The ‘myth’ of Western-style democracy is losing its appeal even in the West (China Global Times editorial)

[Michael]

An often missed upside of China is that decisions are made faster and politics is much less polarized overall. One party rule also lets the Party draw plans for decades ahead, something that hardly happens in western countries.

Due to deliberate fabrications by Western English-language media, many foreigners lack a complete understanding of China’s political mechanism.

In the Chinese political system, the most critical, high-level decisions originate from the "Beidaihe meetings"—a unique, informal consultative mechanism.

Whenever major issues require a decision, China’s senior officials—including both those currently in office and those who have retired but are still living—gather in Beidaihe (a small seaside town approximately 300 kilometers from Beijing) for closed-door deliberations.

The sole objective of these meetings is to reach a consensus among all participants. Attendees are encouraged to express their views and opinions freely, engaging in rigorous debate where arguments are settled through reason. Once a decision is reached, it becomes binding; no one is permitted to oppose it in any form, and all are expected to fully support the finalized course of action. ------ The lists of China’s successive top leaders and members of the CCP Politburo Standing Committee are all generated through this meeting.

Following this, a series of public proceedings take place—such as the National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), meetings of the Politburo, and sessions of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). In reality, these public events are largely procedural; the substantive decisions have already been finalized during the Beidaihe meetings.

Since its inception, the CPC has maintained a highly rigorous internal mechanism. Among its components are "democratic life meetings"—regular sessions held within CPC organizations at all levels. During these meetings, participants engage in intense, direct, and often sharp criticism, cutting straight to the core of the issues at hand. The level of critical scrutiny applied here far exceeds that seen between political parties in Western nations. Yet, in other settings, these same individuals maintain a demeanor of complete cordiality and harmony.

 

[Leclerc]

Due to deliberate fabrications by Western English-language media, many foreigners lack a complete understanding of China’s political mechanism.

In the Chinese political system, the most critical, high-level decisions originate from the "Beidaihe meetings"—a unique, informal consultative mechanism.

Whenever major issues require a decision, China’s senior officials—including both those currently in office and those who have retired but are still living—gather in Beidaihe (a small seaside town approximately 300 kilometers from Beijing) for closed-door deliberations.

The sole objective of these meetings is to reach a consensus among all participants. Attendees are encouraged to express their views and opinions freely, engaging in rigorous debate where arguments are settled through reason. Once a decision is reached, it becomes binding; no one is permitted to oppose it in any form, and all are expected to fully support the finalized course of action. ------ The lists of China’s successive top leaders and members of the CCP Politburo Standing Committee are all generated through this meeting.

Following this, a series of public proceedings take place—such as the National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), meetings of the Politburo, and sessions of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). In reality, these public events are largely procedural; the substantive decisions have already been finalized during the Beidaihe meetings.

Since its inception, the CPC has maintained a highly rigorous internal mechanism. Among its components are "democratic life meetings"—regular sessions held within CPC organizations at all levels. During these meetings, participants engage in intense, direct, and often sharp criticism, cutting straight to the core of the issues at hand. The level of critical scrutiny applied here far exceeds that seen between political parties in Western nations. Yet, in other settings, these same individuals maintain a demeanor of complete cordiality and harmony.

By chance, can you recommend books on modern China?

I have How China Works by Xiaohuan Lan and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners by Ronald Boer on my computer and I'll read both after I finish my current reading list (it's very long).

 

[Meengla]

Since its inception, the CPC has maintained a highly rigorous internal mechanism. Among its components are "democratic life meetings"—regular sessions held within CPC organizations at all levels. During these meetings, participants engage in intense, direct, and often sharp criticism, cutting straight to the core of the issues at hand. The level of critical scrutiny applied here far exceeds that seen between political parties in Western nations. Yet, in other settings, these same individuals maintain a demeanor of complete cordiality and harmony.

Thank you.
That's how I thought China works: There is enough consultative/inclusive process in China otherwise China would be a a dump like 'the largest democracy in the world' right next to China or China would have fiscally bankrupted like Sri Lanka: An Island 'democracy' with the best regional human resources, no external enemies, no more any insurgency.

 

[Michael]

By chance, can you recommend books on modern China?

Unfortunately, my English is quite poor, and I am not familiar with English-language editions of books.

However, if you have an interest in politics, there is one author whose work you might want to explore:

Wang Huning—currently a member of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China and Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

He is an extremely rare scholar-type political figure among China's top political leaders. Before entering politics, he was a well-known academic and professor in the international scholarly community. Since the era of Jiang Zemin, he has served as the primary political theorist and speechwriter—the "intellectual architect"—within China’s top political circles.

He has published very few books since officially entering politics; however, he authored numerous scholarly works on political science earlier in his career. Many of these have been translated into various languages, so you might be able to find some of them.

 

[Leclerc]

Unfortunately, my English is quite poor, and I am not familiar with English-language editions of books.

However, if you have an interest in politics, there is one author whose work you might want to explore:

Wang Huning—currently a member of the Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China and Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

He is an extremely rare scholar-type political figure among China's top political leaders. Before entering politics, he was a well-known academic and professor in the international scholarly community. Since the era of Jiang Zemin, he has served as the primary political theorist and speechwriter—the "intellectual architect"—within China’s top political circles.

He has published very few books since officially entering politics; however, he authored numerous scholarly works on political science earlier in his career. Many of these have been translated into various languages, so you might be able to find some of them.

Thank you @Michael.

I have heard of him but I never considering reading his works.

 

[j_hungary]

An often missed upside of China is that decisions are made faster and politics is much less polarized overall. One party rule also lets the Party draw plans for decades ahead, something that hardly happens in western countries.

It depends on how you see it as an advantage.

Snap decisions usually don't go hand in hand with serious planning, and you cannot retract from the planned action, lead to waste.

Multi-Yeah plan only work if you know all the parameters; if you underplan, then the growth would go to waste, and if you overplan, then you lose your adaptability when things do go wrong.

 

[Leclerc]

It depends on how you see it as an advantage.

Snap decisions usually don't go hand in hand with serious planning, and you cannot retract from the planned action, lead to waste.

Multi-Yeah plan only work if you know all the parameters; if you underplan, then the growth would go to waste, and if you overplan, then you lose your adaptability when things do go wrong.

If you mean China's Five Year Plans, they don't work like the old Soviet ones used to, the Chinese ones now are much more flexible.

 

[Michael]

Thank you.
That's how I thought China works: There is enough consultative/inclusive process in China otherwise China would be a a dump like 'the largest democracy in the world' right next to China or China would have fiscally bankrupted like Sri Lanka: An Island 'democracy' with the best regional human resources, no external enemies, no more any insurgency.

In Chinese philosophy, there is a saying: "Family scandals should not be aired in public."

When we engage in internal criticism or mutual attacks within an organization, we prefer that outsiders do not see it. In the eyes of the outside world, we appear perfectly harmonious with one another.

Many people do not see these scenarios. Consequently, they assume that China’s politics are characterized by absolute centralization of power...

 

[Feroze]

American democracy is stupid.

Richness is what people care about as @Meengla said.

 

[Meengla]

It depends on how you see it as an advantage.
Snap decisions usually don't go hand in hand with serious planning, and you cannot retract from the planned action, lead to waste.
Multi-Yeah plan only work if you know all the parameters; if you underplan, then the growth would go to waste, and if you overplan, then you lose your adaptability when things do go wrong.

Right but the Chinese must be doing something right: They were a wreck by 1949 and look at where they are now. Hopefully, they have 'institutionalized' procedures and ethos to sustain it for a long time to come.

 

[Feroze]

Right but the Chinese must be doing something right: They were a wreck by 1949 and look at where they are now. Hopefully, they have 'institutionalized' procedures and ethos to sustain it for a long time to come.

Correct, Sir. Chinese one party state system, Mixed Economy, and Industrialization is the way to go.

 

[j_hungary]

Wisdom lies somewhere in between the two posts.
I think a more controlled system in poorer countries with limited human and natural resources is better in the initial phase. Some posts above have alluded to that. In case of some countries, if they are under grave external security threats, such as Pakistan, then better firmly put the house in order before getting too giddy with some Jeffersonian model of democracy.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to what you "used to." If you are comfortable with one way over the other, then change may not be the best course of action, even if that might benefit the country in the long term.

Jeffersonian democracy is a grassroots politics that is mostly anti-establishment, which is the forefather of Liberalism in the US; the problem with politics is that you cannot achieve total democracy because if everyone had a say, then you won't be doing anything but simply just listening to all your countrymen need, government by design is authoritarian because that is where the source of power comes from. It's unrealistic to give everyone power in government, which means the next best thing is that we give the people the power to elect those who control us. This is where it had an issue with Federalism, which is the forefather of Conservatism.

 

[Feroze]

Right but the Chinese must be doing something right: They were a wreck by 1949 and look at where they are now. Hopefully, they have 'institutionalized' procedures and ethos to sustain it for a long time to come.

 

[j_hungary]

Right but the Chinese must be doing something right: They were a wreck by 1949 and look at where they are now. Hopefully, they have 'institutionalized' procedures and ethos to sustain it for a long time to come.

The Chinese system is a trial and error system, when a multi-year plan goes wrong, it went spectacularly wrong, read Mao's 5-year plan that led to general femine. When things work, it would work perfectly.

The issue is based on the quality of leadership; the Chinese system is more like a top-down chain of command military structure. When all the subordinates are looking at the command structure above them, that command structure has to be perfect; otherwise, one slight error or deviation and you are going to be miles off goal.

At the end of the day, it's basically a fight between whether you want to place your trust completely on the leader. Or you want to have the leader try it out before we go into business?

 

[Michael]

Thank you @Michael.

I have heard of him but I never considering reading his works.

Another approach: learn to read the original Chinese-language edition of the *People’s Daily*. (Do not read the official English/French versions.)

This is an exceptionally difficult task. Even for native-born Chinese, unless they have undergone extensive training in political work, it is very hard to fully grasp the meaning of these articles...

Correct, Sir. Chinese one party state system, Mixed Economy, and Industrialization is the way to go.

China is, in fact, a one-party system. The so-called "eight minor democratic parties" that participate in the political process possess only an advisory role.

However, the CCP itself is vast, with a membership exceeding 100 million. Within the CCP, there are multiple factions, and these factions engage in competition with one another. While they may project an image of harmony in public, their internal deliberations—behind closed doors—often involve intense, sharp criticism of one another.

What if you were to view these distinct factions as separate political parties?