Summary: China adhered strongly to Communism both economically and politically. They have relinquished the economic portion, now very much a free-market system, which is the real reason for their growth (not leadership), but their govt. does not want to relinquish the political component.
However, as time has clearly told, the future will cause democracy to eventually take hold in China because it espouses the human as the greatest piece of society.
While this is an article about trust in Chinese govt, its really a larger piece about the future of China.
Economic
1. Growth is Due to Imitating the West’s Free-Market Model, not Because of Government Leadership, and this Also Creates more Trust in Govt.
It’s mainly about generating money, or more specifically getting out of poverty. As Eric X. Li peaks in his talk, “A tale of two political systems” he alludes to, yet ignores the effect of, an incredibly important fact. The real answer is much larger and clearer than is stated by many.
Since the Chinese adapted Western economic models, they have become rich, relative to their former situation, which was essentially poverty, also at a much faster rate, while in the West, we are at the peak of relative growth (economically mature), and probably on a stagnant or downward direction in many countries, at least for the time being. This faster rate of economic growth is due to having exited the repressive Communist economic model, so China should catch up fairly quickly
“In just 30 years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy. Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty. Eighty percent of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China. In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting. See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps. Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point….So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds. Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day. Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history. Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening. So I went and did the only thing I could. I studied it. Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections. Three assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time. Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.
But remember, this wealth is due to what? How does he assume it just the result of good governance? Instead, economic freedom, a model of the western, an individualist ideal. Yes, it is possible that economic freedom and authoritarian rule (political captivity / non-freedom) can coexist. Let people make money, and we will guide them on the rest. China may be evidence of such. But if economic freedom created so much wealth, what does political freedom give the population? Well, its not wealth.
So I am saying economic freedom, a Western ideal, has made them rich. Likewise, as they growth in wealth, they are more likely to correlate that upward movement with their govt’s doing. So yes, China made individuals free to profit, and so I guess that is true, but how much of their wealth is because the govt. directs their people what to do.
I believe that the world’s true feelings (and behaviors) are actually guided heavily, or even primarily by economics and their momentum. This thesis deserves a book. If you wonder why the world is falling apart in the West, it is because the economic momentum here is stalling, but blame is always difficult to place accurately.
So why do the Chinese trust their govt so much more than the rest of the world?
Let’s look at problems here for a minute. Remember that trust in all institutions in America has been declining for decades (news, govt, religion, media, etc…), so the lack of trust in govt in the West is not some unusual exception. Nobody trusts anything, so is that really due to democracy as some pro-Chinese authors suggest? In fact, this decay in govt/ confidence is happening globally for the most part (again, China excluded).
2. Effects of Economic Growth and Possible Future Slowdown
So if China ever fails economically, which it may do due to current debt overspending, population growth stagnation (expected around 2030), the eventual rise to the middle class which will no longer make them competitive in manufacturing and therefore major exporter (by 2030 according to Alan Greenspan) then sentiment may very well make a 180. But either way, the West is simply further down the economic path than China, at a point of diminishing returns (e.g. most Chinese citizens were on food stamps 30 years ago–when was the USA in such a long term state?) and slow growth, but China will also reach this at some point.
Their GDP per capita is are around $9000/capita now, compared to our $60,000 now, which is 6 times less than ours, but also significantly higher than they were a couple decades ago, and so they are catching up quickly. Of course, these relative numbers do not tell the whole picture). Previously China was an economically repressed (artificially held back by Communism) country with a desire to move out of poverty. They are now in a golden era. We on the other hand are, on average, rich beyond belief.
This acceleration of Chinese growth becomes even more possible in a globalized world. Proponents of the current single-party Chinese governing system repeatedly point out their success was right in line with economic policy changes (capitalism), so I wonder why they try to claim their single-party system was even related to their success at all. If you changed it back to Communist era economics, then China would look the same as it did in the Communist era–dirt poor. They are rich because of Western ideals that staunchly opposed communism (economic, but not political).
If free-market economics, an essential behavior tied to free/democratic societies (basically let the people govern themselves and their businesses) were not important, then why did they switch to free market economics after failing so long with Communism?
Quoting one Chinese citizen on Quora:
Well I doubt even the government official fully trust their own political system. Chinese never evaluate their government based on how much they trust them. Rather they evaluate the government competency on whether it provides job, health, social/welfare, supply of affordable food, and whether they can safely save and invest their money in something.
3. Trust in Govt. is Easy When You are the Country Moving Fastest out of Poverty
And because China is the the relative early phases of economic growth, relative, or hockey stick growth is easy, and therefore that speed upwards makes it easy for their citizens to be optimistic, especially when it means moving out of poverty in large numbers.
Consider they are still a manufacturing country where people make 2 dollars an hour (“Starting from July 1, China’s capital city Beijing will increase the minimum wage per month to 2,200 yuan ($ 322.38″ – China Daily”). This sounds like the USA around 1970. The rest of us “advanced” Western nations graduated farming, manufacturing, and labor jobs etc… a long time ago. Making another dollar is not so useful or interesting, and job growth may be stagnant.
Job prospects of our future are dim as advanced technology starts to replace jobs faster than people can, or want to, retrain for new jobs. Our distrust of govt. is largely a distrust of the future and each other. We are experiencing a cultural breakdown of some sort.
Considering the long view of national growth and decay, China is much early in the growth cycle, while we are rapidly aging, rejecting such values (again, largely because of excess wealth). Values of hierarchy, paternalism, and group-orientation are dying in the West, while still strong in China*, This likely adds somewhat to the trust in govt as well, even if the govt acts like a dictatorship.
Political
- Does the Chinese political system work?
- Is it better, or more efficient than a democracy?
- is trusting citizens with politics like they do with economics reliable?
- Even if autocracies are more productive, does that mean they are right or good?
1. Comparing Autocracy (no freedom) with Democracy
The one-party, political “meritocracy” based system is working for now, and maybe Beijing actually cares what their citizens think. In fact, a single-party system can be super efficient and desirable IF the leaders are moral people, as occurs in a few organizations (e.g. some churches) today, but always expecting a good leader is impossible to ensure. Therefore the risk exists where bad leaders maintain their position in office indefinitely, as commonly seen throughout history, old and recent. Ousting such a leader other than via citizen uprising is often the only solution. I think this is one of the major unspoken risks of a political system where people cannot vote. A second risk is the nature of Communist systems are such that citizens have no recourse to bad laws / real individual rights. More to come on this topic later.
This is not to say such risk does not exist in democracies. Even Germany was a democracy which Hitler replaced with a dictatorship rule via legal means under the excuse of an “emergency” situation, and at that point he was unstoppable by the population other than by sheer force, which no one did, but at that point, it was no longer a democracy.
I dont know if anyone ever said that democracies were safer than authoritarian regimes, but authoritarian regimes definitely have a lot more historical baggage. Read the “Origins of Totalitarianism” if you want some education on that topic.
Two-party systems are inherently dangerous as well. John Adams said:
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
China thinks democracies are foolish because leaders voted by citizens is dangerous. Would you rather have a Hollywood actor that runs the country (Reagan), or someone that has worked their way up the system because they had actual experience leading millions of people?
Remember that the founding fathers held to the idea that the general public could be fickle and make unwise decisions, which explains why they thought the electoral system had value, and aristocracy’s were useful. Similarly, only responsible people, as evidenced mainly by their economic productivity (e.g. land owners) should be able to vote, and therefore make decisions, so that their rights would not be overrun by the rights of the lazy/indolent. Over time, these voting rights were expanded to women, slaves, blacks, etc…
So if a president in our future wants only semi-wealthy, job-holding, and home-owning people, to vote then maybe that is not a bad idea after all, IF economic growth and stability is a top priority.
Now we are arriving at a point where some running for office want to include prisoners and children–people who have no measurable input on society. How could that go wrong? While we do value their votes, should we value them equally? Perhaps we could let anyone capable of using a mobile phone to vote, and babies would get 1/5th of a vote.
Now that I have discussed the risks of democracy, let’s return to Communism, because the reality is, it is an autocratic, and likely to induce a tyrannical state. More on tyranny in the conclusion.
3. In Autocracy (Communist China) the Govt Trust Data is Unreliable Due to Propaganda and Censorship.
Even if the economy were to slow, there are a few other factors that can keep the govt. image up. The main idea is this:
Chinese govt controls the media, therefore it controls how people think as it defines its own image and represses honesty, and few people can argue against that. Here is a study that cites several others as well:
“China is an authoritarian country. The relatively high political trust in the national government expressed by Chinese citizens could reflect political control insofar as people in China fear the national government. “
“The Chinese censorship effort, aimed at maintaining the stability of the national authoritarian state, is by far the world’s most extensive (King et al., 2013). “
It goes on to discuss how China’s trust in the govt is an anomaly in Asian countries, has higher central trust than local due to govt allowing/promoting criticism of local govt to boost their own image, and other things. If it is so unusual, that begs the question of why.
China can fool its own people on censorship, a closed society, but not the rest of the world which is why it would fail to be an acceptable global leader.
I do believe you can create a well behaved and artificially happy society through a closed society: force, intimidation, repression, etc… but it is still not the best way according to most.
An unhappy society can exist through democracies as well, esp if their populations become heavily heterogeneous, divided in values and goals, and without vision, have become enormously rich or poor. You know, America and Europe.
4. The Real Problem with Authoritarian Systems: They Violate the Human Spirit, Free Thought & the Freedom of Belief
This is the most important reason why their political system is an incomplete model. Not because it’s about money, but humanity.
In such ideologically controlled states, free thought, worship of God, and other individual/communal practices are often an enemy to the state and crush the individual human spirit. As an example of a not so uncommon occurrence, The Guardian reports:
“In China, they’re closing churches, jailing pastors – and even rewriting scripture
Early Rain is the latest victim of what Chinese Christians and rights activists say is the worst crackdown on religion since the country’s Cultural Revolution, when Mao Zedong’s government vowed to eradicate religion.
Researchers say the current drive, fuelled by government unease over the growing number of Christians and their potential links to the west, is aimed not so much at destroying Christianity but bringing it to heel.
“The government has orchestrated a campaign to ‘sinicise’ Christianity, to turn Christianity into a fully domesticated religion that would do the bidding of the party,” said Lian Xi, a professor at Duke University in North Carolina, who focuses on Christianity in modern China.
Over the past year, local governments have shut hundreds of unofficial congregations or “house churches” that operate outside the government-approved church network, including Early Rain. A statement signed by 500 house church leaders in November says authorities have removed crosses from buildings, forced churches to hang the Chinese flag and sing patriotic songs, and barred minors from attending.
Churchgoers say the situation will get worse as the campaign reaches more of the country. Another church in Chengdu was placed under investigation last week. Less than a week after the mass arrest of Early Rain members, police raided a children’s Sunday school at a church in Guangzhou. Officials have also banned the 1,500-member Zion church in Beijing after its pastor refused to install CCTV.
In November the Guangzhou Bible Reformed Church was shut for the second time in three months. “The Chinese Communist party (CCP) wants to be the God of China and the Chinese people. But according to the Bible only God is God. The government is scared of the churches,” said Huang Xiaoning, the church’s pastor.
Local governments have also shut the state-approved “sanzi” churches. Sunday schools and youth ministries have been banned. One of the first signs of a crackdown was when authorities forcibly removed more than 1,000 crosses from sanzi churches in Zhejiang province between 2014 and 2016.
The goal of the crackdown is not to eradicate religions,” said Ying Fuk Tsang, director of the Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “President Xi Jinping is trying to establish a new order on religion, suppressing its blistering development. [The government] aims to regulate the ‘religious market’ as a whole.”
In other words, non-violent Christianity is a threat to the current political system, then that is pretty sad, but a common view by authoritarian leadership. Reminds me of how the authoritarian Catholic church was in stark contrast to, and resulting found of, largely Protestant America, where people and ideas were free.
“They have come to see the political potential of Christianity as a force for change,” said Lian. “What really makes the government nervous is Christianity’s claim to universal rights and values.”
I mean , you cant even buy a bible online anymore. We are not talking about govt-rebellion type material here. There real risk is individuality, and the soul of man.
“In this war, in Xinjiang, in Shanghai, in Beijing, in Chengdu, the rulers have chosen an enemy that can never be imprisoned – the soul of man. Therefore they are doomed to lose this war.”
In fact, other sources predict that China will become have more Christian’s than the US is 10 years.
“By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon,” said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.
And it is not just Christianity. For example, many reports of careful monitoring, regulation, massive propaganda against, and reported large scale organ harvesting of the Falun Gong religion has been reported by credible news sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=religions+in+china+body+organs. Wikipedia has a decent (although never authoritative) overview of these topics.
But more importantly, if we had a system of govt where anyone could earn their way to the top like China, but no one was allowed to say ill of it, not attempt to change it from the bottom up, people were not free to worship whatever they wanted (e.g. 1st Amendment) would you approve? Personally, I am not a fan of the iron fist, individual-reducing, societal-machine approach, even if it is more successful financially, because unlike most people, even though useful to some degree, I do not think everything should revolve around money.
Samual Adam’s may have said it best with:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
I do not know if someone said this already but I would much rather live in a world of freedom and risk than tyranny and safety/success.
The Future of China and the USA
Summary: China is becoming more democratic and religious, while the USA is moving in the opposite direction.
1. The decay of democracy and meaning in the West
Chinese govt risk will be different than the risk that is growing in the West. Theirs may be more of a early stage growth, while ours is more of a late stage decay. I often say we are past our peak in America, although this may be temporary.
But with upward democracy and religious pressure growing in China, and downward pressure in the West, I think that most political systems are at risk today and about to go through a bottleneck in two of the largest countries.
If the rise of Christianity and personal/economic/political freedom seem to usually go hand in hand, as seen in many developing countries today, then with Christianity on the decline in America, what would you guess then about views on democracy if Christianity is decreasing? And sure enough, the World Values Survey confirms this hypothesis…
2. The growing risk of tyranny in China and the West
Sure, autocracies may come in the form of tyrannical-Communism, but they may also explode in tyrannical-Fascism (e.g. Nazi’s), although Communist values are far more mainstream here today.
In fact, if you want to see:
- what China really thinks about the West’s ideals
- China’s attempts to stop the West’s increasing influence
- how public information, via journalism, is destructive
- how human rights and freedom sounds like a bad idea to them
you can read what they said here: https://archive.is/vjiOq
Remember that I am not being selective here in only describing the USA because much of the world is going through the same issue of decreasing trust in govt, but it is pretty much limited to the rich, Western, increasingly rich/mature, pessimistic, religion-rejecting societies (elements which seem to go hand-in-hand).
This is probably not just limited to attitudes because even George Soros, someone who lived through both Nazi and Communist totalitarianism believes that it may revive both in the West and in China. While I disagree with some of his ideas about how to solve problems, I may agree partly in his description of current trends. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/30-years-after-the-fall-of-the-berlin-wall-totalitarians-are-ascendent-from-beijing-to-washington-2019-11-08
“For example, Chinese President Xi Jinping has embarked on creating a so-called social credit system. If he succeeded in completing it, the state would gain total control over its citizens.
Disturbingly, the Chinese public finds the social credit system attractive, because it provides them with services they previously lacked, promises to persecute criminals, and offers citizens a guide on how to stay out of trouble. Even more disturbingly, China could sell the social credit system worldwide to would-be dictators, who would then become politically dependent on China.”
3. If China is moving towards tyranny, then why do their citizens love them so much?
So if China is nearing a totalitarian state, and yet its citizens love their govt, then what does that say? that they have forgotten the past? that economic benefits outweigh all other perceived risks? that maybe surveys do not express their honest feelings? Clearly the suspicion against govt in the US is as high as ever, but not because of its democractic system, but rather because of the fear of totalitarian nature (mainly by the right side of the spectrum).
So the looming threat of tyranny in the West and the East creates yet another possible disruptor with unpredictable outcomes.
On a positive note, America has deep roots. The grass may be dying on top, but with a littler fertilizer and water, we might be surprised, because if there is one thing American’s despise the most, it is tyranny. Maybe this is the main reason why trust in American govt is declining.
Conclusion
The reasons and underlying causes of positive Chinese govt sentiment is complex, but probably driven mostly by fast economic growth, due to capitalism, from a previously severe state. Follow that with govt control of speech/thought.freedom, and the real results may be difficult to see both by their citizens as well as our surveys.
I theorize that within the next few decades, the citizens of China will rebel against Communism, esp. if Christianity increases there (very likely due to its values and fit for China), as well as its society becoming more bottom-up than top-down, again, in opposition to the current structure. Hong Kong may be the fracture that leaks democracy into mainland China.
To provide further evidence for this claim of “Western creep,” it is apparent that it started over 100 years ago. In the 17th century, China worked hard to reject growing Western influence, as numerous countries led imperialist claims on Chiense territory. However, the failed Boxer Rebellion–an anti-imperialist, anti-foreign, and anti-Christian uprising–allowed for Dr. Sun Yat-Sen (1866–1925) to form a republic, installing the Three Principles ( http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39356/39356-pdf.pdf ), which he stated were based on American values:
- nationalism (minzu, 民族)
- democracy (minquan, 民權)
- welfare (minsheng, 民生) or livlihood, or Western industrial/agricultural approaches
Rejecting Western models demonstrated that older styles of politics, military, and economics would not allow the Chinese to keep up with Western nations that wanted to take advantage of the weaker Chinese.
Having a bottom-up, but top-down trusted hierarchy, in which order is maintained, is really the main goal of governance, and both the East and the West are failing one of these points. Bottom-up, people controlled govts are very much in line with free-thinking societies, but this does not mean free-thinking (liberal) societies are less likely to collapse as that largely depends on the morals/values/behaviors of its inhabitants.
So while the economic system is growing, and the political consensus appears more united, the lack of a long term picture makes the results inconclusive.
China’s trust may continue despite their tyrannical govt, but there may be some seismic shifts in the near future, especially if Christianity, seen as subversive, accelerates. Likewise, Christianity in America, although on a downward trend, is seen as threatening to science and society by many in power.
The West has very few positive long term factors going for it at this time, due to technological overgrowth, political/economic maturity, advanced wealth, and its decaying and fractured value system, so its trust likely to continue to trend downward, barring some major turnaround event.
E.g. I have predicted several times that we will probably enter a major war or something comparable as the system continues to breakdown, and its outcome can go various directions (positive or negative), including the risk of the USA turning to Communist or Fascist systems. In fact, I think that a large part of Chinese citizens want to have our political system (more freedom) while many of our youth want their system (less freedom), indicating a world of ambiguity.
If Chinese citizens trust in their own govt is largely influenced by their (delayed) economic, growth, then what might one presume about the decline in trust among Western nations? Perhaps the inverse should be assumed.
Social Psychology Evidence Supports this Theory
A week after I published this, I randomly came across Kurt Lewin, a father of social psychology, survivor of the Holocaust.
“He ran an experiment where two classes were set up for children to do crafts. One with an aloof, autocratic leader who barked instructions, and one with a teacher who allowed them to make decisions collectively and gave friendly encouragement.
In some aspects, the autocratic groups were more productive. But Lewin also claimed that the kids in the democratic group were less aggressive, more cooperative and more fulfilled.” Obviously, like parents who boss around their kids to work hard are more productive, but the kids are rarely happy about it.
So, yes, the Chinese may be more productive, but if people feel unfulfilled long enough, rebellion may ensue.
Likewise, if the USA and other Western nations continue to look to China as a model of productivity and successful organization due to carefully orchestrated top-down governance, then there is a risk we will also adopt the authoritarian model here–safety over freedom.
————————————-
More quotes from the study
However, compared with traditional media, the sheer number of users and ease of content pro-duction has meant that the internet has proven far more difficult to control (Tang and Huhe, 2014). Due to such difficulty the state government adopts a strategic censorship policy, only banning online discussions that might lead to social unrest (Lorentzen, 2014). As King et al. (2013: 326) point out, ‘negative and even vitriolic criticism of the state, political elites’’, and policies is largely allowed on the internet, so long as web users do not fuel collective activities (see also Tang and Huhe, 2014). Moreover, Chinese web users often interpret sanctioned news in ways that often run counter to state intentions (King et al., 2013). For example, state media often characterize corrup-tion as local, isolated and the result of weak oversight and self-discipline. However, internet
Page 6
6 International Political Science Review dissenters writing about this same issue attribute it to an unchecked authoritarian political system (King et al., 2013). Therefore, we expect that subjects who are more exposed to the internet and its greater preponderance of alternative framings of political issues will show little preference for either national or local level government.
———————-
* “Drawing on the cultural theory of trust many argue that political trust in China reflects traditional Chinese values with its emphasis on hierarchy, group-orientation, and paternalism “