As I alluded to several times in my previous posts, China has something called “democracy with Chinese characteristics.” On the one hand, for those who grew up in the PRC and went through “patriotic education,” the phrase has always been there, but its meaning has never been apparent. On the other hand, a shadow of a doubt—or should I say, conspiracy—has constantly been cast on the version of democracy that is without Chinese characteristics whenever an average Chinese person wants to learn something about the latter from party-approved sources, which are virtually all they can get if they do not speak another language or use a VPN.
Most recently, this phenomenon has been manifest in the curious effort by the CCP leadership to “redefine” democracy. For instance, and I quote the always-loyal party tabloid the Global Times (环球时报):
Jiang Jinquan, director of the Policy Research Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, made the remarks at Friday’s press conference on the sixth plenary session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
He said democracy is not a patent of the West, nor can it be defined by the West. Western democracy is a democracy dominated by capital, a democracy of the rich, not true democracy.
…
Color revolutions in recent years have resulted in disasters to local people, which the people of the world have become increasingly aware of, Jiang said in response to a question on comparison between China’s whole-process people’s democracy and Western democracy.
Usually, I am sort of cagey when it comes to domestic politics in the US. Still, as someone who spent his first two decades of life in the PRC and who unavoidably had his perception of the world geared toward the possibility of a “Western conspiracy,” I do have an interest in giving my two cents on the issue of “true democracy.”
The “stupid wokeness,” or “‘defund the police’ lunacy,” as Democratic strategist James Carville calls it, seems to show that “Western democracy” is real and extends beyond the “bourgeoisie.” I tend to view “wokeness” as not being “stupid” or “lunatic,” but as the rise—within the democratic system—of a radical and powerful ideology and political movement, as well as a way of “brainwashing” the next generation, that is arguably revolutionary/destructive to the very foundation and upkeep of the prevailing social contract in the world’s most successful capitalist society.
As reflected in the latest election results, the current backlash against “wokeness” and “critical race theory” appears to be part of the re-adjustment process and negative feedback loop that is also a typical feature of “Western democracy.” But can those in the PRC say in any meaningful way that their “whole-process democracy” has the same level of openness and tolerance toward endogenous changes in political and social institutions (regardless of the direction of change) and even the “overthrow” thereof?
All in all, despite my pre-existing bias, “Western democracy” feels very true to me. To what extent it “works” is a topic for another day.