Separation of Party and Government in China
At the height of China's political reform in 1987, Chinese Communist Party secretary general Zhao Ziyang (赵紫阳, pictured right) proposed the "separation of party and government" and the "separation of party and enterprise."
With Zhao's fall from power in 1989, those ideas were abandoned.
Yet, according to Andrew Nathan, "in the intervening 14 years, much of what he proposed has happened by evolution."
In his 2003 article titled The China Paradox: A Stable, Single-Party System, Nathan noted that provincial-level governors and party secretaries have an increasingly wider scope in setting local policy in areas such as health, education, welfare, the environment, foreign investment and economic development.
Many large state enterprises have also been removed from state ownership, or placed under joint state-private ownership. Enterprise management decisions are predominantly economic rather than political. State Council members, provincial-level officials and enterprise managers are also increasingly selected for their relevant policy expertise.
The National People's Congress too has become more autonomous in initiating legislation and actively reviewing and altering proposals. Even though the police and courts are still highly politicised, a norm of judicial independence had at least been instituted. Judges now have more leeway in applying the law to economic and criminal cases that have little or no political repercussions.
And even though all Chinese media is still owned by the Party and other state agencies, the media has, over the years, become more commercialized and less politicised.
"In the political domain, they often push the regime's off-limits markers by investigating stories about local corruption and abuse of power," Nathan wrote.
Anyway, Nathan's main point in the article was that China's experience during the past two decades had shown that democracy "is not inevitable, as many once thought."
"Under conditions that elsewhere have led to democratic transition, China has made a transition instead from totalitarianism to a classic authoritarian regime, and one that appears increasingly stable."
With Zhao's fall from power in 1989, those ideas were abandoned.
Yet, according to Andrew Nathan, "in the intervening 14 years, much of what he proposed has happened by evolution."
In his 2003 article titled The China Paradox: A Stable, Single-Party System, Nathan noted that provincial-level governors and party secretaries have an increasingly wider scope in setting local policy in areas such as health, education, welfare, the environment, foreign investment and economic development.
Many large state enterprises have also been removed from state ownership, or placed under joint state-private ownership. Enterprise management decisions are predominantly economic rather than political. State Council members, provincial-level officials and enterprise managers are also increasingly selected for their relevant policy expertise.
The National People's Congress too has become more autonomous in initiating legislation and actively reviewing and altering proposals. Even though the police and courts are still highly politicised, a norm of judicial independence had at least been instituted. Judges now have more leeway in applying the law to economic and criminal cases that have little or no political repercussions.
And even though all Chinese media is still owned by the Party and other state agencies, the media has, over the years, become more commercialized and less politicised.
"In the political domain, they often push the regime's off-limits markers by investigating stories about local corruption and abuse of power," Nathan wrote.
Anyway, Nathan's main point in the article was that China's experience during the past two decades had shown that democracy "is not inevitable, as many once thought."
"Under conditions that elsewhere have led to democratic transition, China has made a transition instead from totalitarianism to a classic authoritarian regime, and one that appears increasingly stable."
posted by Maria Siow @ 2:18 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home