Western democracy and the Chinese model have one thing in common: both are flawed

Hong Kong’s protest movement is only the latest battleground where the contest of ideologies is being played out
Supporters on either side should not only recognise the strengths of their opponents’ system, but also admit the weaknesses of their own

Yuan Jiang

Published: 12:00pm, 9 Dec 2019

Why you can trust SCMP

The Hong Kong protests have lasted for six months now. There are various ways to interpret the protests, depending on one’s position. Some scholars argue that this is an ideological battle between democracy and authoritarianism, while others believe that, owing to the distinct identity of Hongkongers, the protests have evolved into a call for separatism and a pushback on Beijing’s grandest task: unification of China.

While there is something to be said for both views, it seems a more profound narrative has emerged from overseas confrontations between mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students.

In such showdowns, mainland Chinese usually characterise Hongkongers as poor losers and hooligans, emphasising the mainland’s economic success and social stability. Meanwhile, Hongkongers contend that mainland Chinese have been totally brainwashed with communist propaganda, and stress the importance of Western-style freedom and democracy.

Beneath the sound and fury, there lies the most important contest of the century: the Chinese model vs Western democracy. What is the Chinese model? Economists such as Branko Milanovic have identified this model as “political capitalism”, where the government, not civil society, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about the economy and society.

Then there is liberal capitalism, which is exemplified by contemporary American capitalism. As historian Nils Gilman has explained, this model’s “primary selling points are respect for the rule of law, political pluralism, cultural tolerance, and the concept of fair play – which together add up to the promise that everyone should have an equal chance at success, based on their God-given talent and hard work”.

Arguably, the legitimacy of political capitalism derives from its success. This result-driven concept has delivered strong returns, bringing wealth and social stability to citizens, as the Chinese government has declared – and as political scientist Eric X. Li has argued in a TED talk .

Mainland Chinese who oppose Hong Kong’s protests aren’t brainwashed

As explained by scholar Zhang Weiwei, China is the “the world’s longest continuous civilisation”. As China has traditionally been ruled by a unified ruling entity, the current system is a continuation of this history. In contrast, the legitimacy of American capitalism derives from universal suffrage, a process-driven concept whereby citizens also have freedom of speech, freedom of information and so on.

It is no wonder that mainland and Hong Kong students have trouble understanding each other. Their views have been shaped by different systems, on different sides of the ideology barrier.

If either of the models was perfect, the debate in Hong Kong would be moot. Contemporary American capitalism, which is so eagerly exported to the rest of the world and marketed as such as an advanced system, would seem to have quite as many flaws as strengths.

Internationally, the terrifying consequences of exporting democracy to the Middle East have cast strong doubts on the universality of the model itself. Domestically, the American model has clearly failed its own people. After the devastating financial crisis in 2008, many Wall Street bankers got off scot-free – poster boys for the lack of necessary regulation in the American model.

Why Beijing has a perennial problem with foreigners – and Hong Kong

Furthermore, growing inequality and weak upward mobility have rendered the concept of fair play a farce, and led to the rise of populism not only in the United States but also in Eastern Europe; it has led to the Brexit fiasco in Britain and exacerbated regional uncertainty.

Of course, the weaknesses of the American model do not mean the Chinese model is stronger. It is a fact that in the Chinese model, more attention has been paid to the material living standards of ordinary people, resulting in the low level of human rights that is being condemned day and night by the Western media as a horror of an evil system.

This begs the question: what is the strength of the Chinese model, which has achieved economic development and is widely supported by mainland students overseas? There is a consensus, reached by experts on China such as Kevin Rudd and Eric X. Li, that China’s adaptability and flexibility are key.

For instance, if the American authorities were to propose building a single road, the same road would have been built in China in a fraction of the time. The Americans may argue that they have to consider every aspect of everyone’s interests, whereas the Chinese may assert that speed is their priority.

From this perspective, it is hard to conclude that mainland Chinese students have been brainwashed. The truth might be that they care about different aspects of the same situation

From this perspective, it is hard to conclude that mainland Chinese students have been brainwashed. The truth might be that they care about different aspects of the same situation.

For now, it is impossible to give a clear and definite answer of what will happen in Hong Kong. History is constantly evolving beyond what mankind can predict. Back in 1989, political scientist Francis Fukuyama declared “the end of history”: the Western model looked set to dominate the world, with the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union.

Currently, if we have one certainty, it is that the contest between the Western and Chinese models has only just begun. This story will play out not only in Hong Kong, but also in other territories. Only time will tell which model comes out on top.

Yuan Jiang is a Chinese PhD student at the Queensland University of Technology. He is affiliated with the QUT Digital Media Research Centre

Post