The People’s Republic of China’s ruling party, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) consistently and proudly calls itself a democracy. However, in the West, it is obvious to see that there is little parallel in what is defined as a democracy here, and the structure in China seen today. Equally puzzling, the democratic movements in China from the Democracy Wall movement in 1978-1979 to the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 were cracked down on specifically with the rhetoric of democracy by the Chinese government. A closer look at the Chinese government’s ideology and their understanding of democracy reveals that there is an internal logic there within all of these parties which use the common language of “democracy.” The content of the language used shows that what “democracy” means to different groups varies wildly, and that using solely the term “democracy” may not be enough to describe fully the sheer diversity seen in China.

Meaning of Democracy in China

Democracy is rendered in Chinese as “minzhu”, which is composed of two characters: “min” and “zhu.” In Chinese language, a single character can have many varying definitions, and these characters are no different. Depending on context and usage, the character “min” can mean “common people” as opposed to “officials”, the “people” as opposed to “class enemies,” or the “individual” as opposed to the “collective.” Similarly, the character for “zhu” can mean either “master,” which means being in charge, or “primary” which does not necessarily mean in charge, but taken as the most important topic of concern. This much variation in the basic components of the word for “democracy” means that in Chinese culture, democracy can be interpreted quite differently by different groups, or even the same group but at different points in time. It makes sense then to contrast the Western conception of “democracy” to the Chinese conception of “minzhu,” as ideas which are clearly related and in constant discussion with one another, but nonetheless fundamentally differ from one another.

The internal diversity and discussion surrounding China’s own discussion of democracy is also seen in the multiple democracy movements from 1978 to 1989. While the CCP had a consistent view how its institutions were democratic, as a result of differing definitions of what democracy entailed by other groups in China, under differing influences, there have been multiple incidents all revolving around the idea of “democracy.” For example, in the Democracy Wall movement from 1978 to 1979, was formed from a coalition of a diverse set of actors each operating under their conception of democracy, ranging from orthodox Marxist to and Western human rights’ standpoints, each with influence from Chinese traditional ideas of rights and the relation between the people and government.

The traditional Chinese idea which influenced most of these discussions was the idea of “minben,” which along with the previous character of “min” put together with “ben” which means “root” or “basis.” This means to put the welfare of the people as the basis of the government. There is inherently a paternalist tone to the idea as it assumes a dichotomy between the state and the people, with the state held responsible for the well being of the people, without any suggestion of the people holding the government accountable, or having any role in it.

The party’s conception of democracy was clearly influenced by both Marxist ideology and minben, by both using the Leninist language of the vanguard party, and also that their role was purely in the interest of the people’s welfare, albeit without their participation.

The democracy movements which challenged this idea of democracy, also differed quite a bit how they thought of democracy within themselves. The Marxist elements of the Democracy Wall movement, understood “minzhu” as consistently not of the “common people” being “primary,” but rather them being the “masters.” This would be achieved through an implementation of Paris Commune style communism or Yugoslavian communism where the workers managed their own affairs, and officials were elected, not appointed. Another idea was to have a multiparty system, but each operating under the common interest of the people, differing only in the strategy of working towards that goal. The influence of traditional Confucian values of “harmony” and “collective welfare” can be seen here as they formulated their arguments as not promoting the individual and their rights, but rather to have the collective wellbeing of society be the ultimate interest of these parties.

The Tiananmen Square movement of 1989 had some continuities with the Democracy Wall movement, such as their nationalism and working towards the ultimate well being of society as a whole. However, their discourse notably took on much more Western conceptions of democracy. For example, the topic of “human rights,” which was an idea rarely used in Chinese discourse, was prominent in this movement. They argued that true democracy was done through having procedures in place to have the people hold the government accountable, and ensuring that the government worked to uphold their human rights.

Thus, the discussion of “democracy” in China is nebulous, often shifting according to the time, and under differing influences such as Marxism, Western human rights discourse, and traditional Confucianism.

The Party’s Criticism

The Chinese Communist Party identified these movements and their deviations from the CCP’s definition of democracy to be dangerous, therefore worked relentlessly to criticize them. The most basic differentiation they created to counter these arguments was between “socialist democracy” and “bourgeois democracy.” They argued that what makes socialist democracy superior to bourgeois democracy, Western liberal democracy, was class. Under a Marxist framework, everything has a class element to them, democracy included. In a socialist democracy, the party acting as a vanguard party only has the people’s interest, and no interests of its own. However, the party also does not blindly follow the people. It is this way that the party is democratic, and procedures have no role in determining if a system is democratic or not, because the procedures can work for or against the people’s interests.

Furthermore as a vanguard party, they are intrinsically linked to the state, and their position as the sole ruling party guarantees stability and security, and through that, the ability to work in the interests of the people.

Another element of socialist democracy is that since the workers have ownership of the means of production, that guarantees their social justice better than bourgeois democracy could where there is private ownership of the means of production. This is since private ownership of the means of production would inevitably lead to a bourgeois class and an undemocratic institution in the end.

Through these arguments, the CCP justified their crushing of democratic movements in the country. They argued that a bipartisan Marxist democracy as was suggested by some in the Democracy Wall movement would undermine the CCP’s position as the vanguard party, and along with it the very existence of the state which would lead to more chaos. They also criticized emulating the multiparty democracies of Western countries, because while they seem to represent different interest groups, in practice, they have a common interest in promoting capitalism, and the only group that gets represented ends up being the bourgeois as they are the only group which have the resources to run for office and pay for campaigns in a multiparty electoral system.

Nearly a decade later, the CCP would use similar arguments to justify their crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protestors, along with the further criticism of their demand for a more procedural democracy with special protections for human rights. However, the CCP argued that what rights are afforded to the people are dependent on the conditions of the state. Therefore, what human rights exist are developed alongside the development of the state

Comparison to Western Democracy

Along with the criticism of their internal democratic movements, the party also criticized Western liberal democracy, which many of these movements were influenced by, and took inspiration from. As mentioned before, Western liberal democracy is characterized by two main elements: procedures and rights. Democracy exists to protect the natural rights of the people from the government, and this is done through a set of procedures to the government accountable to the will of the people. Both of these processes were criticized by the CCP within a Marxist framework which also took influence from traditional Chinese political tradition.

Firstly, the idea of “natural rights” was criticized for it led to the develop ment of a bourgeois capitalist mode of production, and could not guarantee social justice or equitable distribution of wealth. Socialist democracy guaranteed both social justice and equitable distribution through public ownership. In addition, “rights” in Chinese political tradition derived from the government’s obligation to the people, rather than any inherent human existence. Thus, rights are granted by the government for the purpose of better functioning of itself, rather than in the Western context where rights are granted to protect the people the government. Therefore, the CCP can justify the limiting of certain rights if it meant the healthy functioning of the government, and by extension, the state.

Secondly, prominent aspects of Western liberal democracy such as a parliamentary system, or electoral process were criticized. The parliamentary system was criticized for only allowing for a coordination between the ruling class, and the electoral process existing only to provide legitimacy to the perpetuation of their interests in the political realm. Thereby, the party justified their stance against the emulation of Western democracy, and the further criticize the democratic movements within the country.

Conclusion

Democracy is a highly variable concept, and difficult to nail down in the Chinese context. Not only does the concept of democracy (minzhu) differ highly from how it is defined in the West, even within the country among different groups it is defined differently depending on their influences from other traditions whether it be Marxism, Chinese tradition, or Western tradition. This tension between the differing interpretations of what democracy is has led to the formation of several democratic movements in China, and their subsequent crushing by the CCP.

Therefore, it is important to note that these “democratic” movements were advocating for a model of democracy that is notably different to what is traditionally seen as “democracy” in the West. If the goal is to achieve democracy in China, then there should be a shift from seeing these movements unqualifiedly as “democratic” to a term which is able to better capture their content. In the West, the definition of democracy is consistent and has a firm grounding in Western liberal tradition, however in China, it is not consistent, and what is “democracy” may shift from one movement to another.

Sources and Further Reading

• Nathan, Andrew J (1986). Chinese democracy. Univ of California Press.

• Sun, Yan (1995). The Chinese reassessment of socialism, 1976-1992. Princeton University Press.

Last modified on 2023-04-30