Summary:
Chinese intellectuals question need for democracy in China. Demythologizing democracy and separating it from rule of law. Prosperity and growth not result of democracy, but of rule of law. West can enjoy both because of level of modernity and material wealth. Developing countries need to chose one. Choosing democracy first leads to chaos (e.g. Rwanda, Yugoslavia). Need to chose rule of law above democracy. (Published: 16/05/2008)
Notes:
- 1980s, 1990s: many scholars argued democracy was necessary prerequisite for wider political and economic progress in China
- seen by many as a precondition for growth
- democracy as a route to prosperity and political stability: instrumental view of democracy
- link has been increasingly questioned
- Pan Wei, Beijing University:
- elections will not fix any of China's most pressing problems
- eg. rise in protests, gap between rich and poor, near bankruptcy of rural economy, lack of domestic consumption, pervasive corruption of the political elite
- democracy would make things worse: the more electorates politicians want to reach, the more money they need; once elected, public officers to serve electors on one hand and money providers on other
- pressing issue is not who should run the government, but how should the government be run
- political reform should flow from social problems rather than universal or Western principles
- democracy conjures up three of the most painful images in the Chinese psyche:
- collapse of the former Soviet Union following Gorbachev's political liberalization
- the so-called "people's democracy" of China's own Cultural Revolution
- the risk of an independent Taiwan
- Westerners misunderstand their own political systems: assume our countries are stable and prosperous because of democracy
- we confuse the benefits we get from democracy with those that we get from the rule of law
- democracy and rule of law don't need to go together; in fact are in constant conflict with one another
- democracy is about giving power to the people, rule of law is about putting limits on that power
- democracy creates governments, rule of law regulates them
- democracy is about making laws, rule of law about enforcing them
- power of democracy lies with elected officials, power of rule of law lies with unelected people (civil servants, judges, auditors)
- democracy is about majority, rule of law about meritocracy
- West can enjoy both democracy and rule of law because of level of material wealth and modernity reached
- Developing countries do not have that luxury: have to choose one or the other
- eg Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Angola, ...: have chosen democracy without rule of law
- result: chaos; populist regimes exploited ethnic tensions to get hands on power
- premature introduction of democracy undermined rule of law and modernization
- forced leaders to pander to popular sentiment rather than making painful reforms for the long term
- Singapore, H2ong Kong: adopted rule of law without democracy
- result: economies have grown steadily, attracted foreign investment, wiped out corruption, developed strong national identities
- demythologizing of democracy and separating it from the rule of law
- vision: neutral civil service system strictly and impartially enforcing laws and proposing legislative bills, held in check by judges who would be guardians of the Chinese constitutions
- "a high-tech consultative dictatorship where there are no elections, but decisions are made by a responsive government, bound by law and in touch with its citizen's aspirations"
