Jean-Christophe Iseux
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote De la Democratie en Amerique a brilliant analysis of the North-American democratic system， and in the process conducted a thorough critique of the European democratic system of his time. I went to China in 1997 and have stayed there for 25 years as an adviser to several government units. I wrote an analysis of Chinas political and democratic system in a booklet entitled Insights from China：
Leadership， Policies， New World Order. I would like here to introduce my own understanding of Chinas unique democratic system -- the China Socialist Consultative Democratic System （CSCDS）， which allows the Western mind to fully understand Chinas path to modernization， introduced by President Xi Jinping on the occasion of the 20th National Congress of the CPC.
Difficulties in understanding between East and West
The re-emergence of China as a considerable source of economic and political power in the international sphere， the disturbances to Western democracy， and the attempt of various people to re-establish something akin to the Cold War between the West and the East， make it essential， if we are to avert another world catastrophe， that we understand each other better. In particular， the West needs to understand how China works today， for China and the West are deeply different in their culture and history.
Firstly， Western thought is based on a monotheistic tradition， derived from Christianity. There is one God. However， in China people can simultaneously venerate their ancestors， believe in the inter-fusion of nature and culture， in Daoism， practice various forms of Buddhism， and accept the ethical and social philosophy of Confucius. So in Chinese culture， there is no religion， yet elements of religion are everywhere.
Secondly， another difficulty is the difference in logic between West and East. The West indulges in hypothetico-inductive， manicheist， often static logic derived from Greek and Roman thought tempered by the Scientific Revolution. The East， on the other hand， has refined 3000 years of evolving logic， based on the dialectic movement between immanence and transcendence. In practical terms， Western logic gives the Western world a Judeo-Christian principle of right and wrong （or black and white， with few shades of gray）， while Eastern logic gives China a Confucian “Doctrine of the Mean” （principle of harmony with many shades of gray， and little that is black or white）， where everything is in a transitional state of becoming yin or yang. Western social structure is based on extreme individualism， particularly in the Anglo-sphere， as opposed to the group-based system of China where family comes before the individual – the individual still being respected within the group.
Thirdly， the contrast between an ancient bureaucratic， imperial system in China， where position was gained through educational merit， and the feudal， contending systems of the West， where power is based on economic and military force. The capitalist market system of the West historically was very different from the petty-commodity systems of China. The basically competitive and aggressive， militaristic world of the West， with constant wars， struggles and fights， is totally different from the tradition of China based on harmony， the avoidance of war if possible， and collaboration rather than competition. Hence the imperial systems of the West， based on conquest and seizing of territory are very different from China based on the concept of being in the middle， around which satellites are arranged.
For almost 200 years， Chinese civilization， the most ancient continuous civilization in world history， was regarded with disdain and distrust by people in the West. Ever since the First Opium War of 1840， the West has believed itself to be superior to “backward”. That all this was a mythical projection based on ignorance did not stop it being widespread. Though China has gone through major changed， the utterances of many Western politicians， and the relentlessly biased Western press， have managed to continue elements of this narrative. Given the almost hopeless task of trying to throw some light on one of the most contentious areas of misunderstanding， namely the constant accusation that the Chinese lack “democracy” and “human rights”， it is worth trying to look at China with the eyes of Tocqueville， in order to correct these misunderstandings and prejudice.
The Western democratic model challenged by Tocquevilles principles
Tocqueville was well aware that there were two major models of democracy in Europe. There was the French version， which tends to favour equality over liberty， and the British model， which tends to favour liberty over equality. Tocqueville realized that respect for various forms of democratic system， based on a broad representation of citizens at parliamentary level， was not necessarily based on party politics with universal voting rights. He was well aware of many of the defects of the kind of democracy being promoted in the Anglo-sphere. He realized that there were weaknesses in a parliamentary system of the kind he saw in Britain and growing in America.
Tocqueville might not have foreseen the way in which elections in the West are held so frequently， and politicians so often fail to deliver on their promises， that citizens lose civic interest to vote， and that too much power is placed in the hands of civil servants. Yet he would have seen the need for effective power checks and balances to avoid the populist clamours of the majority， resulting from the closeness between people and power. He was very aware of the importance of intermediary powers， such as voluntary associations， as well as an active and recognised “civil society”， to be consulted in a systematic way， with free expression of a diversity of opinions. Tocqueville would also have stressed that over-centralization and attempts to impose uniformity would crush the important differences between parts of a large country. A proper democratic system must allow margins of discretion in accordance with specific contextual and cultural differences. Tocqueville saw the French Revolution as the most visible consequence of Frances over-centralisation.
Tocqueville might have anticipated that centralisation and leveling down of education in the West， a bi-product of overly stressing nominal liberty， would become later consequences of demagoguery. Tocqueville was searching for an appropriate democratic model guaranteeing a stable， harmonious and peaceful society， based on legal protection of private ownership and full consciousness of citizens in their civic rights and duties. He favoured a more peaceful transition in the British manner. He would have been disappointed by the way in which Western nations have experienced increasingly disharmonious social， cultural and religious disruptions， with strong instability in political leadership. Tocqueville would certainly have been very interested in the Chinese alternative， which， against all predictions， has managed to combine powerful， centralized government with extraordinary economic and technological growth and largely peaceful， but dramatic， social changes.
The Chinese system measured by Tocquevilles principles
The CSCDS is my own understanding of the Chinese system after reading Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. The CSCDS is embodied by the strengthening of power in the hands of two parliaments. One is the National Peoples Congress （NPC）. The other is the CPPCC. In 1949， after the establishment of the Peoples Republic of China， its constitution was approved by the first plenum of a newly created consultative parliament -- the CPPCC. A maximum of one-third of CPPCC members are CPC members. Other members encompass a wide cross-section of Chinese society：
CPC-recognized political parties， mass organisations， overseas Chinese， and representatives of religious， academic and business circles. I had the extraordinary opportunity and honour of being the first person of European origin to be specially invited， in 2001， to be a member of the CPPCC， in Changchun.
If we compare the idea of the Chinese democratic system or CSCDS， as it now exists， with Tocquevilles idea of a democratic system， several things are apparent. One is that Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era place a strong emphasis on the “Rule of Law” to combine most of Montesquieus democratic principles. There is an increased attempt to adopt Western legal systems， but adapting them to Chinese culture and applying the ideas of taking the best and leaving the rest.
The system places emphasis on “Democratic Centralism”， which provide a harmony between bottom-up freedom and top-down discipline. This is a unique cultural answer to Tocquevilles recognition of the contradiction between Equality and Liberty. The multi-party system is difficult to apply to China. It is incredibly difficult to create a system that holds together a population of almost 1.4 billion people， extending over an area as large as Western and Eastern Europe and Western Russia combined. Intra-party democratic mobility via CPC committee elections works successfully from township level Committees up to the CPC Central Committee level. There is an increased influence of CPPCC decisions on NPC law-making processes. Recent examples are some new administrative directives， for instance having consultations with the Hong Kong CPPCC delegates for The Law of the Peoples Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The new system is being done through consultation within the wider society at every level of the administration and with lively debates among intra-party factions. The process answers the modern principle of multi-party representation. I have witnessed this process during my time sitting at the CPPCC in Changchun， where wide-range consultations with local farmers were conducted at a grassroot level before any changes to internal directives were implemented relating to Chinas entry into the WTO.
There has， for centuries， been a strong tradition in China that the government was the servant of the people. In an age and place where the most sophisticated and widespread users of social media are present in their billions， it is easy， to express disapproval and the government is very sensitive to what the people want. There are a wide range of checks and balances within the Chinese political system， with meetings of recognised voluntary associations such the All-China Womens Federation（ACWF） and the emergence of an internet-based civil society， as external checks.There are Special Leading Groups at central level and Discipline Commissions at every level of CPC committee as internal CPC checkpoints and effective on-going democratic governance.
An oft-repeated point is the supposed lack of the freedom of the press and the liberty to pursue religious beliefs. Historically in China， the press was more open than in the West， except in forbidding all direct incitement to attacks on the government. There is also awareness that freedom of religious expression can be furthered. There are now more members of the Christian Communion in China than members of the CPC， and many religions， including Buddhism， are thriving in China， often with funding and support from the CPC. Thus， these freedoms are being carefully improved to ensure the continued existence of a harmonious society.
There are universal secret ballots at the village level， and there are intra-party elections at the central， regional and municipal levels. Given the size of China， it is difficult to see how else to arrange such a system. For example， in my French constituency， I vote for my Member of Parliament alongside about 100，000 other people. If such a Parliament were to be established in China， I would be voting alongside well over one and a half million other people – or， to preserve the sort of ratio I have enjoyed in France there would have to be at least 10，000 MPs in the Chinese parliament！
This was a problem with democracy from the start. Greek “democracy” worked reasonably for a period in Athens， when the total number of citizens was 40，000. Democracy grew up in Britain， when that country had a population of about five to ten million. How can we expect it to be suitable for India and China with population over 1.4 billion？ India， crippled by corruption， has lately experienced significant issues with its democratic system， where the British system was originally implemented， and millions are still living in absolute poverty.
In China， CPC members progress within the ranks based on meritocracy and regional quota representation. Respect for the difference of conditions， customs and practices between the East and the West of China， as well as between the cities and the countryside， means that considerable attempts are made to balance their representation. There have been enormous changes in the legal and social systems of China in the years since the reform and opening-up. For example， the poverty alleviation， which features a total of 832 impoverished counties and close to 100 million poor rural residents have been lifted out of poverty， and， among them， more than 9.6 million poverty-stricken people have been relocated from inhospitable areas. The CSCDS as a manifestation of the whole-process peoples democracy suits Chinese context and benefits Chinese people.
What is true democracy？
There are two meanings to the word “democracy”， as Tocqueville explains fully in his various works. One is Democracy with a capital “D”. This is a system， whereby you vote for people who then represent your views in a Parliament or other body. This can be helpful though， as Tocqueville pointed out， it contains a huge danger in the tendency towards the tyranny of the majority. If your representatives do not win the contest， or even if they win and soon become corrupted by power and stop representing you， or if you have not read the fine print of their manifesto， you can easily find yourself crushed into accepting policies that damage you. The solution to this， and the chief virtue of Democracy， as Tocqueville pointed out， is that it provides some sort of periodic accountability. If， after four years or so， you are unhappy with your rulers， you throw them out and get another set. So at least the corruption of power is limited.
Another meaning about democracy of Tocquevilles emphasis with a small “d” is about self-empowerment and that this is achieved not by voting， but by the growth of numerous institutions， which we collectively call “Civil Society”. In other words， it is about a world thronging with entities， such as cities， universities， merchant companies， monasteries， guilds and much more -- or， as Tocqueville calls it， in describing Americas greatest strength， when he visited it， the “spirit of association”. This is concerned with the devolution of power down to a more local level， to a mass of mid-level organizations， in which people can gain power from involvement.This set of intermediary institutions protect the weak individual from naked State power， and give people a feeling of control in some aspects of their life through governing themselves. The Civil Society seems to have receded in the West and gained more space and strength in China.
Another aspect of true democracy is meritocracy， namely that senior political roles are open to all， and that the most able and best trained exercise power. Its educational system through the centuries has made China far more democratic in this sense than the governmental systems of the West. One example is something I have observed within many government units， particularly the Peoples Liberation Army， which recruits impoverished youngsters at grassroot level who can end up as Chiefs of Military Staff.
Conclusions
We live in a time when old certainties are falling away and new approaches are being sought. The Western model of Democracy， with its stress on universal suffrage and elected politicians， seems frail. This weakness led， in the 1930s， to the collapse of the “democracies” of Europe， which crumbled fast into fascism. It appears to be happening again in many populist and right-wing movements， as currently seen in Hungary， Sweden and Italy. The Western system needs to be re-thought in the age of the Internet， heightened globalisation， multi-culturalism and massive technological and social changes.
The Chinese government has steered China through the most extraordinary economic and social revolution in history during the last forty years. It has been done peacefully and without most of the terrible side-effects that occurred in nineteenth-century Europe and America during the first industrial revolution. The CSCDS is trying to adjust its legal and political systems to fit with these changes. It does not want to abandon a system of government that dates back over 2，000 years and has been more successful than any other in human history in holding a vast set of different people together. Yet it also knows that with a highly educated， highly talented and confident people， aware of many of the attractions of life in the West， the government also needs to evolve new forms suitable to a vast nation. The CSCDS respects most of Tocquevilles democratic principles and is constantly trying to improve itself， to retain the best of the old while adding the best of the new.
The CPCs historic mission is to advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts， building-up the CSCDS to become a model that works for China， is not a threat to the world， and provides basic human rights for all. While many Western countries privilege “liberty” and individual rights， in China it is different. More communal and less nebulous “rights” seem more important -- the rights to enough food， housing， jobs， security， peace， health， education -- and hope for the future. These are what the Chinese government has provided at an amazing pace over the last forty years. It is not surprising， that the trust in the Chinese government by the people over the period 2016-2021 was over 90%， whereas it was below 40% in the US， according to recent Pew Centre Research polls.
These more basic “rights”， are the ones behind Tocquevilles insight on democracy. He was not concerned， on the whole， with parliamentary democracy and voting systems. He was concerned with the autonomy and self-rule of individuals， their right to take control of their own life through various forms of association and localized power. This is exactly what has been developing in China. For many centuries， in such a vast country， more power had to be delegated to the village level， and it is at that level that people in China， have started to vote. This opening-up of the system， along Tocquevillian lines， has been gathering pace in recent years， hugely boosted by the localized power given by virtual digital communities. This is the direction in which， both in the East and in the West， we can live in a world where decisions of a national kind -- concerning international relations， the macro-financial system， the macro-legal system -- are made at the centre， but all else is devolved down to the appropriate more local level. This is what Tocqueville admired of his time and it is now within reach of the Chinese.
Jean-Christophe Iseux is Chairman of the UK based Institute for East-West Strategic Studies Research Fellow， Emmanuel College， University of Cambridge