Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

How China holds politicians accountable

It has been frequently argued that China’s political system lacks accountability because it is not a democracy. Such a view is especially popular among the West where democracy is the most fundamental institution in political life. However, as Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam rightly pointed out at the recent St Gallen Symposium, China does have a unique system of government accountability. How so?

China has said it welcomes the new role of netizens and online media in keeping tabs on errant officials. Photo: Reuters

China has said it welcomes the new role of netizens and online media in keeping tabs on errant officials. Photo: Reuters

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

It has been frequently argued that China’s political system lacks accountability because it is not a democracy. Such a view is especially popular among the West where democracy is the most fundamental institution in political life. However, as Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam rightly pointed out at the recent St Gallen Symposium, China does have a unique system of government accountability. How so?

Accountability, in essence, simply means answerability, that government officials and politicians must be held responsible for their actions.

In China, however, politicians and officials are generally not elected, and those who do wrong or perform poorly cannot be voted out. Only their superiors can take them to task.

This seems like a major conundrum in China’s political system. Nonetheless, China’s unique political culture means that the picture is not so straightforward.

A research study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology political scientist Lily Tsai shows that in rural China, there are informal rules and norms that hold local officials accountable. Such informal institutions include temples and lineage groups.

Because government officials are often also members of such lineage groups or temples, it is thus important for them to maintain high moral standings in these groups. And they can achieve that by providing public services such as building roads and schools.

The lineage group is a distinct feature of Chinese tradition as it refers to an organised group of descendants from a common ancestor. Even today, the role of lineage in village life is still very important.

In more urban areas, the rise in Internet use has also led to a new form of political accountability: Online news bulletin boards and social media now play a form of watchdog role over government officials, actively monitoring their performance and exposing corruption. The central government has indicated that it welcomes this new role of netizens and online media in keeping tabs on errant officials.

Online vigilantism, however, can sometimes go overboard. Trolls resort to “human flesh searches” by seeking and posting personal details such as the email addresses, phone numbers, bank statements, and personal tastes of alleged wrongdoers. Very often, government officials who possess luxury watches and belts are targets of such “human flesh searches”.

For example, Yang Dacai, the Shaanxi Safety Supervision Bureau chief, became the centre of national attention when a photo of him smiling beside a burning bus was uploaded in August 2012. The bus fire killed 36 people. Later, he was exposed by angry netizens for owning more than 80 luxury watches despite his low wages. Within a month, he was dismissed by the Shaanxi provincial government. Often, what prompts such online vigilantes is the Chinese people’s traditional belief that government officials should be moral and virtuous.

 

Institutions for accountability

 

It can be argued that informal institutions at the grassroots level and on digital media have played a part in upholding government accountability.

But the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is still an authoritarian regime, and a “one person, one vote” system will not emerge in China anytime soon.

The main body that can hold the CCP’s officials accountable is the formidable Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, currently under the leadership of Politburo Standing Committee member Wang Qishan.

Any Chinese citizen can send a letter to the CCDI to blow the whistle on any alleged official wrongdoing. Nowadays, the petition can even be filed online, thus expediting the investigation process. The party, of course, retains the final authority in deciding a case. And how it does so remains opaque.

Thus, the challenge facing China is: How can the country strengthen both formal and informal institutions that improve government accountability?

There is fierce debate over this question in China today. Two suggestions stand out: One is consultative democracy, and another is meritocracy with Chinese characteristics.

The idea of consultative democracy is perfectly consistent with traditional Chinese political culture, where harmony is preferred to conflict. Under the new “consultative democracy” framework, local governments in China should hold regular consultative dialogues with residents to gather their views and address their concerns.

This is a new form of political participation. Although residents still cannot directly remove officials who are corrupt or inept, strong community pressure will be applied on officials to ensure they are held accountable.

Meritocracy with Chinese characteristics essentially means China should be governed by people who have merit, often measured in terms of education and other capabilities. Meritocracy in the West and in Singapore generally means that the most capable person gets the job. It’s what you do, and not who you are, that matters. This is still not quite the case in China, where “guanxi”, which roughly translates to relationships or connections, still matters. At the same time, Chinese society expects its leaders to be able and moral.

 

Mandate Of Heaven

 

This is partly a legacy of China’s Mandate Of Heaven doctrine, where the emperor commands the highest moral authority over the people. Although the CCP does not use the term “Mandate Of Heaven” formally, in reality the implicit social contract is that the Chinese people will continue to support the CCP as long as the latter can do a good job in maintaining social order and delivering social goods such as jobs, security and education.

The party understands this perfectly, and this is why it has focused so much attention on improving people’s lives, and because of it the party still enjoys very high levels of support among Chinese people. This has led to a narrative that China does not need democracy, which often produces leaders who are rich but incompetent.

Although political accountability exists in China through various formal and informal mechanisms, it does not mean that democracy has no place in China’s governance.

China is changing quickly today. A new generation of Chinese who are better educated and well travelled may be open to new ideas on politics and accountability. Whether a new standard of accountability will emerge in China, only time will tell.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dingding Chen is assistant professor of government and public administration at the University of Macau.

 

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.