective is to create a “rich country, strong army” that can compete with the US and become a global hegemon.
To thrive in the long run, Cai argues that China needs to follow the general trend of freedom and democracy in the world: “However, the one-party system is fundamentally opposed to freedom and democracy. It is not only a huge obstacle to China’s development, but a catastrophe in terms of civil liberties.”
In chilling detail, she cites how the CPC “confiscates academic works published abroad, and forbids discussion of foreign academic ideas. Some universities do not even allow foreign-language departments to use foreign-language textbooks. This cutting off from the achievements of human civilisation will undoubtedly block the knowledge and intellectual horizons of Chinese youths, and make it harder to cultivate creative thinking. As a result, China will lack the talent it needs to lead in the future.”
We learn that drafting documents for the Central Committee is a highly confidential process: “My colleagues and I were forbidden from leaving the premises or receiving guests. When the Propaganda Department convened a meeting, those who weren’t invited weren’t allowed to ask about it.”
Xi’s thought is being given the high status that Mao’s thought was accorded when the Red Book was published during the Cultural Revolution.
Cai has raised some very troubling questions about China’s governance. As long as the CPC is in power, it will never open itself up for general elections like those in a liberal democracy, and will prevent China from become a constitutional democracy, commensurate with its economic standing in the globe.
One assumes that Prime Minister Imran Khan is only too painfully aware of China’s failings. That is why his conception of the welfare state seeks to marry China’s economic system with Sweden’s democratic values and Islamic norms.
While such a hybrid state combines the best features of three diametrically opposing systems can be postulated in theory, it may prove impossible to realise in practice. Small wonder, then that Imran Khan’s Naya Pakistan remains a distant dream, and perhaps an illusion.