Reflections on the June-4th Incident (One): why endogenous communist countries reject Western-styled democracy?
By He Qinglian on June 1, 2012.
This year marks the 23rd
anniversary of the June-4th incident, and it has been more than 21 years
since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the Socialist bloc in
Eastern and Central Europe. In most of the countries where the socialist
system was imposed on them, for example Eastern European countries, the
humiliation and pain caused by Communism gradually fades away after the
generation(s) that personally experienced it has grown old. In
endogenous communist countries like Russia and China, however, the
former remains in the state of enlightened despotism, the latter has yet
to reach that state.
It is interesting to compare the history and cultural background of the two countries.
If
these were to be illustrated with the graphic description of “games of
cards”, in endogenous communist countries it would be a game between the
ruler and domestic opposition forces. Neither Kaiser Wilhelm II, who
supported Vladimir Lenin, or the Soviet Union, which backed the CPC,
made formal appearance. They only secretly sent a few good cards to
support one of the two sides. Yet in countries where Communism was
imposed upon, the games were played not just between the ruler and the
opponents who scarcely amounted to anything, there were outsiders who,
with trump cards in their hands, had enough power to change the
political landscapes of these countries. The two different card games
dictated the dissimilar historical fate of these two types of countries.
The dissolution of endogenous Communist regimes would mostly due to their
internal collapse; the situation of those implanted communist regimes
depended on external vicissitudes.
In
countries where Communism was imposed upon, the history of their market
economy, civil society, liberal thinking, and free speech, among
others, had deep-rooted influence; the people there did not embrace the
Communist ideology and the dictatorship from their hearts. Instead, they
often saw political oppression as the last resort of the foreign-backed
domestic puppet regimes. There was a close connection between their
dissatisfaction with the local communist regimes, and their will to
defend national independence and preserve their own cultural tradition.
This was the social root of the uprisings against communist regimes that
broke out in succession in East Germany, Poland, Hungary and
Czechoslovakia from 1950s to 1970s. In these countries, once the game
player with the most decisive power withdrew—the foreign patron
abandoned its position of interference in the domestic affairs of other
countries, the puppet regimes might collapse at any moment.
Both
the Soviet Union and China belongs to home-grown Communist
states. The reasons that Communist regime would emerge in these two
countries could be attributed to both profound inner social background
and some so-called external historical accidents.
Let’s
first begin with the “historical accident” factors. For instance, if
the First World War did not break out, Lenin could not have obtained
economic support from Germany; the Russian army would not have developed
anti-war sentiment, and the October Revolution might never have
happened. Likewise, without the support and aid from the Soviet Union,
the CPC could not have survived its early days. And without the Japanese
invasion of China, the CPC could in no way grow large enough to win the
civil war. However, the two countries have a feature in common: the
agricultural society occupied the main component of the economy, and
peasants constitute the majority of the members of society. In this type
of society, it would be easier for the utopia propaganda of the
Communist party to secure the trust of the people; the civil community
in the cities, the traditions of liberal thinking and free speech were
very fragile and could easily be overwhelmed by the ocean of peasants.
All these were what comprised the social background for communism to be
home-grown.
On the eve of the revolution, both Russia and
China were at a time when huge number of peasants had become bankrupted
and semi-proletarianized. In 1861, Russia began its Emancipation reform.
Serfs could become free persons after they paid a substantial amount of
redemption tax. Many peasants were left with no means to grow their own
crops. Moreover, at that time the Capitalist way of production placed
pressure on the original way of production, and led to the bankruptcy of
a large number of peasants. The friction between the Capitalist way of
production and the Russian feudal system, and the deterioration of the
peasants’ livelihood were what gave rise to populism. It was in this
time of dramatic social change that a batch of young intellectuals
representing the interests of the peasants and the petty bourgeoisie
rose to the Russian politics arena, where they set off a massive
movement “to the people”. The word populism is derived from the Latin
word populus, which means people
in English. Without making any analysis, the populists in Russia saw
the massive scale of production of capitalism as a decline and a
scourge. They detested goods produced on a large scale and had an air of
Utopian socialism, an ideology that left noticeable impact on Russia in
1860-70s.
In
the mid- and late 19th century, the massive population in China had
already been too much for the country to bear. To make matter worse,
capitalist industrial products severely impacted the natural economy of
China. The peasant economy went bust. The painful process of
semi-proletarianization gave rise to numerous farmers who had lost their
land and city-dwelling proletariats—who later became vagrants and
constituted the main body of the rebels and insurgents. Through the
large number of students who studied abroad, various schools of thinking
entered China. But whether it was liberalism, anarchism, or some other
variety of doctrine, none of them were comparable to the populism and
socialism originated from Russia in terms of social impact.
A society with too many people
in destitution would develop a natural affinity with populism. Such a
society would also naturally reject liberalism that features individual
freedom and is prone to accept socialism, which calls for the
elimination of class differences and the equalization of wealth.
Communist regimes established in this type of society belong to the
endogenous category. In general, once such regimes are
established, they would hardly be dissolved because of external forces,
unless there is serious internal rift or an economic crisis that
makes them unable to sustain themselves. The longevity of such regimes
led to the alienation of modern democracies in societies. Sometimes,
populism and thinking that supports authoritarianism and resists
democratization would even emerge as nationalism.
Even
if reform is implemented, and democratization process initiated, these
countries could not possibly develop a social atmosphere that makes a
clean break with the communist system as those countries ruled by
externally imposed communist regimes had done. Therefore, the ghosts of
the old system would form multifarious alliances with the privileged
during the transition, sway the public opinion, and deceive the people
with demagogy. As a result, these countries would undergo a long and
winding process of transition.
There
is but one difference between China and Russia. Since the time when
Peter the Great was in reign, Russia the twin-headed eagle had turned
one of its heads to the West. In the modernization process that spanned
centuries, Russia had been wavering between liberty and democracy of the
West and autocracy of the East. At times it expresses its love of
Western cultures; at times it emphasizes its oriental features. It is
precisely this swinging in directions that led to the marginalization of
the Russian culture. Russia has never been seen by the West as part of
European cultures; it has not been regarded as an Asian country by the
East, either. Caught between cultures of the East and West for a long
time, frustrated and bewildered, Russia developed its unique national
character, which determines the country’s current political
characteristics: on the outside there is an election system modeled
after democracy of the West; on the inside it practices strongman
politics that embody autocracy of the East.
China,
however, has always had just one head, which never once changed its
direction. Although there were calls to learn from the West—from
“Chinese learning for fundamental principles and Western learning for
practical application” that was proposed in late Qing dynasty, to
present day’s “Marxism and Mao’s thoughts as the principles; Western
technologies for practical use”, the inherent political endowment of the
country has never changed.
If
it is said that at present Russia has already entered the stage of
enlightened despotism, the political opposition is demanding the
establishment of a wholesome, fully-functional democratic system, then
China has still has a long way to go before it reaches this stage. The
“shared bottom line” of the various political opposition forces is
nothing more than hoping that the authorities would implement
enlightened despotism. The only difference is whether the CPC should
continue to rule as a whole or the party should split into two factions
and then decide through democratic procedure within the party which
faction rules.
