US, China democracy summits just the start of a difficult global debate on government and society

The US and China clearly have fundamentally different views on what defines a democracy
Beijing’s attempt to explain its system of governance to the world is a positive move in fostering understanding, but is not meant to be a decisive conclusion

Lee Jersey Wang

Published: 3:30am, 17 Dec 2021

Why you can trust SCMP

The United States last week hosted a Summit for Democracy. China took note and in response prepared its own International Democracy Forum, preemptively releasing a white paper on its own political system called China: Democracy That Works and organising a Dialogue on Democracy.

The two sides are laying out a fundamentally different understanding of what defines a democracy. The American position has been clear for centuries: free and fair elections, the rule of law, an independent judiciary and a guarantee of inalienable rights and freedoms. Certainly, no introduction or event is needed for the US to make its stance known.

China, for its part, has mostly focused on pointing out the issues facing American democracy, including, it claims, social and political polarisation, wealth concentration towards the top 1 per cent, absence of responsibility, low efficiency of governance and low social trust.

China also argues that America’s concept of democracy is not universal and cannot be applied to all societies regardless of historical and social context. It is part of Beijing’s broader argument that the US has no right to criticise China and should refrain from doing so.

Up to now, though, China’s discourse on governance lacked an important element. If it does not agree with America’s concept of government, what kind would it like instead? The past two weeks have seen China attempt to answer that question and explain its system of government to the international community.

05:27

‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’ explained

This is a positive move in fostering understanding and contributing to the international conversation on governance. China’s new message, however, merely represents the start of an international debate on how government and society in general should work, not a decisive conclusion.

In the Dialogue on Democracy, organised by the China Public Diplomacy Association and the China Forum of Tsinghua University, participants repeatedly hammered home the point that democracy should be measured by results.

As Kishore Mahbubani said multiple times at the dialogue, citing the late Lee Kuan Yew, “The test of a political system is whether or not it improves the lives of the majority of people”, a message all attendees echoed to various extents. This hints at what China means by “results” – people’s livelihood, also called “democratic outcomes”.

This is important, as every political system is about delivering some kind of “result” that can be measured in some way. In America’s case, that would be whether liberal values are promoted and included within governance.

01:13

Biden warns of worldwide democracy backslide at virtual summit

This message from China is centred on answering the question of what government’s role should be. The answer to that depends on one’s perspective and values. The current debate has now been narrowed down to one of values: whether society should prioritise people’s economic and social development first or liberal values such as inalienable rights and freedoms.

There is no objectively correct answer to this question, and America should understand that many countries share China’s views on this. Likewise, Beijing should understand that many people around the world, including within China, not only share America’s views on this but also feel strongly about their views.

Again, this is just the start of a difficult and contentious global debate on government and society, but nevertheless it represents a big step forwards.

If there is one thing China has made clear in the latest message push, it is that it views a government’s mission as promoting economic and social development. This has been a clear and consistent objective of the Chinese government since the founding of the country by the Communist Party.

China is touting its ‘whole process democracy’. So how does it work?

In America, the two political parties have had a difficult time finding common ground about what is best for the country. The Democrats today have goals that sound similar to China’s, namely advancing people’s livelihood, equality and promoting economic and social development, with an increased focus on racial and gender equality and non-discrimination.

While the Republicans today appear to be focused on defending traditional values, whether social or political, their party is increasingly defined by a catch-all opposition to the Democrats. This has led to social dysfunction and gridlock by diametrically opposed groups, which is tarnishing views of America’s model of governance.

The US-led Summit for Democracy was a broader part of America’s messaging to the world and its own citizens. Its position is that, despite their differences on other matters, they can agree that they dislike the Chinese system and should thus fight together to defend the liberal values on which America was founded.

Thus, the biggest threat China poses to America may not be anything concrete but rather the idea that the American model of governance may, in fact, not be the best. This explains much of the relationship between the two countries and shows there might not be an easy resolution to its deterioration.

I offer a small piece of advice for both China and the US moving forward. America should consider the possibility that China’s framework for understanding democracy is useful, if only for how to view China.

If America believes its liberal values are correct and China does not possess such values, then the US should consider sitting back and watching China conduct an experiment on whether this lack of liberal values leads it to a dark place, which the US appears to be confident will happen. It should show us that confidence.

Meanwhile, China should be more confident in its own way and, in response to criticism, be more open-minded in its own thinking. It should consider whether there is truth in the criticism and what, if anything, could be done to address the issue.

Lee Jersey Wang is a research associate of the China Forum, at the Centre for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University