Perhaps unsurprisingly with the NPC meeting this week, China graces the cover of the latest issue of The Economist. This last edition of the NPC was not without its drama. While there were no Taiwanese Legislative Yuan-style fisticuffs in the aisles, recent debate about a law protecting private property sparked some controversy:
Nearly 3,000 delegates to China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), have been enjoying their annual fortnight of wining, dining, snoozing and pressing the “yes†button. Living up to one’s name poses something of a problem for the Chinese Communist Party, which dictates the laws the NPC will pass, and whose name in Chinese literally means “the public-property partyâ€.
To such a party it must be an ideological embarrassment that China has such a large and flourishing private sector, accounting for some two-thirds of GDP. So one law due to receive the NPC’s rubber stamp this month, giving individuals the same legal protection for their property as the state, has proved unusually contentious. It was to be passed a year ago, but was delayed after howls of protest from leftists, who see it as among the final of many sell-outs of the ideas of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong, to which the party pretends fealty.
The party’s decision to enact the law in spite of that resistance is a great symbolic victory for economic reform and the rule of law. Clearer, enforceable property rights are essential if China’s fantastic 30-year boom is to continue and if the tensions it has generated are to be managed without widespread violence.
I think The Economist’s characterization of the opposition to the law is a bit simplistic. According to the IHT, opposition to the new law is being led by Gong Xiantian, a Marxist economist, whose petition against the new law has received over 3200 signatures, including those from retired military officers and senior officials. It is not just nostalgic old guard leftists with their Mao buttons and Zhou Enlai “underoos.” (Though there are certainly members of the party who see the new law as a “betrayal of socialist values.”) The “left” is a label, not a club. There are those in China’s so-called New Left (excuse me: “critical intellectuals”) who support the recent economic reforms as being good for the country overall. They just wish that policies would consider “social justice” as well as GDP growth: there can be winners in the new China, but there should also be support for the…non-winners.
Until now, it has fallen to Wen Jiabao to be the human face of reform and he’s done a good job but, as The Economist notes in a companion article, criticism from the left needs to be handled differently than that from the right.
Direct criticism of leaders is still virtually taboo in China. But the drafting of the property law has provided an outlet for critics of government policy to air their grievances. Mr Hu and Mr Wen do not appear to face concerted opposition among party officials. But a vocal body of intellectuals and retired officials has denounced the property law as a betrayal of the country’s socialist principles. It will, they say, protect the fortunes of corrupt officials and the ill-gotten gains of crooked businessmen. Further, it will hasten the demise of China’s remaining state-owned industries and the creation of a plutocracy.
And there is reason to believe that the complaints of excessive GDP-ism are being heard both for political as well as pragmatic reasons. Lawmakers (I mean: law stampers) did approve an 87% increase in health spending (from an admittedly low number) as well as increases for education and rural (re)construction. All of which should be applauded. (There was also an 18% jump in military spending, but anyway…)
There is no question that the reforms are benefiting a large number of people throughout China and the CCP can take credit for lifting millions out of poverty. But it can do even better. I think the debate over the private property bill was healthy and shows that while the CCP still tightly clings to power, it is not monolithic in its views. A discussion of development priorities needs to happen, preferably in the open rather than behind the walls of Zhongnanhai. The economic development of the cities and some areas is nothing short of amazing, but we should be careful lest we develop a case of (in the words of fellow blogger The 88’s) “She blinded me with Shanghai.” There are still problems yet to be resolved.
Our old friend CCT might remind me of my faith in “systems.” And to some extent we agree more than CCT might believe. Systems can’t fix everything and they also can break down, occasionally with terrible consequences. But I do think that the process matters. The United States has faced some horrific moments in its history and there is plenty in our past of which I am not especially proud. But I don’t think that any of those crises or problems would have been easier to overcome or less likely to happen under one-party authoritarian rule. Quite the opposite in fact. Is China different? Absolutely. Is it so different that lessons from other places have absolutely no application here? Of that I am less sure.
The Economist concludes:
Without an accountable executive branch, the necessary reform of the legal system is not going to happen. As the passage of the property law itself demonstrates, the party is showing itself somewhat more responsive to public opinion than it was in the past. But it still runs a government that does its best to silence most dissenting voices, strictly controls the press, and lavishes resources on the best cyber-censorship money can buy. Property rights are a start; but only contested politics and relatively open media can ensure that they are enforceable.
Hear, hear.
1
By Daguang
so good point!!!
March 9, 2007 @ 1:05 pm | Comment
2
By CCT
In the spirit of being named an old friend, I’ll be the first to admit I enjoyed the post.
I saw the Economist article this morning, and was disgusted with its crass description of the very serious ideological/philosophical divide over “leftist” principles and property rights going on in China today. You’ve done an excellent job of providing a nuanced view of the truth.
I am still unwilling to concede your point, however, on the value of systems… specifically a system built around “contested politics + relatively open media”.
You brought up the United States, so let me make the following observations. In the past 50 years, I would suggest that perhaps the most challenging and divisive social issue has been civil rights. After a century of slavery, and a century of legalized segregation… it wasn’t local democracy or the open press that brought an end to segregation.
It was, in fact, the least directly democratic branch of the United States government that broke the impasse: the Supreme Court. The elected president and the elected legislature couldn’t right the wrong that was segregation. It was instead left to a group of old, unelected men appointed to their position for life.
Let’s talk about other divisive social issues: abortion rights, gay marriage. When will these be resolved through the “democratic” system? Why is abortion rights not protected in statutory law by the people’s representatives, but instead determined by justices that few Americans can name?
My sense is that the institution of democracy has done little to solve the really difficult, really divisive social issues in the United States. My sense is that the same challenges would exist in China today. If China had a popular referendum on the issue of “property rights”, I suspect that the discussion would be adulterated and polarized to the point that reasonable discussion would be impossible at the mass scale. I suspect that the discussion would turn into an advertising and fund-raising competition between competing “interests”, rather than the seeking of compromise between parties seeking unity from conflict.
That said, I would agree that a (relatively) open media and rule of transparent law is critical to good rule. I would hope to see China move towards adopting measures in that direction as quickly as possible.
March 9, 2007 @ 3:08 pm | Comment
3
By shulan
As far as I understood it the new law isn’t a very big step forward. It gives the state the right to disappropriate the citizens but falls short in defining the terms under which a disappropriation is legal and when not. Again one of the elastic clauses, which make the Chinese judiciary such a tricky business.
CCT: I’ll let others speak for the US. But I’ll give you a counter-example from Europe. Anybody who would have predicted in the fifties that Germany and Spain fifty years later would have gay marriage laws would have been laughed at. This is a change due to a democratic systems, I am convinced. The freedom to express different views, the freedom to assemble and organize, the right to rally for your cause and a legal system which protects these rights where all needed for this. Without these rights and without the protection of these rights nothing would have changed.
March 9, 2007 @ 4:11 pm | Comment
4
By The Iron Buddha
@CCT
“In the past 50 years, I would suggest that perhaps the most challenging and divisive social issue has been civil rights…”
Correct.
“it wasn’t local democracy or the open press that brought an end to segregation.”
Correct about local democracy but totally wrong about the free press.
Images in the media and reporting on non-violent black protesters being abused by the police and white counter-demonstrators played a major role in moving public sentiment in a direction sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement. They remains some of the most powerful images in/of American history. MLK knew (or was hoping) this would happen (as Ghandi did). And he knew that the free press in America would be a major factor in the movement’s success. They knew that the American press could and would broadcast stories and images of a minority struggling for its rights and stir/shame the American public into living up to its ideals.
“It was, in fact, the least directly democratic branch of the United States government that broke the impasse: the Supreme Court. ”
True. But another way to see it would be that in a democracy, even a repressed minority can get a fair hearing in court and that the government must obey the law.
By the way, good point about the Supreme Court being the least democratic branch of government. But it is not undemocratic. Justices are apointed and vetted by popularly elected officials. The laws they interpret are made by popularly elected officials. And, as a last resort, if the Supreme Court truly interpreted the Constitution in a way the public considered horrendous, the constitution can be amended through no less than 2 democratic methods, cutting the feet out from under the court. Checks and Balances baby.
Democracy isn’t all about following public opinion. It’s also about giving the public influence in crafting laws, ensuring majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority, and establishing and maintaining a system where even the government is not above the law.
“My sense is that the institution of democracy has done little to solve the really difficult, really divisive social issues in the United States. ”
Again, I see it the other way. Without democracy, America couldn’t have addressed any of these problems in any meaningful or constructive way. Even with democracy, some people still choose to engage in violence and terrorism to get their way. Remove rules based open processes, free elections and free press and people begin to feel that violence and terrorism are the ONLY way they’ll ever get heard. I do see some of this in China. No way should China adopt the American Constitution word for word but I think a bit more democracy could help China with many social problems.
” I suspect that the discussion would be adulterated and polarized to the point that reasonable discussion would be impossible at the mass scale.”
This is possible. Things could degenerate rather quickly into labelling and name calling. But I also know that in the US, the shrillest, most divisive voices do occassionally get punished in the polls. It comes down to do you trust the Chinese people to make decisions for themselves? This is no joke. It’s a tough question to answer.
“That said, I would agree that a (relatively) open media and rule of transparent law is critical to good rule. I would hope to see China move towards adopting measures in that direction as quickly as possible.”
At last, something we can agree on.
March 9, 2007 @ 8:57 pm | Comment
5
By CCT
@Iron Buddha,
“Democracy isn’t all about following public opinion. It’s also about giving the public influence in crafting laws, ensuring majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority, and establishing and maintaining a system where even the government is not above the law. ”
Note that in the case of civil rights, democracy failed because “public opinion” in significant parts of the country was against the end of segregation.
But in general, if “democracy” is what you described above, then I’m all in favor. But to bring this back onto Jeremiah’s point, what you’ve described is not a “system”, but rather a result. You can argue that having ballot boxes and political campaigns makes such a result more likely, but you can’t convince me that the two are the same.
There are far too many examples of societies with ballot boxes and political campaigns that don’t come close to delivering what you’ve called “democracy”; Taiwan comes to mind. I envy Taiwan’s judicial system, but little else. There’s little else political or social that I would import from Taiwan even given the option.
On a tangent, I expect more from my government than just delivering “democracy”, by the way. I fundamentally don’t subscribe to the theory that relations between government/people must be a confrontational one, and that success is defined as a government kept in check. A government must also a responsibility to manage and improve society.
Here’s what I think of as a demonstrative question…
– which is worse: a government killing a man by running a tank over him, or a man dying early after a disease-filled/impoverished existence due to poor government policy?
I’d be interested in hearing others’ answer to that question.
March 10, 2007 @ 2:10 am | Comment
6
By shulan
@CCT
What’s the point of the question?
In case somebody was worried about all-too much confrontation during this years NPC, don’t worry, actually no danger whatsoever, everything is very harmonious.
March 10, 2007 @ 5:21 am | Comment
7
By China Law Blog
@Jeremiah —
Great post, but I take issue with this statement: “Is it so different that lessons from other places have absolutely no application here? Of that I am less sure.”
You KNOW that lessons elsewhere do have application and relevance in China. They have to.
March 10, 2007 @ 6:28 am | Comment
8
By CCT
I left a relatively long, but not at all harsh follow-up to my previous post to Iron Buddha. Why was it deleted?
March 10, 2007 @ 8:13 am | Comment
9
By richard
CCT, I did not delete it. I give my guest bloggers discretion on how they manage their threads but as I think you know I try never to delete well-intentioned comments, no matter what their point of view. I’ll talk to Raj. Please don’t leave the site – your comments are welcome here, even if I disagree with nearly all of them.
March 10, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Comment
10
By JXie
Why nobody talks about the unified corporate tax rate? I would think that has far more significant impact to most of the blog readers and commentators.
March 10, 2007 @ 11:42 am | Comment
11
By CCT
@richard,
I wasn’t threatening to leave. I was just genuinely confused why the post disappeared. Maybe there was a technical choke-up around the time I posted.
The topic I wanted to tackle was this:
“It comes down to do you trust the Chinese people to make decisions for themselves? This is no joke. It’s a tough question to answer.”
I’m not going to repeat myself in full, but I’ll try to at least summarize: I absolutely trust the “Chinese people to make decisions for themselves”… *if properly informed*.
I see the task of administering a country no different than many other professional tasks. The Chinese phrase could be ‘zhi guo’, for example, and with the verb ‘zhi’ also meaning something akin to ‘cure’. I see government policy as being a necessary tool to curing society’s ills, just as a medical professional would use a tool to cure the body’s ills.
I think the task needs to be implemented seriously and professionally by those with the opportunity to devote themselves to government policy. I don’t think it should be anything remotely similar to a TV call-in show.
This doesn’t necessarily mean I support a single government elite; imagine a democracy where policy is decided by creating a “policy jury” consisting of 50-100 random citizens… all of whom are paid to spend 6-12 months studying a single theory, with the help of expert witnesses.
But regardless, bottom line: I support skilled, informed, considerate, and professional government. Whatever “system” brings that is welcome, in my book.
March 10, 2007 @ 12:39 pm | Comment
12
By The Iron Buddha
“I absolutely trust the “Chinese people to make decisions for themselves”… *if properly informed*.”
Yeah. Me too. But much of what you’ve advocated on this blog seems dedicated to keeping them ignorant.
” I support skilled, informed, considerate, and professional government. Whatever “system” brings that is welcome, in my book.”
Again, me too, except fo the “system” bit. Because I would also add accountable to the people and accountable to the law.
March 10, 2007 @ 1:43 pm | Comment
13
By CCT
@Iron Buddha,
Maybe you can re-read some of my earlier posts, keeping in mind what I said. My belief is that empowerment in the absence of information isn’t the right solution.
Here’s my take on another fundamental divide between West/East… I’m not a deep philosopher educated in all of the traditions of both, so consider this amateur hour and my own observation.
The Chinese view of human existence is that we’re born with nothing. We’re not made in the image of God; we do not have innate goodness and an immortal soul. When we’re born, we’re little more than (perhaps cute, beloved) animals Without education and preparation, human beings will always remain animals (less cute in old age).
For example, I think it’s pretty obvious that Chinese children are given far fewer “choice” in life than their Western counterparts. This is partly because Chinese children are seen as incomplete people; they’re young, uneducated, and their opinion on serious matters is irrelevant. Americans, on the other hand, often view their children as having innate natural “rights” to lead the life they wish to live.
This is really a significant difference in the way we see the world and man’s place in it. In my opinion, true empowerment doesn’t come from giving man choice and “freedom”; it can only come after education and preparation.
This is why many (and I agree) China isn’t ready for the flavor of “democracy” that some have described. It’s innately patronizing, but I think it’s also fundamentally true. And this isn’t just arrogance speaking; I don’t believe that I’m superior to or distinct from the average Chinese.
I’ve contemplated and received education on some issues, and I feel qualified to speak on them. But if Hu/Wen invited me to participate in discussions on “property rights”… I genuinely don’t believe I’m qualified to *decide* the issue. I don’t feel I’ve been prepared for that type of democracy.
March 11, 2007 @ 6:14 am | Comment
14
By Jeremiah
CLB,
I do believe that. But I was couching the statement a bit for domestic consumption.
March 11, 2007 @ 8:05 am | Comment
15
By kenzhu
@CCT I’d urge to read The Federalist Papers to really understand how democracy works.
The utopian argument for democracy is that an enlightened people will listen to a debate, think about the issues raised and then pick the right choice. In practice, democracies don’t work this way. Carl Schmidt, a German political philosopher in the 1920s and 30s point that in fact, many liberal democracies don’t approach this ideal state. Many decisions aren’t made in open committees but rather in smoke filled backrooms.
Democracies, I’d argue, rather work because they allow people to solve the problems they know best, the problems they face face day-to-day. Many times, government officials aren’t aware of the problems people face for various of reason. Democracy gives people a chance for them to state what their problems are and pressure society to try and fix them. I think American society is particularly good at getting interest groups to get legislation and money because of the way the US constitution structures society. A major reason Blacks had a hard time getting the rest of the society to pay attention to them was that they were enfranchised and couldn’t use the instruments of democracy to help them.
In China from what I see, Wen Jiabao and Hu Jin Tao look at China, figure out what the problems are and tell the rest of China to do what they say. I think it’s impossible for 2 men to tell what the problems are of the 1.3 billion Chinese people. I think Hu Jin Tao and Wen Jiao Bao might even be good leaders but what happens when your leader is someone like George W. Bush. In the U.S., the system of checks and balances allowed us apply breaks and at least slow the rate he was running the country in the ground. If George W. Bush was the president of China, who would stop him? And this is, I think, one of the greatest threats to China.
I agree that China probably isn’t ready for a democracy right now. But I think the problem is that it isn’t moving in that direction. There are certain things China could do to start preparing itself for that but it refuses. The Chinese government is filled with inefficiencies, petty tyrants and corruption. It will need serious reform to address those issue and I don’t think the Chinese government will ever seriously face those issues.
March 12, 2007 @ 2:41 pm | Comment
16
By Ames Tiedeman
Over time China will reform more and more.
Economic Freedom will create more Political Freedom.
The future is bright for more Freedom in China, but these things take time…
March 18, 2007 @ 8:28 am | Comment