Democratic Dictatorship: The Facade of Chinese Democracy
China's government is not more responsive or effective than democracy in the United States
As differences continue to define the deteriorating relationship between the United States and China, both global powers cling to democracy as a defining characteristic of their political system. Except for the word itself, the United States and China have very little agreement about what democracy means and how it should apply to their institutions. The United States frequently criticizes China for its suppression of rights, lack of free speech, and frequent political oppression. Despite its intensely undemocratic characteristics, the People's Republic claims these are only Western standards, and should not be used to universally measure democracy. They claim to use a more nuanced and advanced form of democracy; distinct and more perfect than the West’s. The Chinese have applied various titles to their democratic governance including “consultative democracy” and “democratic dictatorship.” As the United States has seen a decline in trust and democratic satisfaction over the last 20 years, China has seen an increase.
Election after election, the US government remains gridlocked and Americans feel like their government is disconnected as little action is taken on key issues and the candidate with the most money consistently wins. In recent years, many observers have suggested that China has become more open to citizen input, and produced more effective governance. Despite their continued attempts to redefine democracy and create a facade of dialogue, the governing regime of China continues to be a brutal and oppressive force that responds to citizens' input when it furthers its authoritarian goals and severely suppresses it when it does not. Despite some minor similarities and advantages over the United States on a local level, China has not found a more effective way to democratically govern. While authoritarian rule may provide short-term benefits, it is more volatile in the long run.
In December 2021, the Chinese government published a white paper titled “Democracy in China.”1 Within the document, The State Council Information Office argues countries like the United States that criticize Chinese democracy are acting undemocratically themselves. The paper says, “It is undemocratic to use a single yardstick to measure the rich and colorful political systems of the world, and to examine the colorful political civilization of mankind with a monotonous eye.” While China's political system is certainly colorful, it is far from democratic.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is the dominant political organ in the Chinese political system. To be successful, one must rise through the ranks of the rigorously selective CCP. On the national level, China’s governing institutions consist of a parallel, but interconnected structure, between the CCP and the governing organs of power. The National Party Congress is the largest and most powerful body within the CCP, consisting of hundreds of individuals selected from grassroots CCP delegations across the country. The National Party Congress is, on paper, the most powerful institution in China, though in reality, the nearly 3000-person legislature deals with minor issues and often seems like a rubber stamp for the president and high-ranking CCP officials. At the top of the party is the Politburo and Standing Committee which selects the president. These institutions are distantly democratic. Local councils, which are elected by the people, select delegates, who then select further representatives, up the chain to the Politburo and President. This system of representative politics is similar to the system of primaries in the United States, though further disconnected from the general population.
Chinese democracy hinges on the concepts of “democratic supervision” and “consultation.” For China to remain united and avoid the volatility of a true democracy, they keep the public’s input at a distance. In the United States elections have a direct effect on governing policy, for good and bad, while in China, elections are one of various factors that can affect a decision or policy. Citizen input is regarded as advice, while in the United States, it is instruction. While China attempts to present this purported dialogue between citizens and the government as an alternative form of democracy, it is only a tool for an authoritarian regime to stay informed on the needs and views of the people without allowing dissent. Any use of democracy in China is not to benefit the lives of citizens, but rather to advance the goals of the state. The government uses democracy and democratic input as a way of improving its image on the world stage and justifying its decided direction.
While Western Political Scientists contrast democracy with authoritarian dictatorships, China argues dictatorship is essential for democracy. In the same concept of “democratic supervision,” the 2021 white paper writes, “Cracking down on the very few is to protect the majority, and implementing dictatorship is to realize democracy.” China values unity over anything else. For China to achieve unity they must supervise citizens to ensure they do not conduct or think any counter-nationalist acts or thoughts. A free and democratic society does not require citizens to be supervised and monitored. China's incessant back-talking and rationalizations further prove their attempts to hold it as a beacon of their political system, are driven only by PR concerns. While in the United States, politicians often use the symbol of democracy to paint a desired picture but act contrary to its values, our constitutional structure protects civil liberties in the long term while welcoming dissent.
After nearly three years of a strict zero-COVID policy, millions of Chinese citizens took to the streets to protest the government's intense and dystopian lockdown. Protests were sparked by a building fire in the Xinjiang province which killed ten Chinese citizens. The fire was speculated to be so deadly due to the slowed response of firefighters caused by the required practices of anti-viral precautions. After several days of protests, China initiated a comprehensive reversal of their zero-COVID rules, re-opening China and answering the demands of citizens. While on the surface it appeared that the government was reacting directly to the widespread protests, the shift occurred as a result of more complicated factors.2 In the weeks before the reversal, several Chinese insiders began to discuss terminating or loosening the strict COVID policies. Protocols had shut down businesses, locked workers in their homes (or offices), and throttled the Chinese economy, all while the policy’s viability faded. Rather than admit that they had failed, the government used their citizens' outrage as a “political offramp” to deceive global observers and appear more democratic.3 President Xi Jinping acknowledged the protests in a public meeting with a French foreign minister, suggesting China wanted to portray the policy change as a reaction to citizens' demands.
A 2020 poll found that 82% of Joe Biden voters cited the outbreak of COVID and the government's response as “very important” in their electoral decision.4 A month before the 2020 election, just 32% of Americans approved of President Donald Trump’s handling of COVID.5 The pandemic and government action was a key issue in both China and the United States. While the concerns of Chinese citizens were ignored for several years until the government found it useful to incorporate them into policy, voters in the United States effectuated a direct change in leadership.
Though difficult to track, the most salient data published by the Harvard Ash Center shows that Chinese citizens' government satisfaction has drastically increased since 2003.6 While citizens are becoming more satisfied with the government, they are continuing to live without democracy and freedom. In the same period this poll was conducted, economic activity increased, suggesting that citizens may correlate their satisfaction with the government, with their satisfaction in the economy. As China’s middle class grows, and development increases, more opportunities and resources are provided to citizens. If an economic downturn were to strike, citizens' faith in their repressive government would likely plummet.
Many often claim that while China’s national government rejects popular demands, government on the local level is more responsive to it. Village councils make local policies and incorporate a diverse set of views into the local governing process. In recent years several of these communities have instituted “Mayors Mailbox” programs where citizens can submit local complaints online.7 These villages maintain infrastructure, support communities, and serve as a bridge between citizens and the national government. Councils often host open meetings where residents can attend and voice their thoughts or concerns about proposed projects and programs. While these local bodies are the most democratic institutions in China, they are nothing extraordinary.8 Local governments have similar satisfaction rates to their counterparts in the United States. The various forms of local governments across the US generally use the same forums and methods to gather input and create policy. Studies have found that US local governments are highly representative of citizens' wants and policy priorities indicating that these institutions in both China and the United States are effective and democratic bodies of governance.9
Some argue that the United States’ use of democracy as a central principle is a facade similar to China's. The dominance and power of money in elections has an enormous effect on the representative nature, or lack thereof, of the political system. Over the past six congressional election cycles, 78.5% of Senate candidates and 90.7% of House candidates that spent more, won.10 In addition to money determining elections, Americans are dissatisfied with their representatives. Congressional approval ratings have averaged around 24% since 2021.11 In addition to the current state of democracy, for hundreds of years, Black Americans and other racial minorities were violently suppressed and prohibited from being politically incorporated. If Americans don’t feel represented in their government, is it really a democracy? Although the United States has many blemishes on its democratic record, citizens have the ability to institute reform. Legislation can dampen the effects of money in politics and create new systems for facilitating elections. While instituting change is difficult and often frustrating, difficulty and frustration are key features of democracies. In the United States, affecting popular institutional change is a challenge, while in China it is impossible.
The Chinese government and its responsiveness to citizens is more nuanced than mainstream narratives purport it to be, though their contrasting and dangerous attempts to redefine democracy cannot be defended as innovative and effective. Democratic dictatorship is an easy way for an authoritarian regime to keep its finger on the pulse of the people while enforcing a strict and oppressive order. In the United States, politicians are largely influenced by money in politics, and citizens are increasingly dissatisfied and distrustful of government. Fortunately, in the US, voters can utilize institutional and organized systems of change. Democracies are volatile, and changes in governments or policy can be drastic, but in the long term, dictatorships often result in more risk. Incremental change over time which provides stability is more appealing than the possibility of a sudden revolution or violent disruptions.
State Council Information Office. “Democracy in China.” Peoples Republic of China State Council Information Office, 4 December 2021, http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-12/04/content_5655823.htm. Accessed 13 May 2023.
Campbell, Heidi, and Paul Brandeis Raushenbush. “Did China's Street Protests End Harsh COVID Policies?” Council on Foreign Relations, 14 December 2022, https://www.cfr.org/blog/did-chinas-street-protests-end-harsh-covid-policies. Accessed 13 May 2023.
Ibid.
Pew Research Center. “Important issues in the 2020 election.” Pew Research Center, 13 August 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/important-issues-in-the-2020-election/. Accessed 13 May 2023.
Whitesides, John. “Trump's handling of coronavirus pandemic hits record low approval: Reuters/Ipsos poll.” Reuters, 8 October 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-coronavirus/trumps-handling-of-coronavirus-pandemic-hits-record-low-approval-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN26T3OF. Accessed 13 May 2023.
Cunningham, Edward, et al. “Understanding CCP Resilience: Surveying Chinese Public Opinion Through Time.” Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School, 8 July 2020, https://ash.harvard.edu/publications/understanding-ccp-resilience-surveying-chinese-public-opinion-through-time. Accessed 13 May 2023.
The Economist. “Chinese officials use hotlines to take the public's pulse.” The Economist, 4 February 2017, https://www.economist.com/china/2017/02/04/chinese-officials-use-hotlines-to-take-the-publics-pulse. Accessed 13 May 2023.
Bassam, Julia. “How democracy features in local Chinese politics - SWI swissinfo.ch.” Swissinfo, 23 November 2022, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/how-democracy-features-in-local-chinese-politics/48077420. Accessed 13 May 2023.
Palus, Christine Kelleher. “Responsiveness in American Local Governments.” State & Local Government Review, vol. 42, no. 2, 2010, pp. 133–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41057542. Accessed 13 May 2023.
OpenSecrets. “Did Money Win?” OpenSecrets, 1 April 2021, http://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending. Accessed 13 May 2023.
Gallup. “Congress and the Public Gallup Historical Trends.” Gallup News, Gallop, 2023, https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx. Accessed 13 May 2023.