Comparing Apples and Oranges

You probably do not want to read this blog post.  My gut tells me I am writing mostly for myself.  So, walk away now and go pet your dog or hug someone or take a nap.

Still here?  Okay, I have a long-standing problem with the way many (most?) Americans think & talk about China. Including my fellow political scientist below, Bruce Dickson.  Just to be clear: I do not know Bruce and my guess is I would like him very much if I were to meet him.  I have not read his larger book and it is entirely unfair to take him to task as I am about to do on the basis of an op-ed.

This op-ed demonstrates at least three common errors I have observed over the years in my compatriots analysis of China.

First, the analysis is based on an overly simplistic understanding of America, in this case American democracy. Second, the analysis then pairs this up with an equally plastic understanding of China, in this case Chinese views of democracy, that (third) just so happens to then become the perfect foil against the high school civics picture of American democracy. I tried to put comments in blue but the program refused to allow that in a couple of places, but all comments are also in [brackets].

Democracy in China? It's in the Eye of the Beholder.

By Bruce J. Dickson in LA Times

China watchers in the West have been fruitlessly searching for signs of democracy for more than 25 years. But there has not been a sustained democracy movement in China since the tragic end of protests in Tiananmen Square and elsewhere in 1989. Most outside observers agree that the People’s Republic remains what it has been since its founding in 1949: a one-party authoritarian regime.

[I am going to jump right in.  I will likely seem petty and mean at first. Only the injection of ‘sustained’ makes this paragraph accurate.  At the same time, I find zero evidence of a ‘sustained democracy movement' in America since 1989.  Polls repeatedly show that Americans hold our government in very low regard and the most salient political movement in American today, Trumpism, is more a rejection of democracy than a democratic movement.

If you are paying attention, you are likely thinking this ‘depends on how we define democracy.’  Precisely, and as you see below, that is a question I want to ask. Without making the mistake of asserting that my definition is the only one, let me offer a definition from one of our greatest political scientists of all time, EE Schattschneider: Democracy is a competitive political system in which competing leaders and organizations define the alternatives of public policy in such a way that the public can participate in the decision-making process. Keep this in mind as we proceed…not because it is correct, but because it contrasts in useful ways with the definition offered here as obviously correct…and once we see that there is wiggle room, the argument advanced here starts to look like a paper tiger.

I am sure an intrepid reader can find a public opinion poll showing that American understandings of ‘democracy’ vary and often present a picture and set of aspirations very different from the definition asserted here.  In fact, that would be central to defining democracy…that we get to define it, which is not captured by the platitudinous definition here. 

Further, if we go to Everyday Democracy we can see that Americans regularly define democracy is ways closer to Schattschneider and in tension with the author here.

What does democracy mean to you? See more at Everyday Democracy here.

“We can have a role in influencing decisions that affect us on a regular basis – not just when we vote.

Democracy means to me......majority rules

Creating a culture where all voices are valued as an instrument for change.

Democracy means being able to disagree.

Democracy means no forced vaccinations, no state schooling, no taxes propping up banks & GE and no central banking aka "The Fed.

Not feeling like your vote doesn't matter, Because money is more important than humanity.”

Democracy.....just a word unless it is about people living and working together with respect and equal rights and elected leaders who value and practice the same.”]

Most Chinese citizens do not see it that way, however.

[Full stop.  Let’s consider the possibility that the people here know their own minds and interests. And if it conflict with the definition a scholar uses…maybe the definition problematic.]

In a nationwide survey in 2014, more than 4,000 urban Chinese were asked how democratic they perceived China to be at different points in time. The vast majority view the level of democracy as increasing steadily since the late 1970s. Almost 60% believe China is already somewhat or very democratic today. Remarkably, more than 80% are optimistic that in the near future China will enjoy a level of democracy on par with the United States.

How can this be? How can external assessments of China’s government and the perceptions of people living under it be so radically different?

[External assessment—at least those that agree with the author—are wrong.]

The answer turns on the meaning of the word democracy.

[Yes it does, but we have covered that already.]

Survey respondents were given the opportunity to define democracy in their own words. Most Americans would define it as a political system with free elections, competitive parties, rule of law and related institutions of liberal democracy.

[Frankly, I would like to see that data to defend this assertion.]

But less than 5% of Chinese pointed to those attributes. 

About 15% defined democracy in terms of rights: for example, “people enjoy the right to information” and “the opportunity and right to tell the government their views.” Another 15% identified equality and justice among citizens: “Everyone is treated equally” and “to be more equal in terms of income, housing, and employment” were typical responses of this type.

[Okay, this is a case of poor writing.  In the sentence that follows my insert here the author seems to be saying that the 30% above are the Chinese who see democracy as we do, in terms of checks and balances. But the language used here makes that similarity sound like a difference as we read it. First, most Americans would also place ‘rights’ at the center of our definition of democracy, as does the US Supreme Court.  Second, most Americans would put free speech and free press at the top of the rights list…because these allow us to communicate our views to our government. I don’t know about you, but for me ‘justice among citizens’ and ‘everyone treated equally’ is at the core of what I mean by the ‘rule of law,’ which is part of the American definition provided here and supposedly at odds with what Chinese people think.]

In short, about one-third of urban Chinese defined democracy in terms of checks and balances or other ways that closely match Western notions. 

By contrast, a different 30% of Chinese described democracy in terms of how leaders should run the government, not how they are chosen. Comments such as “the people and the government are interdependent” and “government policies reflect public opinion” get at this notion. More importantly, these comments suggest that the public’s interests and the state’s interests are fundamentally in harmony (or at least should be).

[We regularly ask Americans and evaluate leaders on how well they govern. This is not a ‘contrast’ to our definition, because we do not define democracy only in terms of how leaders are elected. What America does not believe that when ‘government policies reflect public opinion’ that is more democratic, despite the fact that this opens the door to an understanding of democracy that can easily become anti-democratic? Finally, ‘these comments’ DO NOT suggest the interests are in harmony, but that they should be if we want to call it democracy…and that is completely consistent with how Americans think and talk about democracy.]

The purpose of democracy, as seen by many Chinese, is to make the state strong so that it can better provide for the common well-being of the people and the nation as a whole. It is not a way to hold leaders accountable through elections, limit the state’s authority in order to protect individual rights and freedoms, or adjudicate between competing interests. 

[I am fit to be tied at this point. Watching Trump supporters call for massive deportations and the constant call on the state to fight Wars on Crime and Wars on Drugs and Wars against Terror or War on Poverty or War on Ignorance and more all suggest that there is a very strong element of the American public that craves a “state strong enough to provide for the common well-being of the people” even if what that looks like can vary.  And…in America (where we are allowed subtle analysis such that we can want two things that can be seen as in tension) we want this AND we want to hold our leaders accountable to delivering it.  Why is it that Chinese people wanting this makes them the opposite of democratic? 

And do Americans only focus on accountability through elections or do we know from experience that elections are just one event and that accountability depends on using the courts and protests and working in legislatures and more?  Then the author here refers to ‘rights consciousness’ as a point where the Chinese differ…even though earlier the author himself has said that 30% of Chinese ‘agree’ with us by focusing on rights.]

Despite lacking political rights and freedoms that we take for granted here, many Chinese see their country as becoming more open.

[Because it is becoming more open and openness is not only about individual rights that we take for granted.]

But by far the most popular definition of democracy — given by a third of the urban Chinese respondents — was “I don’t know”!

[Do I even need to say it? Ignorance of politics is probably a defining characteristic of Amercians.]

These differing definitions of democracy correlated with how satisfied people felt. Almost 65% reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with the level of democracy China has. Those who defined it in terms of elections, parties and rule of law were the least satisfied — and rightfully so — whereas “by and for the people” and “don’t know” were at the high end of the scale. The most satisfied were those who defined democracy in terms of economic growth, but less than 3% did so.

[This is consistent with polling data in America showing Whites see no racism while blacks see lots. And while most Americans see the American economic system as unfair, wealthy Americans do not agree. I have to ask: how is that any different?]

These popular understandings (or misunderstandings) of what democracy is help explain why there has not been a sustained democratization movement in China. People who are optimistic about the future are less inclined to support calls to fundamentally change the regime.

[So, it is because the Chinese people misunderstand the definition of democracy that they (in your view) lack a democracy movement? The misunderstanding is as groundless as is the contention that there is no movement.]

The activists who promote Western-style liberal democratic reform face suppression from the state and indifference from much of society. Liu Xiaobo, for instance, was arrested in 2008 for his role in drafting Charter 08, a bold call for building liberal democracy in China. When he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, many in China were unfamiliar with him. Others doubted he had achieved anything worthy of the prize.

[This just repeats the previous point that the Chinese are uniquely ignorant about politics…which is untrue. Does the Chinese leadership use less subtle tools to control dissent? Yes, but that is a very different point.]

Despite lacking political rights and freedoms that we take for granted here, many Chinese see their country as becoming more open. Even as the Communist Party continues to monitor and suppress any potential threats to its monopoly on power, most citizens still see the state is less intrusive than in the Maoist era or in the immediate post-Tiananmen years.

[The state IS less intrusive than during the Maoist era.]

Still, it’s hard to be sure that trend will continue. 

Since Xi Jinping became president in 2013, the scope of repression has increased. The party has tightened control over media content, arrested human rights lawyers and warned scholars against discussing topics such as universal values, civil rights, civil society, press freedoms and judicial independence.

[Okay, this is more complicated. I grant that these are trends I abhor and even with more space it would be difficult to argue there is as much similarity here as above. But—there is similarity AND even though limited this does not change the point that the author here is contrasting Chinese public opinion with a platitude that does not exist in America.]

Xi’s ongoing anticorruption campaign has exposed the venal top echelons of the party, government and military, which may erode support for the regime. Growing economic inequality and social injustice may also lead people to be less satisfied with the status quo.

[While not an ‘American’ approach…the anti-corruption campaign targets elites and it us just as likely it will increase support for the regime for that reason.]

But for the moment, besides the party itself, the major obstacle to China’s democratization is the popular belief that the process is already underway.

[I could not disagree more.]

Bruce J. Dickson is professor of political science and international affairs and chair of the political science department at George Washington University. This article is adapted from his recent book, “The Dictator’s Dilemma: The Chinese Communist Party’s Strategy for Survival.”