China embraces ‘politics of the common good’

Years ago, I wrote an article in the Hong Kong Economic Journal on “politics of the petty interests versus politics of the common good”. The Western form of democracy is based on multiparty competition. The form of democracy on the Chinese mainland is not. Ideally, both can serve the common good. If all the different political parties have their eyes on the common good, but offer different strategies, the politics is still clearly “common-good politics”. However, if the politicians running in elections are all mainly interested in their own self-interests and the interests that they are associated with, then the competition would be just a competition for the power to deliver “goodies” to a different segment of society. It would be more like a dogfight than a contest between different paths to serve the common good. If so, even a high voting rate would not mean that the outcome is desirable. Such petty-interest politics will always be divisive. It would be foolish to think that a government elected this way would automatically enjoy “legitimacy”. On the mainland, the Communist Party of China is the ruling party, and China’s Constitution explicitly stipulates that this will go on indefinitely. But none of the leaders inherit their power from their parents. Instead, they are all selected through a long process of assessment based on years of performance. The Constitution also specifies that the CPC “represents the development trends of advanced productive forces”; “the orientations of an advanced culture”, and “the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people of China”. This means that the government is required by law to serve the people. Obviously, this is “common-good politics.”

Given the “one country, two systems” framework, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy. The Basic Law, which was passed into law by the National People’s Congress on April 4, 1990, and came into effect on July 1, 1997, mandates that Hong Kong will eventually elect its chief executive. The National People’s Congress, on March 11, 2021, also changed the electoral rules for the Legislative Council to ensure that only patriots will govern Hong Kong.

The recent changes were severely criticized by the Western media as undermining the basic rights of Hong Kong people. But depicting the electoral reform as such is misleading, because to understand why the electoral reforms were made, one needs to understand the background to all this. The background is the social and political unrest in 2019 that aimed at de facto tearing away the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from China. The hideous 10-step plan to topple the HKSAR government designed by former associate professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting of the University of Hong Kong, as published in Apple Daily on April 28, 2020, was possible under the earlier electoral system. Beijing had to change the electoral system in order to preserve its sovereignty over Hong Kong.

Legislators must not let themselves be hijacked by ideological orientations. They must always strive to be scientific and down-to-earth in their policy discussions. Those who do not have an independent, critical, or analytical mind cannot serve Hong Kong well

Many people would ask: “Who defines patriotic?” and “What is meant by patriotic?” The meaning of patriotic should be clear to anyone: just that you genuinely wish the best outcomes for the country. If you want the best outcomes for the country, you would hope that whatever is good for the country will prevail. You would not oppose the political system on the mainland that has proved to serve China so well against a whole range of key performance indicators, from life expectancy and social safety net to innovation and technology and poverty eradication and ecological conservation. You would also support the Basic Law and “one country, two systems”.

Many observers do not realize that the concept of “political dissidents” does not really apply in China. In a multiparty democracy system, if the ruling party uses its power to purge members of a competing party (“dissidents”), that is not fair. In China, which is under the leadership of the CPC, a party required to serve the people, it is possible to disagree with the policies and propose alternative policies. That will not make one a “political dissident”. Trying to supplant the current political system with an alternative one, on the other hand, is unpatriotic because it goes against the national interest.

If the CPC’s leadership cannot be challenged, does this mean it can do anything it sees fit and is therefore “dictatorial”? Interestingly, this is absolutely untrue. After its 16th National Congress, held in November 2002, the CPC developed the Scientific Outlook on Development, which was written into the Party Constitution at the 17th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party on Nov 21, 2007. This means that the Chinese leaders are not free to do anything they like, but must be pragmatic and scientific in their policies to serve the people. Thus the CPC must be people-oriented, and must adhere to whatever helps achieve comprehensive, balanced and sustainable development. It must learn from its mistakes and keep doing better.

For the same reason, legislators must not let themselves be hijacked by ideological orientations. They must always strive to be scientific and down-to-earth in their policy discussions. Those who do not have an independent, critical, or analytical mind cannot serve Hong Kong well.

The author is director of the Pan Sutong Shanghai-Hong Kong Economic Policy Research Institute, Lingnan University.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.