Evaluating the "Hybrid" Character of China's Communist Regime

Chair: V P Dutt
Discussants: Sreemati Chakravarti and Srikant Kondapalli

The presentation began on the assertive note that the Communist regime in China is now hybrid in nature. According to Dr. Panda, the current ongoing transformation in China is clearly visible. The paper begins with conceptual formulations of ‘Hybrid regime’, ‘democracy’ and ‘authoritarianism’ and then proposes a typology for the current Chinese communist regime and concludes with attempts to highlight the progressive trends in China’s state-society transformational politics. The paper attempts to analyse the nature of the present Chinese Communist regime and outlines the quantitative measurement of democratisation in China.

Conceptually categorizing various regimes, the paper utilises the regime typology presented by Larry Diamond which was published in ‘Journal of Democracy’ as a research paper titled as “Election without Democracy: Thinking about Hybrid Regimes” in 2002. While applying the Diamond’s regime categorisation to China, Dr. Panda has placed the Communist regime in China close to the ‘hybrid category of hegemonic electoral authoritarianism’ than placing it in the politically closed authoritarian regime category. He however pointed out that the concept of hybrid regime is not a new one and it got popularised gradually.

Changes in socio-political and legal conditions in China provide tangible evidence that the incumbent communist regime is no more authoritarian than it used to be earlier. It is a noticeable development in China that state-civil society relationship has been rationalised. Change has taken place because of reforms and electoral politics. 7, 30,000 villages elect their local leaders, though the nature of elections is semi-competitive. With increased trend of semi competitive elections since the 1980s, public participation level has been going upward. However beyond the village level, elections are not at all competitive.

Analysing the democratic reforms in China, Dr. Panda applied ‘Demand and Supply Model’ and noted that in a society where public demand for democratic reforms is low, the system of governance turns into an authoritarian one. He pointed out that though doubts prevail over China’s future path to democracy, the Communist Party’s urge to nurture the ‘sprouts of democracy’ indicates its future intention of more democratic reforms. The present Chinese Communist system is facing inherent contradictions. ‘Ideological-Institutional’ progress in China remains the deciding factor in the structure of one party democracy. However Dr. Panda pointed out that new ideas such as ‘people centered principle, (yi ren wei ben), human rights (renquan), private property (siyou caichan) and harmonious society (hexie shehui) etc. have emerged in political ideology of Chinese Communist regime, which indicates the ideological-institutional progress in China. He stated that democracy in China will be very much Chinese in nature.

Points raised during the discussions:

• It is true that during the 1960’s and 1970’s, American scholars viewed that economic liberalization leads to political liberalization then it leads to democracy. But this has not happened in many countries.
• Elections do take place in China but how fair it is, is the question. A research done by Sun Yat-sen University shows that people vote for only personal qualities of candidates.
• Election results in China are often pre-decided. With the elections taking place under the party’s guidance, it is questionable whether the Chinese Communist party accepts any challenge to its authority? What evidence do we have for increased accountability?
• Semi-competitive elections in China do not seem to be leading Chinese society towards democracy. Democratic parties in China exist only on paper.
• Though the public participation level in elections in China has gone up over the years but question is how much it is voluntary and how much mobilized.
• There are thousands of people in China who have been displaced and their lives have been severely affected because of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). There are no avenues for them to express themselves.
• The term ‘Democracy’ is not alien to China. Mao talked about ‘New Democracy’ and differentiated it from ‘Old Democracy’. He described the period of 1949-59 as the period of ‘New Democracy’.
• Civil society organizations such as NGO’s cannot question the Communist party. All these mass organizations are appended to Chinese Communist party.
• Civil Society organizations, with their activities, do the groundwork for shaping the future members of the Chinese Communist party. All the political returns from their actions are designed to help the communist party and not to promote democracy.
• For a successful democracy, besides multiparty democracy, it is also required to have freedom of press; independent judiciary; and freedom of dissent. These elements are still lacking.
• Chinese regime fears democratic reforms. Internet is state controlled in China.
• There is a need to study the discourse on democracy in China and how the Communist party is adjusting to the change in China.
• A comparison could have been apt on what distinguishes Chinese democracy from Mao’s ‘New Democracy’ and from ‘Hundred Flowers Movement’?
• Chinese politics is in transition. Economic reforms have taken place. Freedoms other than the political are being enjoyed by the people. Internet is booming in China.
• In fact sprouts of democracy came up in the form of sprouts of capitalism in the 1950s.
• There is a transition even in the discourse of Chinese political system. How would you allow market reforms with Communist party system? How do you continue the legitimacy of Communist party? These are widely debated questions.
• Social welfare measures are being withdrawn and pensions are being cut. These are negative declining trends of economic reforms.
• Focus on just one scholar, Larry Diamond to analyse the democratic reforms in China is not appropriate.
• The paper should have focused on Chinese society particularly its ethnic communities and their role in the democratization process.
• Apart from civil society organizations, this paper should have focused on independent media and pressure groups as well.
• Analysing democracy in terms of demand and supply is not adequate. Democracy is not a commodity. Democratic states do adopt coercive measures when their authority is challenged. Supply-demand model does explain this phenomenon.
• There should also be deliberations on role of local bodies in China as Panchayats in India.
• A democratic China may be more nationalistic than what it is today and this will lead to more friction with India.
• We have to look at where China might go. There is a need to explore a theoretical model to understand the future.
• There is a difference between formulation and reality. Reality could be very different. Even legislations and intents could be very different. Pronouncements can hide actual realities.
• Chinese regime has become flexible and open to debate and discussion. China will not adopt the same measures if another Tiananmen takes place.

Prepared by Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastav, Research Assistant at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.