Raphael
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2012
- Messages
- 3,287
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/855dc7b2-16aa-11e5-b07f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3fBKO0F00
China’s economic troubles and increasingly rigid ideological controls have led prominent China watchers to forecast the crack-up of its political system. I share the view that the Chinese Communist party may soon be extinct — but the extinction will be in name only.
In fact, the CCP is neither communist nor a party. Few Chinese believe it will abolish the market economy and lead the march to higher communism. It is “Leninist” in the sense that it is vertically organised and rules supreme over the state apparatus but it lacks other vital features, such as the idea that class conflict is the motor of history, a commitment to the idea of communism at home, and support for revolutionary overthrow of capitalist regimes abroad.
And the days of Leninist-style political mobilisation are long gone because the party must be sensitive to public opinion. The CCP can mobilise around causes such as its anti-corruption drive if there is already social demand; but no longer around hare-brained schemes such as the Great Leap Forward, which radically conflict with what people want and what most scholars see as sensible.
Nor is the CCP a political party. In the past three decades, it has (re-)established a meritocratic system similar to that of imperial China: government officials are selected using exams, then promoted based on performance on lower rungs. With 86m members, the CCP is a pluralistic organisation that co-opts leaders of different sectors of society, including keen capitalists, and it aims to represent the whole country.
It is puzzling that the CCP should cling to its name given widespread antipathy in China to communism. Even party members distrust Marxism, and most students dread their compulsory Marxism classes. The very idea of a party that represents part of the population also has negative overtones. Confucius criticised quarrelsome people who associate along party lines, and surveys in China show a preference for “guardianship discourse” with elites responsible for the good of the whole society.
So why does the CCP stick with the name? It makes sense to change it to something — say, the Chinese Meritocratic Union — that better corresponds with the reality of the organisation, as well as to what it aspires to be.
In informal political talk in Beijing, there is often agreement that the name should be changed. It is also recognised that it cannot be changed now because the organisation still draws on CCP history for its ideological legitimacy.
Yet the past 30 years have on balance been positive; and furthermore the CCP is increasingly looking to the long run of Chinese history for ideological legitimacy. The more it identifies with pre-revolutionary history, the more it can distance itself from the recent past.
Most important is to improve political meritocracy. The CCP does not need a unifying ideology, so long as people agree that the political system does a good job of selecting public officials with superior qualities. The pressing problem of corruption casts doubt on the question of virtue. So the anti-corruption campaign is essential to buttressing the legitimacy of the CCP, though we will not see results for a few years.
Another reason the name cannot be changed now owes more to Confucianism than to communism. Revolutionary heroes who fought to establish a great nation are still attached to the name. Filial piety is a core value in China, and dutiful sons and daughters should not upset the elderly — especially those who sacrificed for the country. Sometimes harmony matters more than truth.
In a couple of decades, however, the generation of revolutionary heroes will have sadly left this world. At that point, there will be less reason to stick to an obsolete name that needlessly casts the ruling organisation in a negative light.
So here is my prediction. In 2035, the CCP will still be in power but it will not be called the CCP.
China’s economic troubles and increasingly rigid ideological controls have led prominent China watchers to forecast the crack-up of its political system. I share the view that the Chinese Communist party may soon be extinct — but the extinction will be in name only.
In fact, the CCP is neither communist nor a party. Few Chinese believe it will abolish the market economy and lead the march to higher communism. It is “Leninist” in the sense that it is vertically organised and rules supreme over the state apparatus but it lacks other vital features, such as the idea that class conflict is the motor of history, a commitment to the idea of communism at home, and support for revolutionary overthrow of capitalist regimes abroad.
And the days of Leninist-style political mobilisation are long gone because the party must be sensitive to public opinion. The CCP can mobilise around causes such as its anti-corruption drive if there is already social demand; but no longer around hare-brained schemes such as the Great Leap Forward, which radically conflict with what people want and what most scholars see as sensible.
Nor is the CCP a political party. In the past three decades, it has (re-)established a meritocratic system similar to that of imperial China: government officials are selected using exams, then promoted based on performance on lower rungs. With 86m members, the CCP is a pluralistic organisation that co-opts leaders of different sectors of society, including keen capitalists, and it aims to represent the whole country.
It is puzzling that the CCP should cling to its name given widespread antipathy in China to communism. Even party members distrust Marxism, and most students dread their compulsory Marxism classes. The very idea of a party that represents part of the population also has negative overtones. Confucius criticised quarrelsome people who associate along party lines, and surveys in China show a preference for “guardianship discourse” with elites responsible for the good of the whole society.
So why does the CCP stick with the name? It makes sense to change it to something — say, the Chinese Meritocratic Union — that better corresponds with the reality of the organisation, as well as to what it aspires to be.
In informal political talk in Beijing, there is often agreement that the name should be changed. It is also recognised that it cannot be changed now because the organisation still draws on CCP history for its ideological legitimacy.
Yet the past 30 years have on balance been positive; and furthermore the CCP is increasingly looking to the long run of Chinese history for ideological legitimacy. The more it identifies with pre-revolutionary history, the more it can distance itself from the recent past.
Most important is to improve political meritocracy. The CCP does not need a unifying ideology, so long as people agree that the political system does a good job of selecting public officials with superior qualities. The pressing problem of corruption casts doubt on the question of virtue. So the anti-corruption campaign is essential to buttressing the legitimacy of the CCP, though we will not see results for a few years.
Another reason the name cannot be changed now owes more to Confucianism than to communism. Revolutionary heroes who fought to establish a great nation are still attached to the name. Filial piety is a core value in China, and dutiful sons and daughters should not upset the elderly — especially those who sacrificed for the country. Sometimes harmony matters more than truth.
In a couple of decades, however, the generation of revolutionary heroes will have sadly left this world. At that point, there will be less reason to stick to an obsolete name that needlessly casts the ruling organisation in a negative light.
So here is my prediction. In 2035, the CCP will still be in power but it will not be called the CCP.
