Following is a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared recently pitting Zhang Weiwei and Martin Jacques arguing together against Western assumption that liberal democracy is panacea for China. A few points raised by these two really struck me. Jacques cautioned the West to tone down its arrogance and engage China with more humility. Zhang pointed out that China’s present day system is one of meritocracy and intra-party elections. Zhang also stated that the Chinese are confident of their system. In the 1700’s when the British Empire first encountered the Chinese, China was arrogant and failed to recognized that a country of measly 20 million could industrialize and pull far enough ahead to invade it – then the wealthiest civilization on the planet. He cautioned that arrogance is gripping liberal Western democracies. China’s continuing rise economically will further undermine those who believe in this false dichotomy: that anything not exactly a Western liberal democracy must be “anti-democracy.” It’s like during the Crusades where many Christians believed non-believers must be evil.
Hidden Harmonies China Blog
As China Re-Awakens, Finding New Harmonies in a Brave New World...
Mister Unknown says
I think the big problem with this debate, & every other that we’ve seen online, is that “liberal democracy” is the “default” position anchored in the dogmatic discourse.
In other words, people such as Chan point out all the flaws of the Chinese system, & therefore by default liberal democracy must be better. That is the very first myth that I sought to dispel when I wrote my article about the three common myths of democratic institutions.
This anchoring effect puts liberal-democratic ideologues in an advantageous position. In reality, since they’re the ones advocating for change, it is the PRC’s authoritarianism that is the actual default position. So if the liberals want to realize the change they seek, it is they who must sufficiently prove that their liberal dogma – when applied to China – would actually resolve the problems/shortcomings that they point out, while not sacrificing the gains made under the authoritarian system. From the examples I gave in India, Russia, and the US, it is far from clear that western liberal institutions are capable of fixing the Chinese social problems that they repeatedly wave around as a stick to bash Beijing.
N.M.Cheung says
An interesting 1 1/2 hrs of presentation which didn’t change any minds. Those for Zhang Weiwei and Martin Jacques gain 1 vote from supposedly neutrals and the other side gained more than 100 votes from that. I suspect those professed neutrals were probably against them to start with as I was surprised that originally for were ahead by 50 votes with more than 100 neutral.
Zhang Weiwei agrues in favor of meritocracy; Martin Jacques argues for humility and cultural diversity. Anson Chan argued like a proper colonial lady, for British Hong Kong against China; while Jonathan Mersky mostly raved against Chinese government for suppressing dissent, Tiananman Square, and Tibet. No body was against transparency, rule of law, or for corruption and income inequality. The opponents did concede one-man one -vote and multi-party may not be applicale at present but still insist them as part of liberal democracy package. They only argued against weaknesses of Chinese model and insisting immediate reform while dismissing the reforms proposed by Chinese government as window dressing and ineffective.
maofucious says
It’s ironic to be trying to defend the CCP using a Youtube video during the Party Congress…
Anyway, my reaction prior to having seen the video is that all this talk about “democracy” is obscuring a much-needed discussion about rule of law. Whatever the rules are, at least make them consistent.
perspectivehere says
I’m glad Zhang Wei Wei mentioned the Republican Period from 1911-1949 as a time when China experimented with liberal democracy and it was a disaster. People commenting on China seem to ignore the fact that the success of the CCP revolution was largely related to the failures of that period.
Wahaha says
Human beings are not consistent, hence can’t be ruled by a book, no matter how thick the book is.
Otherwise, right procedure would lead to desired result, like election would lead to democracy.
This is not true, in real world.
BTW, a must character of democracy is that the government doesn’t work for any special interest group, otherwise it is not democracy. Therefore, except several super-rich north European countries that are close to democracy, there are no democratic countries on earth.
maofucious says
On the contrary, diversity is the exact reason for a well-written set of rules, allowing people to do any activity that is not explicitly prohibited. Thickness is not a criteria of how well-designed it a legal system is – quite the opposite.
‘Developmentalism,’ on the other hand, assumes that everyone wants the same set of goods and services.
aeiou says
@maofucious
no more ironic than invading sovereign nations to defend freedom.
William says
@Mister Unknown
Excellent point, a very straightforward one, and very well put. This is a very good starting point for a proper discussion of the issues. Unfortunately in the video some of the speakers don’t really get beyond grandstanding – and this is a topic that requires quite a lot of thoughtful treatment.
@aeiou
That, I’m afraid, is called “derailing”. You take us out of the realm of sensible debate, only satisfy people who are already convinced, and try to move the topic to something else entirely. The clue is in the name of this site – which country is mentioned?
William says
@N.M.Cheung
I’d generally agree, though I still think Zhang Weiwei is overrated. His point about serving two terms as a provincial governor – basically just a smarter version of the “China has a huge population” argument. I agree that the audience was by nature skewed from the beginning, and that the antis are arguing the wrong point.
My point to the pros (Zhang and Jacques): pick a theory of how China works, stick to it, explain it, and anticipate some more of your opponents’ counterarguments, particularly the obvious 暗箱操作 criticism of the leadership selection.
Wahaha says
@maofucious
Are you talking about freedom of speech?
You can talk to yourself or talk to the mirror, that is your right. But if you want to talk to public, then you are not allowed to mislead, or present only the pro about something you like and only the con about something you don’t like.
I can give you an example how media messed up their own countries :
Wahaha says
maofucious
Yes, that is right, and I believe that in any developing country, this is what vast majority of people want.
Only in some developed countries, people take good life for granted, like a gold fish who has spent all his life in a fish tank, never worry about next meal, and try to educate others about how to live in a pond or river.
Given two choices :
Which one do you pick? This may sound outrageous, but this actually what Chinese people are facing because western democracy and human right advocated by “free” media paralyze government, as I showed in last post.
Guo Du says
I’m surprised by the result of the debate. Even if the two speakers “for” the motion should lose, it would not have been by such a ridiculous margin. I try to speculate the reasons:
1. Exactly as the 1st comment by Mr. Unknown. I fully agree.
2. Many in the audience are facing great uncertainties within their own society, without a true leader in sight. There are plenty of great brains in their country but they have been successfully marginalised by their brand of politics. Furthermore, their own system could never emulate China’s for fundamental cultural reasons. It must therefore be very uncomfortable to hear how China’s has served the country well, or comparatively better. Those “against” the motion therefore has an overwhelming emotional advantage.
3. Younger audience especially grew up watching (more than listening critically) to sophistic grandstanding. If Anson Chan had learnt anything at all from her colonial masters, that was it, and nothing else. She has mastered reasonably well the art of uttering gibberish with confidence, in a haughty tone, nearly public school with Chinese characteristics. Contemporary patsies are much more comfortable with that then Zhang and Jacque’s relative lack of showmanship. To them, content and logic don’t matter here any more than in presidential debates.
Every society deep down deserves the government they get. China never wants to compete with the Democracy Empire for an international award in good government design. I remain puzzled as to why the Empire harbours so much angst about China’s domestic practice. It seems to me that they are spending way too much energy in critiquing the safety features and colour co-ordination of someone else’s home, while their own house is on fire. I would also expect democrats who view China as a competitor to deviously encourage the country to remain fatally undemocratic, then snigger and wait for the collapse with arms folded. Instead, they pontificate most anxiously about their secret of success to a rival. Isn’t that mind boggling?
maofucious says
@Wahaha Your post very much shows the rationale for the ‘middle income trap.’ If people design their institutions around worrying about having a toilet, then a toilet they will get. But no country becomes rich without any willingness to take risks.
Guo Du says
Inspired by this piece, and the bewilderment caused by so much “Western” interest in China’s imperfect political model which really should be none of their business, I wrote a flash fiction “Democracy Debate and Chinaman’s House”: http://guo-du.blogspot.hk/2012/11/democracy-debate-and-chinamans-house.html to get some amusement out of it 🙂
Wahaha says
Do you have evidence that it is worth the risks?
melektaus says
mr unknown makes a point I also had in mind watching the video. it burden of proof is on the advocates of policy change and the standards ought to be proportional for how large the policy changes. these are massive policy changes they are advocating and thus the standards are set ever so much higher for proving it is better. but there isn’t even the slightest evidence that they are better.
mr unknown also makes a good point about the status quo bias in the audience.