Beijing touts 'Chinese democracy' at annual national congress — but what does that mean?
March 4, 2019
As thousands of delegates descend on Beijing for the nation's biggest political event of the year, state media has been keen to characterise the gathering as "Chinese democracy" at work.
Key points:
- China's legislature is largely viewed as a "rubber stamp" Parliament
- Delegates to its advisory body have a combined wealth of $A869 billion
- State media says "Chinese democracy" is less influenced by wealthy interest groups
The annual meeting known as the Two Sessions brings together two of China's political bodies, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and the National People's Congress (NPC), China's legislature.
The CPPCC is intended to be a collection of China's best and brightest, and has an advisory role to the NPC — think of it as China's answer to Britain's House of Lords, but with basketball players and billionaire CEOs.
"It's not something we'd recognise [as democracy]," China researcher Graeme Smith from the Australian National University told the ABC.
The meetings have also allegedly sparked a crackdown on virtual private networks (VPN), which allow internet users to access foreign websites, with the Australian reporting that China has blocked access to overseas news sites including ABC News.
The ABC News website was officially blocked in China last year, but the Australian reported it now could not be accessed via some VPN services.
So what actually happens at the Two Sessions, and does China's interpretation of democracy really pass muster?
'A bunch of rich guys and famous people'
PHOTO: Former NBA basketball player Yao Ming is one of thousands of CPPCC delegates. (AP: Andy Wong)
The first of the Two Sessions is the meeting of the CPPCC, which includes among its more than 2,000 delegates former NBA player Yao Ming, actor Jackie Chan and a variety of other prominent people.
Political parties other than the Chinese Communist Party — but which are still allied to the party — are also represented alongside civil society organisations, ethnic groups, the military and other professions.
The general idea is that the body is made up of a broad cross section of Chinese society, who can advise the law-making NPC on the needs of the people, but Dr Smith said the star-studded Conference isn't exactly representative.
"It's a bunch of rich guys and famous people getting together and putting forward ideas, some of which are quite creative and may even occasionally be challenging to the party," he said.
According to 2018 research from Hurun Report, cited by Reuters, the CPPCC and NPC counted among their ranks 153 delegates worth more than 2 billion yuan ($A422 million).
While the super rich represent only a fraction of the thousands of delegates who attend, their combined wealth amounted to 4.12 trillion yuan ($A869 billion), Reuters reported.
'Rubber-stamping' claims
While CPPCC has an advisory role, it has no power to pass laws — that's the responsibility of the almost 3,000 delegates which make up the NPC, who are mostly Communist Party members, and tend to pass laws reflecting the vision of the party's leaders.
Last year the NPC passed an amendment to the Constitution removing presidential term limits, allowing Xi Jinping to remain as president indefinitely — effectively making him the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong.
That change was passed with only two "no" votes and three abstentions.
Dr Smith said the perception of the NPC as a "rubber stamp" body has increased under the leadership of Mr Xi, who he said has effectively sidelined his head of government, Li Keqiang, the Premier of China's State Council.
"In the past there were signs of [the NPC] as a government body pushing back a little bit on the party and saying look, 'we're not that comfortable with just rubber-stamping this stuff, we'd like to modify it, we'd like to suggest changes'," he said.
"The idea that the NPC might come up with something surprising is almost out of the question, because Li Keqiang has no powerbase whatsoever these days."
'China's own style of democracy': Beijing
Perhaps unsurprisingly, China's state-controlled media has a more generous view of the thousands-strong summit's democratic credentials.
In a commentary piece published by the official Chinese news agency Xinhua, the Two Sessions were described as "two important platforms for China's own style of democracy".
Who is this American “reporting” for Xinhua? “It’s widely acknowledged that...” bla bla bla “#China’s system of democracy...” What’s that? China’s system of democracy? Where do they find these people and why do they do it?
185 people are talking about this
"Every year, just before China's annual two sessions, there are voices in the West declaring that China's democracy cannot truly represent the people. But the Chinese people disagree," the article said.
"The Chinese are, just as many Westerners have become, wary of the deep troubles of a capital-manipulated and conflict-driven model of democracy."
Dr Smith said this has been a common spin around the Two Sessions — China argues it is more representative than Western models, but that claim does not necessarily stack up.
"Lately they've sort of turned it around and said, 'Well your democracy doesn't work, it's captured by vested interests, whereas our democracy is all about going out and talking to the people'," he said.
"And then these 2,000 men — largely men — sit around and decide what it is that people want."
Dr Smith said the model was influenced by the notion of Confucian-style meritocracy — it aims to ensure the people who are making the laws are the most qualified people, the smartest people in the room.
"But the difficulty is of course that within a Marxist-Leninist system, it isn't the smartest people that rise to the top, it's the people that have the ability to sit through long meetings, they have the ability to do the back-room deals.
"So it doesn't really end up being the meritocracy that they would like to advertise it as — it is really a case of the toughest nuts getting to the top rather than the smartest ones."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments always welcome!