The Bo Xilai fiasco, and the current mistrust of Xi’a leadership (both international and domestic) does point to a major dilemma in Chinese politics. It’s that the symbolic power (your “curtain”) and the practical power (your “man behind the curtain”) are too intertwined. The politburo and the office of the general secretary are the most powerful AND the most “sanctified” body at the same time. This is not optimal, especially when such a body errs. In such circumstances, the symbolic power has to stand by the practical, and this suffers damage to its credibility along with it. There is no recourse mechanism.
Ideally, I would want to see the symbolic power to last forever, with a relatively more predictable reshuffling of practical power, in a system bizarrely akin to constitutional monarchy.
But then again, Chinese people may not be built for such type of system. We don’t have much room for “sanctity”, and probably will never differentiate the two. So maybe the system we have now is the best we can get.
I think you're right about the symbolic and practical being tok close together, but I think it's a relatively recent phenomenon that's growing worse. In the past, purging "corrupt" officials as a solution to social or political existential problems worked well, at least as a show of force. That's why they were so key to Mao's regine, for instance.
But I think with the opening up if China, those who wanted greater decentralisation were on the right track: the emperor could remain far away while it was up to localities to solve their own problems. Now, everything comes from the centre, and the removal of officials in, say Wuhan, for example, is less and less satisfactory. If struxtural changes arent made, one day the people will call for the head of the king himself.
Love this, best English language description I’ve yet seen. I’m old enough to remember the early oughts-2010s in China and hoo boy corruption was out of control; sth like 2/3 of private jokes had a punchline like “and that was the local chief of police!” 厉害厉害
Thanks! Yeah I think the money was just out of control back then. I remember working in China in like 2013, and a student's dad used to drive around with a trunk full of foreign cigarettes to gift out and would frequently take all the foreign staff at the school out for very expensive dinners. Can't imagine what he was doing with his actual business contacts 😅
In China, the party assumes it knows what’s best for the people. It knows because it listens – through various mechanisms at various levels – and it takes what it’s listened to and acts upon it.
I'm not a Chinese citizen, but for a time I was involved in the consultative processes of the Shenzhen Mayors office as a representative of foreign engineering/scientific experts living in the areas, and so I have this take on that statement and wonder what you might think about it.
"In China, the party consistently asks what’s best for the people. It knows what problems the people face and what they desire because it listens – through various mechanisms at various levels – and it takes what it’s listened to, then does research, and hold internal debates upon it, and does experiments when necessary, as if TQM is being applied to management of governance. "
I think that's a good take. The party is always experimenting, like with the social credit system. People think it's a big centralised system when in fact it's hundreds of local experiments based on research and local needs.
El sentido teleológico de que el Partido tiene la misión histórica de volver a colocar a China como gran imperio mundial, y la obligación ineludible de avanzar en ese objetivo, es lo que diferencia realmente al PCCh de cualquier otra entidad política en Occidente. Cualquier figura que intente poner su enriquecimiento personal por encima de la misión histórica y la imagen del Partido debe ser neutralizado y castigado. El político sirve al destino histórico, a la misión, y no a sí mismo. Aunque, por supuesto, se enriquezca por el camino. Pero nunca debe obstaculizar o ralentizar el avance del destino nacional. El mundo político occidental es, básicamente, lo contrario. Un saludo desde HK.
Yes, that's why Xi's purification mission is so important, and ongoing till today. It's not so much that politicians/businessmen got rich (even through illicit means), but that they did it at the expense of China's grand mission. In the west, politics is now devolved into a get rich quick scheme, which despite democracy, we are quite powerless to change!
Fascinating description. What you see seems a bit like omnipresent eye of a Han Dynasty Emperor, using the most technologically sophisticated tools of the time [like Zhang Heng’s Chinese: 張衡; AD 78–139] seismometer with its 8 turtles floating in Mercury to predict the needs of his subjects. Omnipresent, omnipotent. The tools at his disposal are infinitely better.
How _could_ the Emperor know of the earthquake? By “magic”, the floating turtles and the Mandate of Heaven.
So, the traditions, the 3000 year old “Institutional Memory”, informs us of the workings of the Chinese State today.
Not whether it is governed well or poorly, by Western standards.
For now, Xi’s Dynasty has the Mandate of Heaven, perhaps?
That's a great analogy! China has never cared for western modes of governance/political philosophy. It's so much more important that the state looks strong and stable (and omnipotent) than the people feel in control of the nation's destiny.
I think confucianist at the social level, legalise at the state level. I've been trying to do reading around this, but it's pretty all over the place and i keep getting sidetracked by folk religious resurgence stuff!
The issue with this argument, of course, is that the authoritarian central powers failed during WWI, Nazi Germany failed during WWII, the USSR failed during the Cold War, and liberal democracy thus have a pretty good 3-0-0 record against authoritarian regimes. Which does not mean the upcoming conflict between China and the US will be won by the US, but it makes it hard that the liberal political system of the US is definitely unable to win.
In WW1, was it really about good democracy vs bad authoritarianism? It’s a rather bizarre way to look at WW1 isn’t it?
In WW2, who were more responsible for destroying Hitler’s war machine? It’s the Soviet Union, not at allied forces. But westerners seem very ready to forget that much more important theatre, which is a classic example of making some grand assumption first and fitting your reality later.
Maybe Cold War is the only liberal vs authoritarian struggle here, giving your score 1:0 only. But, I can list a million ways how China is different, and better than SU.
Liberal democracies don't have to do anything to win except wait. A great example of how authoritarians fail is Xis destructive covid policy. Noisy liberalism weeds out bad ideas faster than authoritarians do. I believe a better system than liberal democracy could exist, but going back to the systems liberals replaced has failed every time it was attempted.
YES, the WESTERN Governments, especially USA, are 100% “CONSISTENTLY EVIL”. Western Governments are excellent and consistent in ONLY : LYING CHEATING STEALING & FUCKING. YEP, absolutely consistently EVIL.
The reality is that Western democracies are dominated by the financial elites. The “choice” is nominal only, as both sides of politics are beholden to the people who finance their political campaigns. If we keep pretending the is genuine democracy in the West simply because people get to vote every 4 or 5 years, we will never be able to fix the crisis of democracy in the West.
As for China, it practices a direct form of democracy in which the CPC engages with public opinion and governs for the well-being of all people, not just the financial elites. It’s the financial elites who feel they have no say because they don’t control the CPC, unlike the control they exert over political parties in the West.
I do not see why the CPC could not fight corruption with a collective leadership like the Standing Committee committed and united in doing so. Now all the blather about Xi Thought and other manifestations of personality worship remind me of the Dear Leader regime next door, certainly not a path the PRC wants to take.
I used to admire post WA2 Western liberalism and its role in decolonisation, but I now realise that this was really an abbreviation, and the West has largely returned to form, which is to entrench/restore Western hegemony over the Global South. Colonialism returns, but in a new clothes.
At least China had a genuine break with its imperial past, ending absolute poverty in China, something not even the US with all its wealth has achieved. (Think of the indigenous Americans.) Ditto for Canada and Australia.
"Xi’s rise is often characterised as the triumph of a 'princeling'"
Then they are clearly misreading. He's rehabilitated, and no one other than me and perhaps you see that as: evidence the party expects him to implement the necessary reforms with tenacity, iron discipline, and great caution. He's not just a come back origin story, he's also actually on a mission.
Sadly: westerners consistently fail to notice, or is it the typical liberal "economy with the truth" (aka lying by silence), they fail to notice: The CCP enjoys legitimacy because it keeps China from falling into Yet Another Civil War. And I should be glad they are ignorant of that because idiot liberals would try (and fail) to provoke exactly that, at great cost in the lives of others (not that liberals care: they don't) and loss of treasures (the thing they actually care about).
What an excellent article.
My two cents:
The Bo Xilai fiasco, and the current mistrust of Xi’a leadership (both international and domestic) does point to a major dilemma in Chinese politics. It’s that the symbolic power (your “curtain”) and the practical power (your “man behind the curtain”) are too intertwined. The politburo and the office of the general secretary are the most powerful AND the most “sanctified” body at the same time. This is not optimal, especially when such a body errs. In such circumstances, the symbolic power has to stand by the practical, and this suffers damage to its credibility along with it. There is no recourse mechanism.
Ideally, I would want to see the symbolic power to last forever, with a relatively more predictable reshuffling of practical power, in a system bizarrely akin to constitutional monarchy.
But then again, Chinese people may not be built for such type of system. We don’t have much room for “sanctity”, and probably will never differentiate the two. So maybe the system we have now is the best we can get.
I think you're right about the symbolic and practical being tok close together, but I think it's a relatively recent phenomenon that's growing worse. In the past, purging "corrupt" officials as a solution to social or political existential problems worked well, at least as a show of force. That's why they were so key to Mao's regine, for instance.
But I think with the opening up if China, those who wanted greater decentralisation were on the right track: the emperor could remain far away while it was up to localities to solve their own problems. Now, everything comes from the centre, and the removal of officials in, say Wuhan, for example, is less and less satisfactory. If struxtural changes arent made, one day the people will call for the head of the king himself.
Love this, best English language description I’ve yet seen. I’m old enough to remember the early oughts-2010s in China and hoo boy corruption was out of control; sth like 2/3 of private jokes had a punchline like “and that was the local chief of police!” 厉害厉害
Thanks! Yeah I think the money was just out of control back then. I remember working in China in like 2013, and a student's dad used to drive around with a trunk full of foreign cigarettes to gift out and would frequently take all the foreign staff at the school out for very expensive dinners. Can't imagine what he was doing with his actual business contacts 😅
In China, the party assumes it knows what’s best for the people. It knows because it listens – through various mechanisms at various levels – and it takes what it’s listened to and acts upon it.
I'm not a Chinese citizen, but for a time I was involved in the consultative processes of the Shenzhen Mayors office as a representative of foreign engineering/scientific experts living in the areas, and so I have this take on that statement and wonder what you might think about it.
"In China, the party consistently asks what’s best for the people. It knows what problems the people face and what they desire because it listens – through various mechanisms at various levels – and it takes what it’s listened to, then does research, and hold internal debates upon it, and does experiments when necessary, as if TQM is being applied to management of governance. "
I think that's a good take. The party is always experimenting, like with the social credit system. People think it's a big centralised system when in fact it's hundreds of local experiments based on research and local needs.
El sentido teleológico de que el Partido tiene la misión histórica de volver a colocar a China como gran imperio mundial, y la obligación ineludible de avanzar en ese objetivo, es lo que diferencia realmente al PCCh de cualquier otra entidad política en Occidente. Cualquier figura que intente poner su enriquecimiento personal por encima de la misión histórica y la imagen del Partido debe ser neutralizado y castigado. El político sirve al destino histórico, a la misión, y no a sí mismo. Aunque, por supuesto, se enriquezca por el camino. Pero nunca debe obstaculizar o ralentizar el avance del destino nacional. El mundo político occidental es, básicamente, lo contrario. Un saludo desde HK.
Yes, that's why Xi's purification mission is so important, and ongoing till today. It's not so much that politicians/businessmen got rich (even through illicit means), but that they did it at the expense of China's grand mission. In the west, politics is now devolved into a get rich quick scheme, which despite democracy, we are quite powerless to change!
Fascinating description. What you see seems a bit like omnipresent eye of a Han Dynasty Emperor, using the most technologically sophisticated tools of the time [like Zhang Heng’s Chinese: 張衡; AD 78–139] seismometer with its 8 turtles floating in Mercury to predict the needs of his subjects. Omnipresent, omnipotent. The tools at his disposal are infinitely better.
How _could_ the Emperor know of the earthquake? By “magic”, the floating turtles and the Mandate of Heaven.
So, the traditions, the 3000 year old “Institutional Memory”, informs us of the workings of the Chinese State today.
Not whether it is governed well or poorly, by Western standards.
For now, Xi’s Dynasty has the Mandate of Heaven, perhaps?
That's a great analogy! China has never cared for western modes of governance/political philosophy. It's so much more important that the state looks strong and stable (and omnipotent) than the people feel in control of the nation's destiny.
Someone needs to do an updated article on how China isn’t remotely Confucian but is legalist af.
I think confucianist at the social level, legalise at the state level. I've been trying to do reading around this, but it's pretty all over the place and i keep getting sidetracked by folk religious resurgence stuff!
Well they didn't want dictator like Rome had( USA has)
Yeah US president is like rome dictator 😑
Well-written, I absolutely loved this!
excellent!!!!
Great piece! Very enlightening!
Thank you!
I live in Wuhan. This....is brilliant.
Thank you 🙏🏼
The issue with this argument, of course, is that the authoritarian central powers failed during WWI, Nazi Germany failed during WWII, the USSR failed during the Cold War, and liberal democracy thus have a pretty good 3-0-0 record against authoritarian regimes. Which does not mean the upcoming conflict between China and the US will be won by the US, but it makes it hard that the liberal political system of the US is definitely unable to win.
Over-simplistic.
In WW1, was it really about good democracy vs bad authoritarianism? It’s a rather bizarre way to look at WW1 isn’t it?
In WW2, who were more responsible for destroying Hitler’s war machine? It’s the Soviet Union, not at allied forces. But westerners seem very ready to forget that much more important theatre, which is a classic example of making some grand assumption first and fitting your reality later.
Maybe Cold War is the only liberal vs authoritarian struggle here, giving your score 1:0 only. But, I can list a million ways how China is different, and better than SU.
people, and i am one, have the disconcerting tendency to believe their own propaganda.
Liberal democracies don't have to do anything to win except wait. A great example of how authoritarians fail is Xis destructive covid policy. Noisy liberalism weeds out bad ideas faster than authoritarians do. I believe a better system than liberal democracy could exist, but going back to the systems liberals replaced has failed every time it was attempted.
YES, the WESTERN Governments, especially USA, are 100% “CONSISTENTLY EVIL”. Western Governments are excellent and consistent in ONLY : LYING CHEATING STEALING & FUCKING. YEP, absolutely consistently EVIL.
Luckily your last statement is probably wrong. The law of physics and nature will take precedence on human society, no matter how advanced.
Xi Jinpin will eventually die, like all of us.
The reality is that Western democracies are dominated by the financial elites. The “choice” is nominal only, as both sides of politics are beholden to the people who finance their political campaigns. If we keep pretending the is genuine democracy in the West simply because people get to vote every 4 or 5 years, we will never be able to fix the crisis of democracy in the West.
As for China, it practices a direct form of democracy in which the CPC engages with public opinion and governs for the well-being of all people, not just the financial elites. It’s the financial elites who feel they have no say because they don’t control the CPC, unlike the control they exert over political parties in the West.
Just my two cents …
I do not see why the CPC could not fight corruption with a collective leadership like the Standing Committee committed and united in doing so. Now all the blather about Xi Thought and other manifestations of personality worship remind me of the Dear Leader regime next door, certainly not a path the PRC wants to take.
I used to admire post WA2 Western liberalism and its role in decolonisation, but I now realise that this was really an abbreviation, and the West has largely returned to form, which is to entrench/restore Western hegemony over the Global South. Colonialism returns, but in a new clothes.
At least China had a genuine break with its imperial past, ending absolute poverty in China, something not even the US with all its wealth has achieved. (Think of the indigenous Americans.) Ditto for Canada and Australia.
"Xi’s rise is often characterised as the triumph of a 'princeling'"
Then they are clearly misreading. He's rehabilitated, and no one other than me and perhaps you see that as: evidence the party expects him to implement the necessary reforms with tenacity, iron discipline, and great caution. He's not just a come back origin story, he's also actually on a mission.
Sadly: westerners consistently fail to notice, or is it the typical liberal "economy with the truth" (aka lying by silence), they fail to notice: The CCP enjoys legitimacy because it keeps China from falling into Yet Another Civil War. And I should be glad they are ignorant of that because idiot liberals would try (and fail) to provoke exactly that, at great cost in the lives of others (not that liberals care: they don't) and loss of treasures (the thing they actually care about).