What China Thinks

Recently, I had been reading a book called What China Thinks, by Mark Leonard, who traveled around China for a few years talking to Chinese intellectuals and is now the director of European Council on Foreign Relations, a pan-European think-tank. As Leonard mentions in the introduction, while China's significance has increased on the global stage, we tend to focus mostly on its explosive economic growth, and little on the ideas and philosophies of mainland intellectuals. Names of intellectuals like Wang Hui, Zhang Weiying, Yan Xuetong, and Cui Zhiyuan are virtually unknown in the West. Leonard argues that this ignorance to the current developing trends in Chinese thought are costly and causes misunderstandings in East-West international relations.

I found the book to be quite thought-provoking. Some notes:

1) One of the reasons for China's dramatic economic growth has been its ability to successfully transition from its planned economy to a market economy, via the "dual-track" methodology. Leonard mentions in the book one of the intellectual likes to explain via the following story:

In one particular village, the elders tell all the villagers that zebras are evil and horses are good, hardworking animals. However, over time, it was discovered that zebras really are more efficient than horses. Having imprinted the fact that zebras are evil in the minds of the villagers, the elders decided that instead of suddenly proclaiming the benefits of zebras, they would secretly paint some of the horses with black stripes. When the villagers discovered these black-striped horses and mistakened them for zebras, the elders would reassure them they were not evil zebras, but are horses, just painted with black stripes. Pretty soon, the villagers would get used to seeing black-striped horses in the village, and soon later it was not too difficult to mix in actual zebras with the black-striped horses. In time, the more efficient zebras would replace all the black-striped horses without much fuss.

Similarly, China has steathily, incrementally moved from its communist, command economy with fixed prices to one where the market determines the price. The Communist Party still exists and retains its ideology, but in practice China has become more and more capitalistic. This contrasts with the Soviet Union when they pursued "shock therapy" reform policies, with spectacular failure. The lesson learned is that economic reform should come before political reform, and economic reform should be done incrementally rather than all at once. This contrasts with the ways of the West, where political reform often is sought first, and wholesale changes to the economy are done in batch.

To me, this seems to make a great deal of sense - after all, as consultants, when we try to implement something new in our client engagements, often times we set up a pilot program first to have an opportunity to make minor tweaks before rolling it out everywhere. You usually don't go from concept to practice in one breath whether you are rolling out a new campaign, writing new software, or engineering new projects; it seems to me rather irresponsible and unscientific for political leaders to do so with regards to political and economic reform.


2) One of the questions the book raises is whether the democracy is really the one and only path for a modern government to take, and it speculates on the possibility that China may find an viable and sustainable alternative to Western liberal democracies. As one Chinese intellectual argues, the most pressing issue for citizens is not who should run the government, but how the government is run. In the West, how the leaders of government are chosen give them their legitimacy, but most times it seems the constituents are less than satisfied with the decisions of the politicians they they elect to office. The argument goes further and contends that political decisions should flow from pragmatic, scientific evaluation of social problems rather than higher- level ideologies and principles. In essence, picking the leaders of a government should be more like the hiring process a board of directors goes through, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of candidates for executive positions. Competency is more important than ideology.

In fact, another Chinese intellectual argues that Western developed nations are prosperous and stable not because of Democracy, but because of Rule of Law, and constantly chides Westerners for misunderstanding their own political systems. In fact, he argues that Democracy and Rule of Law are in constant conflict with each other. Democracy gives power to the people, but Rule of Law puts limits on that power. Democracy makes laws, while the Rule of Law is about enforcing them. Democracy involves electing officials like congressmen, legislators, presidents, governors, and mayors, while Rule of Law involves appointing officials such as civil servants, judges, and auditors. Democracy is draws its legitimacy from popular appeal, where as Rule of Law derives it from entrance exams and performance reviews. It is, in fact, competency and meritocracy that keeps a government going, not populism and majority rule. In essence, the key ingredient in a successful government may not involve Democracy at all.

In these past few decades, the Chinese government has, objectively speaking, done a very admirable job in running the country, despite not using a democratic system and offering freedoms similar to those found in Western countries. It is in some sense, more like a benevolent dictatorship than anything else. And it needs to continue to do so, in order to maintain its grip on the country. This begs the question, is it perhaps better if a government's legitimacy comes not from how it is put into office, but from how good of a job it does while it is in office? Is the best government a government that fears for itself, fears for its existence if it does not serve the interest of its people? If a convict escapes, and hides amongst the populace by pretending to be "good" and must do so for the rest of his existence to prevent capture, then is he not as decent as his neighbor, even if he is "evil" at heart? And in traditional Chinese political thought, as long as a government has the "Mandate of Heaven" and serves the interests of its people, isn't it legitimate, regardless of who it is? Perhaps there is some form of meritocratic government that must be better than democracy. After all, we know in democracy that the masses are not always right, that special interests tend to wield disproportionate powers, and campaigns are turning more and more into a scientific process on how some member of the political elite behave to best pander to various demographics. There ought to be a better way.

In the US, we seemed to be sometimes brainwashed to believe in democracy, without giving it enough critical thought. It's not to say schools are to blame - every country inherently imparts some of its national ideologies and philosophies into the classroom. However, I look back on the campaign speeches given in the US, and more and more, this idea of democracy seems to be a rallying point to build consensus across all sorts of peoples, a way to induce American nationalism. America is proclaimed to be "great" because of Democracy; it is the "reason" why we were attacked during 9/11. Undemocratic nations are inherently "evil" and we must crusade onwards until they see the light. And so while I am not advocating for a change to any sort of non-democratic government, I think, especially in this critical juncture in history, it is important for Americans to critically reexamine the ideas for what constitutes a "good" government.

Denouncing China

While the Chinese government is far from perfect, and has many areas of improvement, Western media bias against China seems to be way overboard.

For example, a story on the hardships endured by the Opening Ceremony performers:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/news/story?id=3543618

One comment reads, "...Of course you can accomplish more with slaves than free people, but what's the point? It's the same insane justification that people who run sweatshops use. Why worry about human rights when you can ship more units at a lower price, right?"

Note the last paragraph: "All the tears, the sweat, and sometimes even blood that we shed, I now think it was quite worth it," said Ren Yang, 17, also of the Tagou school. "When we performed that night, all that I could feel in my heart was joy. Pure joy."

Anther comment reads, "...I am an volunteer in Beijing, and am a normal Chinese. This days, I and other volunteers work ed very hard in the Olympics village. Sometimes, we did not have time to eat also. But we were so happy to do this, for the people around the world coming my hometown. When I read the article, I feel so sad. I think the writer did not admire our hard work. I think the performers just like me, they do that becasue they are pursuing happiness. By the way, we can quit the job as we like if we can not endure the so called bad condition."

It seems to me that those who endured the hardships did so on a voluntary basis. If this was an article about the hardships endured by Olympic athletes, then they would be praised - no one would criticize the IOC for setting up competitions that would increase the likelihood of injury and hardship.

An editorial on the Olympics:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=3551321

The unfortunate tone of sarcasm seems to run throughout the article:

"Re-education through labor" means, I suppose, that they were performers in the Closing Ceremony.

Not to say that what China did with regards to the protest zones was correct, but the reference to the Opening/Closing Ceremony performers was out of line.

In China... You also have a country where many people still use squat toilets.

And what's wrong with squat toilets? There are actually many advantages over Western toilets, including the fact it lends itself to a more natural position, and is also easiser to clean. I might not mind owning a squat toilet instead of a Western toilet, as one is not inherently superior to the other.

China spent the last 8 years preparing for a spectacular event, putting it's best foot forward. The Olympics were a well-organized and well run event, and China should be applauded for it. It has tried to make itself more open to the world, and while by Western standards it has fallen short, it has come a long way already. Further criticism is not constructive and is a vicious distortion of what China has accomplished thus far.