The Orwellian Concept of ‘Democracy With Chinese Characteristics’

Tibetans monks hold placards during a protest rally in New Delhi on Jan. 31, 2013. The hacker attack on the Tibetan government in exile’s website was similar to ongoing attacks by communist China on other groups. Raveendran/AFP/Getty Images

Commentary

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) incessantly promotes “democracy with Chinese characteristics.” State-run Chinese media frequently parrot Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s diplomatic goals of “mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation.”

The mutual respect aspect means that other countries are encouraged to acknowledge and “respect” communist China’s governmental system as a democracy comparable to other democratic governments around the world. “Respect,” by communist definition, means not challenging the legitimacy of the regime’s political power under any circumstances.

Last month, Chinese state media Global Times trumpeted the celebration of “Serfs’ Emancipation Day” and other “democratic reforms” in Lhasa, Tibet’s capital.

What does the periodic celebration of democratic reforms in communist China actually mean?

Does “democracy with Chinese characteristics” even remotely compare to the democratic governments elsewhere in the world?

What does it mean to the people who must endure the oxymoron of “communist democratic reforms”?

Let us explore the issue.

Democracies and Republics

Most people worldwide intuitively understand the basic human rights manifested by democracy, which Merriam-Webster defines as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”

A direct democracy is a system of government in which the people vote directly on all policies. In contrast, Merriam-Webster defines an indirect democracy, or republic, as “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”

Wars have been fought throughout history to ensure that the “will of the people” is manifested in their government in variants of democracies and/or republics. “Self-determination” is a concept that has evolved as groups of people (frequently with a shared ethnic, religious, and racial background) develop degrees of national consciousness over time to choose and form their own governments through various means (democratic or otherwise).

Even communist regimes understand the propaganda power of the words “democracy” and “republic” as they name their various regimes, for example, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany), the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and, of course, the People’s Republic of China.

However, the civilized world has come to understand that communists define the words “democracy” and “republic” differently from their commonly understood traditional meanings. There is an enormous difference between the free democratic elections of Western countries and the closed processes in communist China.

The communists employ Marxist word salads such as “whole people’s democracy” and “democracy with Chinese characteristics” for the purpose of mass political indoctrination and agitation. The official names they give to their own regimes are themselves one small front in the endless psychological and political warfare they wage against the rest of the world.

‘Deliberative Democracy’

Communists prefer to call their regimes “republics” to limit political power to communist party members, as opposed to the general public, while conveying a false sense of legitimacy. This is the case with communist China, where approximately 98 million members of the CCP exercise sole political control over the government and society comprised of about 1.42 billion Chinese, per Worldometer.

Traditional democratic governments are founded on two main principles: individual autonomy and equality. Individual autonomy ensures the ability to live one’s life within the commonly agreed-upon rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary and changing laws implemented by transitional rulers (especially communists). Equality refers to the ability of all citizens to participate equally in the political decision-making processes within their society/country.

Western standards of democratic governments were compiled and documented by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2002 and include the following key principles: freedom of association, freedom of expression and opinion, political power exercised under the rule of law, free and fair elections, universal suffrage, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, government transparency and accountability, and free and independent media.

The CCP has implemented what it calls a “deliberative democracy,” which involves public outreach initiatives from officials and local governments to average Chinese citizens to solicit suggestions for improvements. The problem is that there is no formal mechanism for the complaints and recommendations of the average Chinese to actually influence CCP policies other than through goodwill gestures of communist bureaucrats. In short, the appearance of “deliberative democracy” belies the reality that the CCP maintains complete and arbitrary political control.

As a result, the CCP’s definition of “democracy with Chinese characteristics” guarantees none of the traditional standards and principles of democracies listed above. The CCP exercises total control over elections, tightly restricts political speech, ensures total compliance with CCP diktats through all levels of government, operates kangaroo courts, employs social controls to regulate the behavior of Chinese citizens, manages the “Great Firewall” to insulate Chinese citizens from the free exchange of ideas and information on the global internet, and tightly controls all political and cultural narratives through state-run media. The result is that Chinese democracy is a caricature of democratic norms in the civilized world.

Yet, Global Times would have us celebrate Serfs’ Emancipation Day in Tibet!

Concluding Thoughts

From the Global Times celebration of democratic reforms in Tibet comes this tripe: “The smiles adorning local residents’ faces not only attest to the region’s remarkable growth over the past 65 years but also underscore the region’s promising future.”

And this remarkable statement: “Xizang [Tibet] will continue to develop, contributing to China’s modernization, which would be the most potent rebuttal to the falsehoods propagated by certain overseas anti-China forces seeking to tarnish the region’s human rights record.”

Contrast that propaganda with this excerpt from Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2023 on China: “Authorities in Tibetan areas continue to enforce severe restrictions on freedoms of religion, expression, movement, and assembly.”

Furthermore, the CCP’s persecution of religion, including the intimidation of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhists (and as described here), continues unabated, as the report noted: “State control over religion has increased since 2016, when Xi called for ‘Sinicization’ of religions.”

This is what living under “democracy with Chinese characteristics” means to average Chinese citizens, especially minority groups: totalitarianism controls versus guaranteed universal freedoms. In short, the phrase is an Orwellian exemplar that depicts the dystopian reality of communist China.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.