Speaking in Kyoto, Japan, Nov. 15, President Bush posed an unacceptable challenge to the Communist regime in China. He praised the growth of freedom and democracy along the Pacific Rim. He listed Taiwan with Japan and South Korea as examples of progress, saying, “By embracing freedom at all levels, Taiwan has delivered prosperity to its people and created a free and democratic Chinese society.”
Mainland China, however, was among states he said had not made equivalent progress. “As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well” said Mr. Bush, expressing a dream seen as a nightmare in Beijing.
On Oct. 20, the same day Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lectured students at the Central Party School in Beijing on the value of free speech and an open society, the Chinese regime issued a white paper titled “The Building of Political Democracy.” It was a justification of continued autocratic rule. “Democratic government is the Chinese Communist party governing on behalf of the people” is how the paper defined terms. The paper’s emphasis on efficient administration, stability and curbing corruption reflects a Confucian concept of good government deemed superior to the turmoil of multiparty electoral strife. “China’s socialist political democracy has vivid Chinese characteristics” including a “democratic dictatorship.”
The idea freedom and democracy are universally accepted doctrines whose triumph is inevitable is challenged by counter-ideologies backed increasingly with armed force and some popular support. There are many movements around the world that envision a proper society based on different, allegedly higher values than those presented by the United States.
American troops are in daily combat with one of these movements in Iraq. A week before elections last January, al Qaeda warlord Abu Musab Zarqawi declared, “a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it.” “Democracy is based on the right to choose your religion,” he said, making it “against the rule of God.” He said with freedom of expression, all is allowed, “even cursing God. This means that there is nothing sacred in democracy.” He said Islam requires the rule of God and not the rule of “the majority or the people.” There can be no separation of church and state. Islamic clerics must protect the people from politicians enacting laws that contradict the Koran.
Such a system exists in Iran. In June’s election, the Guardian Council, a body of 12 Muslim clerics and religious jurists, excluded from the ballot all women and all candidates critical of the current regime. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appoints six members of the Guardian Council and the other six are nominated by the Judiciary. The Guardians can also veto legislation. Their job is to make ensure democracy does not allow the people to stray from the fundamental principles of Islamic society and faith.
The duty of the Guardians is similar to that outlined by the French radical philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau. “We always want what is advantageous to us but we do not always discern it,” Rousseau wrote in “The Social Contract,” published in 1762. Individual members of society thus may not know the “General Will.” He believed an outside body is needed to ensure the General Will is carried out. This body must be impartial, above or outside politics, for democracy would not necessarily produce a government in line with the common good.
The claim that communist parties are the people’s “vanguard” and the only true source of authority has its roots in Rousseau. It is heard in the pronouncements of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Though Mr. Chavez was elected president, his rule has been very turbulent due to his disregard for the constitutional democratic process. He champions what he calls Bolivarian Socialism. In his view, elections, parties, Congress and the courts embody a false form of democracy, and thus cannot determine policy. The only legitimate authority is a national leader who knows what the people need and can communicate directly with and mobilize them for the common good.
At the Summit of the Americas last month, President Bush talked up the value of constitutional democracy in a way clearly critical of Mr. Chavez. Though Washington has hailed the spread of formal democracy in Latin America, the political trend has been toward left-wing movements inspired (and often supported) by Mr. Chavez and his communist mentor Fidel Castro. The rampant corruption of the region’s mainstream political parties has given credence to the claim that the alleged American model of democracy does not advance the General Will or the common good.
China has close political and economic ties with Iran and Venezuela, and a common strategic interest is resisting America’s “imperialist” push for democratic reform. With similar regimes and movements elsewhere, they form a bloc eager to see America fail. As Washington flounders in partisan dissonance, they believe their approach to government will better enable them to use their growing strength.
William Hawkins is senior fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.