David Cohen speaks with Peking University's Pan Wei, a political scientist who has written extensively about the 'China Model.' This is the first part of an interview conducted on behalf of partner site the Lowy Interpreter.
Megan Fennell asks: Can China learn from Western countries in its process of political reform?
Actually, the West has a lot of inspirations for China, and we import this word ‘democracy’ and ‘participation.’ But the difference is that we emphasise real democracy, rather than procedural democracy.
Procedural means provided by law, and majority principle, and so on. Real democracy is that everyone has to have their own apartment, their land, their property, and everyone has to have a living. And then to have the freedom of expressing themselves, and trying to use the internet to have something to say about the government, and to make suggestions that affect their lives, and using all kinds of instruments instead of just elections, so people won't have a one-day right, but almost every day.
David Cohen and Peter Martin: Structurally, is there anything China can learn from the West?
I mean, conceptually, it's also inspired by the West about legal rights. China is trying to get some kind of rule of law, and to regulate modern life, urban life, to be a more orderly social life.
But it's pretty hard, because as I said Chinese people aren’t organised in terms of civil society and social classes. Chinese are so equal and so selfish and independent, so they need a kind of social flesh, social organisations, instead of a kind of hierarchical thing. And China has been trying to invent that in recent years, but so far it's not very successful. So we have to think through that, how to invent a flat social organisation that can take care of people's physical needs, as well as their spiritual and emotional need to link the government with the common people.
The party now is becoming more and more bureaucratised, emphasising the rule of law. So it's not tailored to the specific needs of the common people, as well as their emotional needs.
David and Peter: Is that a problem?
If we think about the state as a means to solving problem, it's not going so well.
In the West, you don't need to trust the government, and you can settle the disputes in court, people trust the court decisions. But Chinese people don’t trust the law very much, so it's a government of moral principles. Before, as well as today, it's not just law.
Among academics we have a term ‘moral economy.’ That's the farmers’ economy. So, for example, a landlord might charge a farmer 50 percent of the harvest, but actually this landlord would take care of the tenants’ children's medical affairs, he would waive the rent whenever there’s a natural disaster. But the French government charges less, like 20 percent with the agricultural tax, but then they don't want the food, the harvest, in goods, they want money – you have to sell it. Only 20 percent, but then it’s cold, it’s the rule of law. And so actually the French government suffered constant challenges in Southeast Asia. Why is that? They charged much less than the landlords. And so what I want to say is that this is a moral economy.
A moral economy isn’t about how much you charge, more about whether you take care of my survival. And moral politics, that’s a word that maybe I invented. It's not all about how much I lose or how much I gain, it's more about whether I trust you. And if you act with moral principles, even if I suffer some loss, I will still support you. So that’s government by moral principles. And if the government isn’t considered moral, if it’s not taking care of me when I suffer very bad things, then I will not trust you, no matter how much you pay.
David and Peter: How do you think the Chinese government is doing now?
Right now it’s going more toward Western countries, more toward the rule of law. But now they're suffering from a lack of trust. And that’s the problem. And that’s the progress of my perceptions. I thought in the past it was more a rule of law problem, but now I find it’s more and more a problem of trust.
Anand V asks: According to your China model, how much should be the participation of the public in governance? How much freedom should be given to the people and private sector? Does all this involve constitutional reform?
Right now, it’s not about private businesses, or state businesses, it's that the business world as a whole is getting more and more say in government. In China, there’s a word, a negative word, ‘interest groups.’ In Chinese civilization, or in Chinese culture, interest group politics is a bad thing. So today, if people see something they don't like, they say it’s special-interest politics.
So interest groups in the West are justified, they are the essence of democracy. But in China, it’s a negative thing. So far, the government, because of this, is very pro-business, and probably the government will change when it’s ready to rebuild an egalitarian system.
The general public, they have more instruments, that is to say the internet, to express themselves. Also, there’s the evaluation system. If your public evaluations are very bad, it’s very hard for an official to get promotion, so they are pretty sensitive to general public opinion. But general public opinion is hard to find out, so the Chinese government is using survey methods, and the evaluation department is playing a part in this.
Cara Bleiman asks: I would like to ask Prof. Pan Wei whether he thinks Taiwan's model of democracy is suitable for China?
Actually, in China, Taiwan seems like a pretty bad model. In the national legislature, about 20 percent of representatives have criminal backgrounds, and a higher proportion of local parliament representatives. It's pretty corrupt. You can see two presidents, one in prison and another in the courts. And the crime syndicates in Taiwan played an important role.
And the two-party system, they represent not different interests, social strata or anything. The cleavage is about independence or unification, so it's pretty dangerous, like a third world country — if an election is about independence, it's about civil war! So I don't think it's a good model for China.
Furthermore, Taiwan's economy has stagnated for quite some time, more than the last decade. Only in the past year, because of the conciliation with China, has Taiwan's economy had more than double-digit growth. But still, it seems that politics is paralyzed by political disputes. So if you survey the public in Taiwan, you find that they trust no one, not their own party and leaders.
So Taiwan doesn't have a political stability model, or an economic growth model.
The original version of this article appeared here.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Reason
Is this lost in translation?
He comes across as completely ideological and wet behind the ears.
By what he is saying he only sees China model through rose tinted glasses
I’ve had experience dealing with local Chinese landlords and peasants and I can tell you for a FACT it aint all shiny and harmonious society… it’s dog eat dog
ozivan
@Reason. You asked : Is this lost in translation?
I think so. I can’t make anything intelligent out of it.
Oh Bligh Me !!
Leonard R.
This is excellent, very insightful analysis. It’s one of the best things I’ve read here about Chinese expectations.
@Pan Wei: “Among academics we have a term ‘moral economy.’ That’s the farmers’ economy. So, for example, a landlord might charge a farmer 50 percent of the harvest, but actually this landlord would take care of the tenants’ children’s medical affairs, he would waive the rent whenever there’s a natural disaster….A moral economy isn’t about how much you charge, more about whether you take care of my survival. And moral politics, that’s a word that maybe I invented. It’s not all about how much I lose or how much I gain, it’s more about whether I trust you.”
Paul
Are you kidding, Leonard? Cause I take something entirely different away from this interview…that Pan Wei has either been bought, or is entirely out of touch with average Chinese. Possibly both.
Leonard R.
Maybe I misread this, but I think he is talking about what Chinese expect from their landlords (ie the CCP).He’s not talking about what they actually have. Read that way, he can be seen to explain the reasons for wide-spread disaffection inside China. What they have is something very different from the moral economy the moral economy he describes.
Paul
Sure. I can agree with that interpretation. But the whole idea that China has such an “equal” society is just absurd if you’ve spent any amount of time here.
Rik
Let’s be honest, most of this is just cheap government propaganda. Let me just paraphrase what I took away from this:
(1) China took inspiration from the the Western concept of democracy, but Chinese democracy is a lot better, because democracy is all about having property and money.
(2) China is an egalitarian society and public officials are held accountable for what they do by the public.
(3) Taiwanese democracy does not work at all. The island is more corrupt than China and its economic situation is dire.
Frankly, none of these things is remotely true and one would expect more sophisticated view from someone who apparently is an academic, even if he is subject to censorship and state control.
John Chan
Leonard R’s first comment got it right about the article, then he wavered after being challenged by Paul. Reason, Paul and Rik are all suffered severe either Semmelweis Reflex syndrome or attention deficit disorder. None of them has any grasp what Pan Wei was saying.
Pan Wei explained the problems the Chinese government is facing, and how the Chinese people view their political system and the political system in Taiwan. Pan Wei said Chinese people do not mere happy with good laws and order, they demand high integrity from the officials too, that’s why Chinese people do not put high value on Taiwan’s political system, because the Taiwanese politicians do not have integrity, and they are not in the legislature to fight the welfare for the Taiwan people, the Taiwanese politicians are detached from the people.
Anti-China clique better read articles carefully before commenting, so their comments can be credible.
Leonard R.
I’ve read the article twice now. I have not wavered.
Professor Wei is writing about what Chinese people ‘expect’.
He is not claiming these expectations are being met.
It would be ridiculous for him to claim that China has a ‘moral economy’
like he describes. No country has a system like that. But citizens of
many countries expect it. Their expectations are never met.
John Chan
In order to distinguish China economy from US economy, Pan Wei said China economy is not dominated by the bankers, and China economy is expected to meet the needs of the people. On the contrary, the US economy is dominated by the bankers on the Wall St., and filling the pockets of the bankers on the Wall St. first is the US economy.
In that contrast, China economy is morally based, not financial egoism based like in the US. Therefore Pan Wei said Chinese economy is ‘moral economy’ in order to make a point, actual Chinese economy is just what economy should do in the ‘normal economy,’ improving wellbeing of ordinary citizen; only the American is blind in their specious ideology that they are fighting so hard to protect the crooks on the Wall St. who have destroy American way of life and the USA as well in order to line their pockets.
At least China has the right direction to aim; it is way better than the USA and its lackeys who are not only not correcting their problems, they are undermining China going in the right direction instead.
Leonard R, nobody has done it before is not an excuse not to try. Citing past failure as an excuse not to try again is a defeatist, and undermining others from attempting is an obstructionist. Anti-China clique seems showing all these symptoms.
Paul
We had no trouble “grasping” what this “academic” is saying. The whole “moral economy” expectation is just what I would expect. Chinese expect their leaders to be moral, while “foreigners” only care about the rule of law. A ridiculous idea. Look at American politics and you’ll see plenty of focus on morals. Both the rule of law AND morals are important.
Before you attack others’ reading comprehension because they express viewpoints different from your’s, perhaps you should consider your position a bit more.
While I disagree with the “moral economy” Pan Wei mentions, that is not what my first comment was about. It was about his propaganda-esque comments about China’s supposed “equal society”, Taiwan’s dysfunctional and corrupt government, and China’s “real democracy”.
Maybe you’ve read so much Peoples’ Daily that you can overlook these sorts of comments…but to me, and most “foreigners”, these sorts of outrageous comments destroy the author’s credibility.
Rik
Many thanks for pointing out two other typical statements that are often made in contexts like this, but were missing from Mr. Wei’s article:
(4) Outsiders can’t really understand China.
(5) People who dare to criticize China are part of an evil, immoral clique. The implication is often that such people are only making their stupid comments because they are corrupt and jealous of China’s success.
I also re-read the article, and I can’t say my point-of-view really changed. The only thing I could add is that some of what Mr. Wei says seems to be fairly incoherent.
As for your remarks on the corruption of the political system in Taiwan: It is true that corruption still is a problem in the Taiwanese political system. However, it is much (much, much) less of a problem than official and unofficial corruption in China. Unlike in China, corruption in Taiwan is unlikely to destabilize parts of the country, for instance.
Saying that Taiwanese politicians have no integrity seems more than a bit hypocritical to me, when only recently the media were full of accounts of Chinese top politicians being imprisoned and even executed because they embezzled massive amounts of money.
As for credibility, insulting people by saying they have mental deficiencies does not really make your claims any more trustworthy or convincing…
william Hawkins
This jokers head is so far up his behind that he thinks he can see the sunrise!
REAL democracy, freedom to express ourselves, emphasising the rule of law, moral economy…….. this Pan Wei is a wannabe comedian too?
Is there no end to this guys talents? WOW!
ozivan
Those who wants to read more and obtain better clarity on what Pan Wei is trying to expound should search for his speech made on October 11, 2007 in London under the subject : The Chinese Model Of Development.