Explanatory Blog Post: The Party

"The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers" -Richard McGregor

Described are a group of men comparable to the leaders of the Soviet Union, who are secretly chosen without knowledge to the outer world as the heirs to the leadership of the Chinese state. These men, with styled hair and political identities alike to one another, have only one apparent difference; some worked for power and some inherited it. However, this poses a question; don't all those in power, whether in a democratic or communist state or something in between, gain that power by earning it or inheriting it? McGregor, however, deems these less important compared to his point of the order in which the men appeared, displaying the hierarchy of planned leadership.

These men are described to have clapped themselves onto the podium, written by McGregor with an implication that no one else will do this for them. This is an obvious reaction related to an important point; the public, who know nothing of their future leaders, who are surprised that one of  the chosen who is uncommonly recognisable is a man who should have been imprisoned for known corruption, cannot be expected to applaud. However, the rigid, systematic procedure does not include public participation, for opinions are dangerous and banned. The Chinese government, conscious that their power does in fact lie in the hands of its people (unbeknownst to them), will not risk allowing its citizens to have an opinion, otherwise a situation of 'glasnost collapse' may again arise in history. The Soviet Union taught China more than simply how to keep a disciplined image. As a result, security is heavily deployed, opinions are suppressed and the media is controlled or shut down, all displaying one overriding idea that the state is in a state of trepidation. They still see the importance of returning the favour to the people, however. 'Black Jails' begin to form, a way of suppressing the opinionated, while keeping the crime rate down to keep up appearances. As a result, the people are accustomed to what they call 'seasonal rhythms of repression', but this knowledge is not warning enough for those certain figures who are detained with no charge 'just in case'. The higher officials also protect themselves by holding lower provincial leaders responsible for misbehaviour of those in their province and use this as another way of protection. Government fears could be seen to stem from their inability to control the thoughts of their people despite their attempts to, but is nevertheless a way to let the people know what they should be thinking. Everything is dictated by the government, exemplified by identical press articles which are not unlike their identical subjects. While the Chinese government does not hesitate to eliminate political power, their lack of revolutionary nature means less blood is spilled and more cunning tactics are employed.

Hu Jintao is described as a puppet, controlled by a wider puppeteer that uses him as an image for the state, which is carefully censored to contain only the most flattering of depictions. Other political leaders are also carefully trained, such as Chen Ailian, who will readily tell her personal business story but when asked about the state mindlessly repeats state slogans. Both are not particularly authoritarian and are rather bland. However, this differs from previous leaders such as Mao Zedong, who is described as a charismatic figure. Interestingly, the presentation of the new leaders is held at the very Tiananmen Square that was the location of Mao's horrors, which now holds lifeless, rigid future leaders, perhaps to improve China's image to its people and other states? When interviewed, Hu, among others, is 'baffled' at the suggestion that he was not democratically elected and robotically insists that he was chosen by the people and cannot let them down by refusing the position. This in itself is suspicious; if the system was democratic and he did not want or choose to be leader, how did he become so without putting his own name forward? His very quote implies dictatorial elements. Legitimacy is also an important imagery technique which China has been successful in. Additionally, the Party has changed with modern society, flocking to the rich and educated, displaying their opportunistic and wise nature.

China's secrecy is then compared to the Vatican state. One state the McGregor fails to mention that perhaps he should have, is the obvious dictatorship evident in DPR Korea, who thrives on secrecy. This state is so good at keeping secrets, no one knew for two days that Kim Jong-il had died. Perhaps this is because DPR Korea is considered a monarchy, however, is China so different? A key aspect of a monarchy is the familial inheritance of the throne, which both China and the Vatican adopt. McGregor then proceeds to described China's reliance on the Soviet governmental system which poses another question; has China not learned enough from the USSR and not to follow their failed system? This question may be answered with the fact that China does tend to keep power in the family. The centralised elite government adopted from Lenin does state that those in power should dictate to the working class who "are considered unable to rise above their day to day struggles" which interestingly does not always work in China as it has developed the very system it desired to overcome and created two distinct classes; the capitalists and the proletariat. 

As a result, despite its many present communist aspects, McGregor described China's theoretical potential to "have it all- democracy, a functioning legal system, a vibrant civil society, disputatious think-tanks... so long as they develop within the boundaries the Party lays down for them." But as McGregor rightly implies, China's authoritative history may not be so easy to shed, as seen in former SSR's and in communist China itself. While this is so, it is widely considered highly probable that China will become a democracy in the near future. Its government, while resilient, has displayed that it is fearful and places great importance on maintaining is grip over the state, therefore it could become susceptible to public input. Its enormous economy increases the income gap daily. And as seen, the Chinese are opportunists and numbers of the educated are rising, therefore it is not unforeseeable that one may rise to democratic power. McGregor's argument is not controversial and it allows one to not only determine what a dictatorship is or how it might become a democracy, but also how it can fail and succeed. While I personally agree that China will emerge as a democracy, there are still those who disagree. And of course, there are the obvious 'what if questions'; if Mao had not committed his atrocities, would China need to be so fearful of its people? If China employed new approaches, would it fix the income gap so close to that seen in democracies? Only time will tell what will truly become of China in the near future.

Additional Sources:

http://chinaleftreview.org/?p=471

http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/13/5-ways-china-could-become-a-democracy/3/