Chinese democracy a blend of traditional wisdom, innovation

Published: October

By Wang Huiyao

The Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Feb 26, 2022. [Photo/IC]

The Athens Democracy Forum held early this month, featured a dialogue between Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, and me. Our discussion, titled the “Aristotle-Confucius Dialogue”, explored the similarities and differences between Eastern and Western philosophies. In today’s rapidly changing world, reflecting on the wisdom of ancient sages is not just an academic exercise but also an endeavor to find ways to address contemporary global challenges.

Confucius and Aristotle, despite being separated by cultures and thousands of kilometers, share remarkable similarities in their philosophical approaches. Both emphasize the importance of balance and moderation in social order, as evidenced by Confucius’s “Doctrine of the Mean” and Aristotle’s concept of the “Golden Mean”. These ancient thinkers advocated for the cultivation of virtues, and stressed the need for adaptable problem-solving in the face of changing circumstances.

However, their views diverge on political ethics: Confucius prioritizes “benevolence” and “ritual propriety”, grounding governance in moral virtue, while Aristotle emphasizes the rule of law to ensure societal justice. In today’s world, effective governance draws upon both these traditions, balancing virtue-based leadership with robust legal frameworks.

The intellectual legacy of these ancient philosophers continues to shape the political systems of modern nations, influencing governance, ethics and social structures. For instance, Confucius’s emphasis on harmony resonates in China’s projection of itself as a peaceful and cooperative major power, advocating for the resolution of international disputes through dialogue and negotiation.

Domestically, Confucian principles that regard the people as the foundation of a nation and set high moral standards for government officials have contributed to the development of China’s unique democratic framework, characterized by “whole-process people’s democracy” and consultative democracy.

Chinese-style democracy, evolving amid the influence of traditional values and modern trends, exhibits several distinctive features:

First, China can be described as a meritocratic democracy, emphasizing personal ability and virtue. This aligns with Confucian principles: “The officer, having discharged all his duties, should devote his leisure to learning; The student, having completed his learning, should apply himself to be an officer.”

This philosophy manifests in modern China’s educational and civil service systems. Every year, more than 13 million students participate in gaokao (college entrance examination), with about 12 million gaining admission to higher education institutions and entering the “elite system”. Concurrently, 2 to 3 million candidates compete in the civil service exam, though only about 10 percent clear it to work as civil servants for the central, provincial or municipal government.

This rigorous selection process creates a system of “voting by examination” for access to public service careers and higher education. Typically, Chinese officials begin their political careers in local governments, from townships to counties to municipalities to provinces and then advance to serve the central government through further performance exams and competitions.

This meritocratic selection and election approach contrasts with Western systems, where politicians often secure votes based on their oratorical skills and popularity. Many times they make false promises and under-deliver. In short, in other countries ministers and officials are not judged after, but before, performance.

Second, the widespread adoption of online platforms has given rise to a form of digital democratic check and balance in China, transforming how citizens oversee civil servants. Gone are the days when Chinese citizens had to physically visit government offices to voice their opinions or provide feedback on officials’ performance. Now, they can engage with their local government anytime and anywhere through hotlines and social media.

A prime example of this is the “12345 Mayor’s Hotline”, implemented in numerous cities, which directly channel citizens’ concerns to local administrative officials.

Furthermore, popular social media platforms such as Weibo and Douyin have become powerful tools for public supervision of officials. Citizens frequently use these platforms to report official misconduct, uploading text, images and videos as evidence. Such reports often draw significant public attention and support, frequently resulting in appropriate disciplinary actions against the erring officials.

While this form of oversight is not infallible, the proliferation of social media in the age of big data has greatly expanded its reach and effectiveness. This digital and technological approach to democracy with more than 1 billion smartphone users in China is steadily supplanting the traditional model that relied heavily on the oratorial skills and public gatherings in town squares and conventions.

Third, China’s engagement with the global society of democracies subjects it to international scrutiny, an integral aspect of its democratic evolution. In this context, the United States arguably functions as the primary opposition party, with the European Union playing a comparable role.

International media outlets and nongovernmental organizations further contribute to this oversight, offering specialized perspectives on China’s governance. A notable example of this dynamic is China’s response to international criticism of Beijing for air pollution. The US embassy’s installation of PM2.5 monitoring equipment to track air quality epitomized this external oversight.

While China initially resisted such foreign scrutiny, it ultimately served as a catalyst for significant environmental improvements. The dramatic improvement in Beijing’s air quality stands as a testament to the effectiveness of such global pressure. This case illustrates the broader principle that we now live in an era of mutual enhancement, where global interconnectedness drives positive changes across national boundaries.

China’s governance system, which its roots dating back to the traditional civil service exams, has developed distinct characteristics that combine elements of meritocracy, digital engagement and international accountability to deliver positive results. This approach, shaped by China’s specific historical and cultural context, aims to enhance the decision-making process and increase citizens’ participation across various sectors of society.

As China navigates its path in the international community, its governance model faces both opportunities and challenges. The ongoing evolution of this system, blending aspects of traditional wisdom with advanced technology, presents a unique case of how countries can find different ways to approach governance in the 21st century.

The author is founder of Center for China and Globalization.

China Daily.