China’s Whole Process People’s Democracy
China’s Whole Process People’s Democracy
The need for self-criticism in the anti-imperialist movement
Keith Bennett, co-editor of Friends of Socialist China, presented his paper, “Whole Process People’s Democracy is a significant contribution to Human Rights,” at the 2023 China-Europe Seminar on Human Rights, which has been published on the website of the Friends of Socialist China. The seminar, held in Rome, Italy, on September 20, 2023, was organized by the Human Rights Institute of the South West University of Political Science and Law in Chongqing, China, and the Roma 9 China-Italy Economic and Cultural Exchange Centre. According to the Friends of Socialist China website, the seminar was attended by distinguished academics and prominent political and social activists from China, Italy, Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Spain and Switzerland.
Bennett prefaces the article with the central and valid observation that mutual understanding is important. The current situation of world conflict requires a dialogue of civilizations, in order that the West can arrive to understand China’s form of democracy, so that the West can see that China is not authoritarian; but rather, China has developed democracy in a form different from that of the Western representative democracies.
Bennett proceeds with the observation that there are powerful sectors in the West that are on a propaganda campaign designed to discredit China with misinformation. This formulation by Bennett, however, understates the depth of the problem that those who wish to defend socialist China confront. Misunderstandings about China pervade the Western mindset, as a result of decades of Cold War propaganda directed against projects of socialist construction, driven by the short-term economic interests of elites. These deep-rooted misunderstandings existed prior to and are independent of the New Cold War against China.
What are the dimensions of the deeply rooted Western misunderstandings about China? They stand on the pillars of three false premises: socialist countries do not have meaningful elections; socialist countries are ruled with an iron hand by communist parties; and socialist countries are ruled by one person or a small group in a relatively permanent form.
I submit that in order to explain China’s people’s democracy in a way that Westerners can understand, one must be attentive to the pillars of the Western mindset with respect to socialist countries, and one must discredit each one through fact-filled and reasoned arguments. We must appreciate at the outset that the misunderstanding of the people is not based on narrowmindedness, racism, or disregard for the rights of others, but on false premises that have been cultivated by elites with an economic interest in destroying socialist projects. These false premises can only be removed through reasoned argument.
Bennett’s article fails to present the required reasoned arguments. But even worse, it presents arguments that unwittingly reinforce the current claim of the Western political establishments that China is authoritarian. Let us work through the article in order to see why I make this criticism.
Bennett correctly observes that the Western framing of international relations—as a struggle between democracy and autocracy—is the foundation for sanctioning and waging war against countries stigmatized as authoritarian, which itself constitutes an anti-democratic denial of the fundamental human rights of millions of people. He contrasts this cynical and superficial approach of the Western powers with the Global Civilization Initiative of China’s President Xi Jinping, which advocates respect for the diversity of civilizations, and which thereby refrains from imposing its own values or models on others. This approach implicitly recognizes that democracy is a common value and aspiration of all peoples, but that there are differing models of democracy, as a consequence of historical and cultural differences among peoples. So far so good.
Bennett recognizes three categories of human rights—individual, social, and collective rights—without defining their meanings. But we can deduce their meanings, based on the historic struggles for human rights and democracy in their various forms. Individual rights are those that pertain to each individual in a democratic society, such as the rights to vote, to freedom of speech and association, to due process of law, and to ownership of property. Social rights refer to the rights to the fundamental prerequisites for a comfortable and happy life and for personal development, such as the rights to education, health care, food, and housing. Collective rights pertain to nations, peoples, and ethnic groups, such as the rights of nations to sovereignty and control over their natural resources and the right of peoples to self-determination.
Bennett correctly notes that socialist countries, influenced by the writing of Marx and Engels, emphasize the development of the productive forces. He writes:
It is on the basis of this materialist Marxist principle that socialist countries like China, and many developing countries more generally, have placed such emphasis on the liberation and development of the productive forces. This has not been to negate or to violate human rights. On the contrary, it has been the prerequisite for their development and their guarantee.
Even though Bennett here declares that such emphasis on productivity does not negate human rights, his words suggest that the socialist approach is one of deferring individual human rights until the nation has sufficiently developed the productive forces.
Bennett proceeds to maintain that the focus of socialist countries is on the “people’s right and ability to manage the affairs of the state, economy and society as a whole.” He does not explain, however, how this management of the state and the economy by the people is attained in practice, leaving open the possibility of the interpretation that it is nothing more than a claim of the Chinese state.
Next, Bennett refers to the history of the use by the Chinese Communist Party of the method of “from the masses to the masses,” which involves “taking the scattered and unsystematic ideas of the masses and synthesising them in such a way that the masses of the people consciously adopt them as their own.” In the absence of further explanation, using examples, this reads like a justification for the manipulation of the people’s thoughts by the Party.
Bennett concludes by pointing to the active participation of the people from all walks of life and social backgrounds in the political processes of countries constructing socialism.
“For the great majority of those engaged in governance in China, and other socialist countries, from the village level to the National People’s Congress or its equivalent, politics is not a distinct profession. Rather, representatives are drawn from all walks of life, from all professions, including ordinary workers and farmers, and from every ethnic group, and thus are genuinely aware of the problems, issues, and concerns in their communities, and are genuinely accountable to the people among whom they live and work. In a visit to China earlier this summer, I was deeply impressed to see how such grassroots governance and participatory democracy was developing and working in the Jinyuan community near to Guizhou’s provincial capital of Guiyang.”
But Bennett does not explain how these representatives are selected. Are these workers and peasants selected by the people? Or are they selected by the Party, as examples of what the Party would like all workers and peasants to be?
It seems to me, therefore, that Bennett’s article does not begin to discredit the assumptions that are the pillars of the Western mindset with respect to socialist countries, which to reiterate, are that socialist countries do not have meaningful elections; that socialist countries are ruled with an iron hand by communist parties; and that socialist countries are ruled by one person or a small group in a more or less permanent form.
A more effective approach to discrediting the Western mindset with respect to socialist countries would begin with an affirmation that the protection of individual political rights is a common value of modern humanity. That is to say, in the modern world, it is nearly universally believed that ordinary people ought to possess organized voice in the decision-making process, with the expectation that, in normal circumstances, the view of the majority will be expressed in a collective political will. Proceeding from this definitional premise, it ought to be stressed that the countries constructing socialism protect individual political rights and respect the opinion of the majority, but they do so with structures that are different from those in the Western representative democracies. Indeed, ruling communist parties have explicitly designed political practices with the intention of avoiding the recognized undemocratic pitfalls of Western representative democracies, with the intention of more fully protecting individual political rights.
What is required, therefore, is a thorough discussion and analysis of the workings of the political systems and decision-making processes of the countries constructing socialism. With respect to China, I have attempted to do this in a previous commentary, “Political Structures in Socialist China.” The commentary notes that the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China was established by the Constitution of 1954, five years after the taking of power by the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao. The National People’s Congress is the highest organ of state power in China, with the constitutionally recognized authority to enact laws and to elect the President and the Vice-President of the People’s Republic as well as to elect the leadership of the important Standing Committees of the People’s Congress.
I repeat here the commentary’s description of the way in which the members of the National People’s Congress are elected.
“The deputies of the National People’s Congress are elected, directly and indirectly, by the people, in a tiered structure of people’s congresses, with a foundation in the local village or urban neighborhood. At the lowest level, local People’s Congresses are directly elected. At this lowest level, there is no limit on the number of candidates for each seat; candidates can be nominated by the Communist Party of China, various other political parties, mass organizations, and any voter seconded by at least ten other voters. The list of candidates is finalized by an election committee that is appointed by the Standing Committee of the local People’s Congress. Some districts elect one person, while others elect two or three, with the voter allowed as many votes as there are seats to be filled. Voting is done by secret ballot. There are provisions for runoff elections.
“Local voting districts are generally from 200 to 1000 voters, but larger counties can have as many as 4,000 voters. Local People’s Congresses also elect the executive branches of local government, including governors, mayors, and heads of cities, city districts, counties, townships, and towns.”
In a subsequent commentary on August 23, 2022, “Chinese democracy works,” I reminded readers of the alternative political structures in the People’s Republic. The commentary is a favorable review of a video by Carlos Martínez, co-editor of the Website of Friends of Socialist China. The commentary reports that Martínez views Chinese democracy as more effective than Western representative democracy, because China has effectively battled Covid-19, because China is the world leader in the production and use of renewable energy, and because China is not ruled by a small corporate elite. In reviewing the effectiveness of Chinese democracy, however, Martínez does not explain the mechanisms of people’s power in China, which as noted above, place the authority of the state in the hands of the elected delegates of the people, which therefore give rise to policies favorable to the interests of the people with respect to health, energy, and corporate interests. In the absence of such explanation, Martínez’s video could be interpreted as saying that authoritarian governments sometimes do good things.
Previously, on December 11, 2021, a Summit for Socialist Democracy was held in response to the December 9-10 “Summit for Democracy,” hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden. The December 11 zoom event, co-sponsored by the Friends of Socialist China and the International Manifesto Group, consisted of twelve panelists from Canada, UK, China, Venezuela, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, USA, and Brazil. The panelists did not entirely overlook the question of the structures of the Chinese political system. As I note in my December 14 commentary reviewing the event, Roland Boer (Professor of Philosophy, Dalian University of Technology, China) explains that China’s “whole process people’s democracy” is a comprehensive process that includes elections. And Cheng Enfu (Professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) further explains that the right to vote is one of the important dimensions of democracy in China. He notes that there are competitive elections to the People’s National Congress, with both top-down and bottom-up nomination processes.
However, taking into account the disappointing fact that there were only two brief comments with respect to the political structures of China at the December 11 zoom event, I wrote: “In their desire to explain that socialist democracy is more than elections, there is a tendency among the defenders of socialism to understate the role of elections in the socialist systems of governance. In fact, in the countries constructing socialism, elections are conducted with great care; and they play an important role in the socialist system of governance.”
I also should note by way of background that my own interest in the alternative political process of people’s power in China has been stimulated by my experiences in Cuba, a nation that has developed a political process of people’s power. As I was learning through direct experiential observation and study of the Cuban process of people’s power, which I view as an advanced political process on several counts, I quite naturally was curious to know if China had developed a similar political system. As I read various sources on China, seeking to understand the Chinese socialist project, I could not fail to observe that there were only occasional references to the People’s Congress, without explanations concerning its structures and functions. I therefore consulted the Wikipedia entry on China, and I found in the entry a section on “Politics of China” and a subsection on “National People’s Congress.” The sources for this subsection were archives and documents of the government of China, including the National People’s Congress itself. Interpreting this as a self-description put forth by the Chinese socialist revolution, I used it as a source for my October 8, 2021, article, “Political structures in Socialist China.”
Several months later, I discovered that the October 8, 2021, article on the “Political Structures in Socialist China” was republished on the Website of the Friends of Socialist China on March 4, 2022. The editors were making available the article’s “valuable insights into China’s socialist democracy and how it differs from bourgeois democracy,” in preparation for the upcoming “Two Sessions” of March 2022, in which the People’s National Congress and the conference of organizations of civil society (Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference) are in active, simultaneous sessions.
A vanguard political party
With respect to the pillars of misunderstanding in the Western mindset, there also is the question of the characteristics of a vanguard political party, like the Communist Party of China. The concept of a vanguard political party is difficult for Westerners to understand, because their notions of the functions of political parties are shaped by their experiences with representative democracies. I have addressed this issue in the above-mentioned October 8, 2021, article on the “Political Structures in Socialist China,” from which I reproduce the following.
“The Communist Party of China is guaranteed a leadership role by the Constitution; it is defined in the Constitution as the vanguard of the working class, the people, and the nation. However, the Party is subordinate to the National People’s Congress, which is elected directly and indirectly by the people.
“Party committees permeate every state organ, mass organization, and state and private company. The Party thus plays a key role in policy and in the selection of leaders at all levels. But the Party does not have the constitutional authority to elect members of important committees on the People’s Congresses, which are elected by the people’s congresses at the corresponding level. The Party can maintain de facto political power only with the support of the people. To this end, the Party has developed structures for the education of Party members and the people.”
I further wrote in “The Summit for Socialist Democracy,” December 14, 2021, reflecting primarily on my experiences in Cuba:
“In socialist systems of governance, the Communist Party plays a leading role in the formulation of policy. It does so on the basis of its understanding of the needs and aspirations of the people and of the social dynamics that are affecting the nation and the world. If a Communist Party were to not know the people or the unfolding social dynamics, it would risk losing political power, because it has limited constitutional political power in its own right. The Party leads, educates, exhorts, and formulates; but it is the elected deputies of the people that ultimately decide. Therefore, the Party must continually demonstrate its preparedness and competence before the people.”
On the question of term limits in socialist political practices
In addition, there is the issue of the longevity of leaders in certain socialist countries, which we also must address. Here I would argue that when the people’s movements of the modern era attain the arrival to political power and the capacity to maintain themselves in power, one invariably observes the decisive leadership role of a person with exceptional leadership, intellectual, and moral qualities, including the important capacity to unify the ongoing struggle of the people. Taking into account the persistent efforts of imperialism to bring down socialist projects in political power, it makes good practical sense to maintain the exceptional person in a position of authority, even while seeking to develop a structure of transition to leadership by the vanguard party as a collective. It seems to me that Western advocacy of term limits seeks to undermine the power of the people. I have written previously on the emergence of exceptional leaders in the people’s movements of the world, including “The virtuous servants of God: The examples of Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro,” July 19, 2022.
Can the people be persuaded through reasoned argument?
I am maintaining in today’s commentary that to defend China, we need to do better in explaining China, particularly with respect to its alternative political structures and processes, which when well understood, can be interpreted as an advanced political process and an advanced form of protecting the individual political rights of the people, empowering them to organized control of the political process. This advanced protection of individual political rights is the structural foundation of the fuller protection of the social rights of the Chinese people and the collective rights of the nation of China.
But does this really matter? Are people persuaded through reasoned fact-based argument? To be sure, there are a significant number of people with limited desire to understand what is true and to do what is right. However, in my experiences, there also are significant numbers of people who will take the time to listen to an argument, and who will modify their views, if they are presented with a well-reasoned argument. And there also are significant numbers of people who do not necessarily have the necessary discipline to learn a new way of thinking, but they will be influenced by others whom they respect who do have such discipline.
Therefore, I believe that social change efforts in the countries of the North ought to give priority to educating and transforming the consciousness of their peoples, and to this end, they ought to undertake self-criticism with respect to the persuasiveness of their arguments. Effective self-criticism and a reformulation of the discourse could provide the foundation for new people’s movements in the various nations of the North, considering the opportunity provided by the profound and multidimensional crisis of the world. I have in mind here new anti-imperialist people’s movements rooted in historical and scientific analysis and transcending current ideological differences between Left and Right, that are able to mobilize the people toward the taking and the maintaining of political power.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigation.
Follow me on Twitter: Charles McKelvey@CharlesMcKelv14