November 1, 2016
Updated on November 17: 5-minute BBC video tells everything you need to know about Chinese elections.
Election debate at Peking University in 1980.
Yaxue Cao: This year is also an election year in China, with county- and district-level elections of People’s Representatives on November 15. Independent candidates have sprung up everywhere, and China Change recently ran an article about the independent candidates from Beijing, including the group of 18 organized by Beijing resident Ye Jinghuan (野靖环). Over the months leading up to the vote, they’ve held training sessions on election law and the electoral process — some of which was presented by lawyers. But since their announcement of candidacy, they’ve been harassed by police. On the first day (October 24) of their neighborhood campaign, police came and stopped some of them from leaving home, and blocked interviews with foreign media. Some candidates elsewhere in China have been subject to criminal or administrative detention.
Hu Ping: Right, that’s what happened. I’ve also been following this news.
Yaxue Cao: This is unbelievable given that we both experienced the Haidian District People’s Representatives elections at Peking University in the fall of 1980. You were a graduate student in philosophy at the time, one of candidates who got elected. Now, 36 years later, China has changed in almost every way — yet in all these 36 years, no progress has been made to expand elections. Not only has it not changed, in fact it’s worse than it was 36 years ago. This is why I wanted to speak with you about elections in China today: the fact that there has been zero change on this, over more than three decades, is an important lens through which to evaluate China politically.
So first, please explain to us: what are “grassroots elections”?
Hu Ping: There are two kinds of grassroots elections in China: those at the county and district level for electing the deputies to the People’s Congress, and those for electing the head of a village. Both are direct elections. Before the Cultural Revolution there were similar elections that I participated in once when I was in senior high school — it was a single-candidate election (等额选举). This means that when you wanted to elect a representative, there was only one candidate. And that candidate had been selected in advance by the higher-ups — there was no competitive process, and the whole thing was just a formality. It was a joke.
After the Cultural Revolution, Chinese society had been ravaged, and there was a sense that China needed democracy. Even the Party conservatives thought that these were just grassroots elections, and allowing the people to vote in a few petty bureaucrats wouldn’t impact anything. In 1980, the Party center promulgated a new election law, which said that apart from the regular channels of nominating candidates—social organizations [affiliated with the Party], Party organizations, and unions [controlled by the Party]—individual citizens can also nominate themselves to be candidates, as long as they have three people to second their nomination. The updated rules also stated that candidates could engage in publicity. This was an opening for electioneering in China.
Back then, the elections weren’t held at the same time across the country. For instance, Shanghai’s and Sichuan’s were a bit earlier in the year, and Beijing’s was held last. This was probably because Beijing is the political capital, and political passions there run hotter than elsewhere. Stacking Beijing last was about limiting the influence of the elections.
As elections were held around China, university campuses became very active. At Fudan University in Shanghai, undergraduates in the Chinese language department, philosophy department, and also graduate students, became candidates. This was reported in “China Youth Daily.” The elections in Beijing were held in November, and Haidian District, which has a concentration of universities, came last. Back then Li Shengping (李胜平), who was studying in Xicheng District at one of Peking University’s branch campuses, stood for election and won. He was one of the activists involved in the Democracy Wall (民主墙) and an editor of the “Beijing Spring” (北京之春) magazine. He was also involved in the April 5th incident, 1976.
Candidate Yang Lichuan (杨利川) giving a speech at the Triangle at Peking University.
Because Haidian District had so many universities, the election activities there were especially active. Peking University was divided into two electoral constituencies: one for faculty, workers, and their families, and another for students and graduate students. The constituency for undergrads and graduate students elected two representatives, and 20-30 people ran as candidates. A range of activities were held to attract votes, including public debates, question-and-answer sessions, and so on. For about a month or more Peking University was soaked in the atmosphere of the election.
An important feature of the Peking University elections is that even though the post was for a largely irrelevant district representative, the political ideas proposed were of national significance: namely, how to foster the democratization of China. Actually, everyone was clear on what was really going on, which is that we were simply using the platform of an election to express our views to the government. I suspect that this is something the authorities didn’t anticipate. They thought that because the issues county- and district-level deputies can get involved in are so minor, there’s no political significance to the process at all.
Yaxue Cao: At that time I was a freshman still finding my ways on campus, and I remember during the elections there were people crowded near the The Triangle (三角地) every day, looking at the election-related big and small character posters. Even though I didn’t quite understand what was going on, I browsed some of them. I remember the back walls of the glass display board at The Triangle were covered too, and I remember reading an A4-sized poster titled “John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.”
Hu Ping: Also, during the elections students organized their own media, reporting on all the electoral developments. Some candidates also organized their own election teams. Back then the president of Peking University was very open-minded about it and provided the school auditorium for the debates. I myself held two debates at that auditorium.
Li Shengping’s triumph in the Xicheng District election put some of the old conservatives in Beijing on guard. The municipal government dispatched an internal notice demanding that party members not get involved in elections. This shows that the conservatives at the time were terrified of the idea of even a grassroots vote. But the entire social atmosphere was pursuing change, student passions were high, and most of the campus leaders and administrators were fairly open-minded and liberal — because so many people had experienced horrifying political persecution in the past.
At the end of 1980 the Solidarity Movement in Poland was formed. The conservative Hu Qiaomu (胡乔木) wrote an internal letter saying that the same sort of thing might transpire in China, and the Party elite started to get very nervous. The whole political atmosphere quickly became much more stern. After the election there was a rumor saying that the top Party leadership were very unhappy with the elections and wanted to crack down — they only reason they didn’t was because of internal disagreement.
Later they revised the election law and limited a number of election activities. At the next election in 1983 (they were held every three years), the Communist Party was running the so-called “anti-spiritual pollution” political campaign (反精神污染运动), and the political atmosphere was heavy, so there weren’t very many election activities held then.
Yaxue Cao: I was still on campus in 1983, but I don’t have any memory of the elections that year — so it mustn’t have been anything like 1980. In 1980, Chen Ziming (陈子明) was elected as a representative for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. You wrote in an essay that he was the convenor of the group of representatives drawn from universities in Haidian District. What did all you do as representatives?
Hu Ping: We proposed some draft resolutions, voted against or abstained from voting on some government work reports, and so on. It was all trivial stuff. Nothing we did had any impact on the big picture.
By the time 1986 came around, the atmosphere had loosened up again, and election activities started up once more. For instance, at Peking University Li Xianbin (李淑贤), a lecturer in the physics department, was elected as a representative, and she was of course the wife of Fang Lizhi (方励之). Professor Fang had already gained national prominence and influence at universities around China for his involvement in pro-liberalization and democratization activities, and the Communist Party saw him as an enormous headache. Fang was engaged in his own enthusiastic electioneering at the China University of Science and Technology in Hefei, Anhui. Then the 1986 student movement started, beginning at CUST and then spreading to Shanghai and Beijing, with students taking to the streets. The police made some arrests, but when this stirred up even more students to go to Tiananmen Square to protest, they quickly let them go.
The lively political atmosphere throughout 1986 struck dread into the Communist Party leadership, and they made a major decision: they expelled Fang Lizhi, Liu Binyan (刘宾雁), and Wang Ruowang (王若望), and others, from the Party — and the reform-minded Party Secretary Hu Yaobang (胡耀邦) was also forced out. The political atmosphere once again became severe.
What all this means is that before the 1989 movement, the hardliners at the top of the Communist Party had already lashed out against a tide of liberalism and democracy, but because China was still just emerging from the calamity of the Cultural Revolution, social elites — including some members of the top echelon of the Party — all actually sought some degree of freedom and democracy, especially the youth and the intellectuals. The yearning was deep. In China at that time, everyone was increasingly dissatisfied with the half-hearted opening up that the authorities had engaged in. This was followed up with a half-hearted repression, which didn’t truly strike fear into people’s hearts, and thus aroused even more disaffection. It was against this backdrop that the democracy movement of 1989 exploded.
After the June 4 massacre, the Communist Party was completely panicked and they viewed every collective activity as a major threat, and their attacks on dissent became fiercer. The whole political atmosphere of the 1990s was desolate and grim.
By the end of the 1990s and the early 2000s, independent candidates began appearing again, such as Xu Zhiyong (许志永) and others. And again, it was at the universities — for instance Xu Zhiyong was a teacher at the Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications when he was elected. But these elections were nothing like the 1980s, where all the talk was about national politics, and ideals; in the latter case, the election was limited to how they’ll discharge their duty as people’s representatives. For all that, independent candidature in and of itself represents a strong orientation toward democratic principles and values, so these elections are still enormously meaningful. Furthermore, grassroots elections are the only way that Chinese citizens can actually cast votes.
Xu Zhiyong standing in front of his campaign poster in 2011. He’s serving a four-year sentence for activities of the New Citizen Movement.
Yaxue Cao: Xu Zhiyong was elected a People’s representative in both 2003 and 2006, but by 2011 (at that point elections had been changed to once every five years), the authorities resorted to all sorts of measures to prevent him from being re-elected. A few years ago you wrote an article about grassroots elections, noting that after three decades, the bureaucratic level of the posts haven’t risen — it remains at county- and district-level People’s Congresses, and village elections. Another observation you made is that the quality of them has dropped, which has manifested in the general lack of interest in the elections by voters, given that they’ve often simply become a show manipulated by officials, who receive bribes and crush independent competitors. So, given that the authorities have absolutely no intention to roll out genuine elections, why don’t they just abolish them and appoint the representatives or village officials directly themselves? Isn’t that the outcome anyway? Why go to the trouble of staging them?
Hu Ping: After June 4, the Party began to regard liberalization and democratization as the number one enemy, and there was basically no one at the top echelon of the Party who had any sympathy or support for democracy. The suppression never let up, and China’s entire political ecology underwent a fundamental change. But the authorities don’t really have any need to promulgate a law abolishing the grassroots election system altogether, because it’s too insignificant. With continuous repression in the 20 some years following the June 4 massacre, cynicism is rampant in Chinese society, and the majority of Chinese people feel no attachment or sympathy with the past movement of liberalization and democracy, and they don’t get involved. So, the fact that there are so many people now stepping forward as candidates is just amazing. The risks they’re taking are so much greater than those we took back then, so it’s worthy of our wholehearted support and close attention. Every single person who runs as an independent candidate, without exception, becomes a target for the authorities to attack. The corollary to this is that it proves that independent candidature is itself a challenge, regardless of what your policies or politics are.
Yaxue Cao: I remember during the Wukan incident [in 2011] a group of public intellectuals traveled there to offer their support, and to get involved and be election observers. A few days ago I was chatting with He Depu (何德普) about this, and he said that this year public intellectuals didn’t have the slightest enthusiasm in the elections. Might this reflect the current political atmosphere in China?
Hu Ping: Since taking power, Xi Jinping has taken systematic steps to shut down the space for expression for Chinese liberal-leaning intellectuals, which had been constrained to begin with. Even the Gongshi (Consensus) website and the Yanhuang Chunqiu magazine have been shut down and are no longer tolerated — and you can well imagine the terrorizing effect this has. I believe that the international community, including the United States and other Western countries, is seeing more and more clearly that the Chinese regime has had no intention of carrying out political and democratic reforms. On the contrary, as the Chinese economy grows bigger and bigger, the regime has become more confident and armed with more resources. These are obvious developments, and even some of the China apologists in the West are seeing that things are not panning out as they expected.
Yaxue Cao: U.S. policy toward China has for decades been built on the assumption that, once China develops and the middle class grows strong, democracy will naturally come. Many have been dazzled by changes in China. China watchers are awed, some even succumbed to admiring the efficiency of authoritarian rule. But at the same time, elections in China have made no progress whatsoever, in terms of both level and quality. Stacking these two pictures of China together, you can’t support the assumption that the course of economic development will nurture the course of democratization.
Hu Ping: It was predicated on a mistaken theory to begin with — and yet just what lies at the heart of the Communist Party, and just how the regime has made it through all these years, I believe Western observers still don’t have a clear understanding of. Not only are they unclear, but probably a lot of Chinese aren’t clear, because the twists and transformations of the Party have no precedent that we can reference. Actually, the principle is quite simple: After the extreme centralism of the Mao era resulted in widespread political terror and total economic collapse, after Mao died Chinese society from top to bottom, inside and outside the Party, experienced a strong impetus toward political and economic reform, and the 1980s was a reflection of this. The Soviet Union and Eastern European countries also went through their own democratic transition via this route. But in China the June 4 massacre reversed the trend and history — and also changed the history of the world. You cannot have any hope that a regime built on such a massacre is going to engage in any liberalization and democracy. And so not only the Chinese people, but the entire world is faced with a stubborn and powerful dictatorship. I think people haven’t realizes the seriousness of this problem and haven’t devoted enough attention and understanding to it.
Last week, policemen blocking an independent candidate from leaving her home in Beijing.
Yaxue Cao: In early October, professor Arthur Waldron at the University of Pennsylvania, gave a speech in New York that we published on the China Change website. He said that his greatest concern was that Western countries didn’t see autocracy as a feature of communism, but as a feature of China.
Hu Ping: What’s needed right now is to have a complete narrative of China’s political course over the past three decades, letting people know that China has undergone a very special process that has led to today’s China. As you examine this process, you will see that the Chinese are not any different from foreigners. So when assessing China don’t just extrapolate from economic determinism to a claim of Chinese exceptionalism. The damage this does is divert attention from how to counter the challenges and deal with the threat posed by a communist dictatorship, to instead being about how to accommodate and accept them. This is dangerous. You should be changing it, not accepting it. When the bar is continually lowered to: “We are fine with it as long as we avoid war,” isn’t that aiding them?
Yaxue Cao: Once the free world begins to make concessions on universal values, the world order will change.
Hu Ping: It’s already changing. If accommodation becomes the new engagement policy, the West will inflict disasters on itself. China is not North Korea. North Korea has no ability to corrupt other countries, but China will corrupt the whole world.
Yaxue Cao: In looking back on the 1980 elections in Peking University, you refuted the idea that “democratization depends on a market economy and a strong middle class.” You pointed out that, in 1980, the Cultural Revolution had just ended, and few people knew what democracy or freedom actually looked like. You wrote: “We discovered, spontaneously and indigenously, the idea of constitutional democracy and its operation.”
Hu Ping: The New York Times interviewed me recently, and I also talked about this. Chinese propaganda wants you to believe that the concept of freedom and democracy is a Western one, but where did the Westerners get it? It was a response to lasting religious wars, persecution, and terror. People were persecuted for different beliefs, for different interpretations and views, and this led to demand for tolerance, for freedom of belief, and freedom of expression. Following the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese wanted tolerance, and it was spontaneous.
When Eastern Europe democratized in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it had no middle class, no market economy. Mongolia had no market economy when it democratized. Xi Jinping’s father Xi Zhongxun (习仲勋), while in office, proposed that China needs a law to protect dissent. He had had no western education, where did he get that idea? Because he was persecuted for his speech, and he came to the realization that a line should be drawn between the rights of the people and the power of the government, and that certain freedoms must be granted and protected. The popular demand for freedom was the real cause of the 1989 Tiananmen protests. But the June 4 massacre changed not only the course of China, but also the course of the world.
Yaxue Cao: Yes. The world has yet to confront this reality. Thank you.
Hu Ping (胡平) lives in New York and edits Beijing Spring (《北京之春》), “a monthly Chinese-language magazine dedicated to the promotion of human rights, democracy and social justice in China.”
Yaxue Cao (曹雅学) edits the China Change website. Follow her on Twitter @YaxueCao
What is this “free world” you speak of? Honestly, this is a rhetoric more at home in the 1970s than it is now, a moment in which the “free world” is systematically monitoring its population, in a near constant state of war (in the Middle East), and passing through a time of economic austerity which is destroying the lives of the poor there. What do you stand for? If your model is the “free world” then you are as banal as the people you’re critiquing. The “free world” is on the cusp of electing a corrupt, authoritarian billionaire to the presidency. Time to update your tired cold war concepts….
I know, Americans are tired of the word “free.” But for readers of this website, I thought it’s pretty clear what the “free world” means: any place in the world where you can express yourself freely without your blogs or social media accounts being deleted, where you won’t be jailed for defending the rights of your clients if you happen to be a lawyer or for practicing a religion if you are a believer, where you can have a fair trial if you are accused of a crime, where your homes won’t be demolished by thugs armed with batons and bulldozers….
You are asking a population in America what is meant to be “free” who has never experienced totalitarianism, and don’t understand how much regulation is required to keep everything truly free. That’s why such a country could easily produce libertarian traitors such as Edward Snowden who patriotically defect to Russia in the name of defending American Freedom from surveillance, and Wikileaks whose concept of free is to openly support the agenda of Vladmir Putin’s Russia’s choice of American Presidential Candidate.
No freedom doesn’t work if all government simply step back regulating people’s behavior – the ensuing power vacuum will inevitably be filled by a Kleptocracy elite whose only goal is to steal as much of monetary value from the people as they can possibly get away with, freedom be damned.
It takes true freedom architects such as intellectuals that made up of American Revolution to design a framework of governance with strong regulations and strong institutions to preserve a sense of freedom for over 200 years, which is a remarkable achievement but is now near its death bed.
Read Michael Pillsbury’s book “The 100 year Marathon” to see how American “Panda Huggers” naively assumed the grass root election model would somehow influence China to be more democratic, and completely underestimate China’s Hawk’s in the Chinese nationalist psyche.
It’s interesting to note the same absent mindedness in the upcoming American election, where 1 candidate that consistently wins Indian American and Chinese American vote have such open disdains with American Democracy that he will not conceded if the vote doesn’t go his way, openly asks Russia hackers to help him, want American to leave NATO, and openly changing his party’s platform to match that of Vladmir Putin’s Russia. We are witnessing the last throes of American Democracy here.
And since China Change org has previously allied with Republican because only Republican would listen to Chinese Democracy Activists, this is the last throes of China Change org as well, because its only allied turned out not only don’t want Democracy in China, they were on a 30 years crusade to overthrow American Democracy as well because a left leaning government threatens to confiscate their wealth with taxes.
Read Michael Pillsbury’s book “The 100 years Marathon” to see how American “Panda Huggers” naively assumed the grass root election model would somehow influence China to be more democratic, and completely underestimate China’s Hawk’s in the Chinese nationalist psyche.
It’s interesting to note the same absent mindedness in the upcoming American election, where 1 candidate that consistently wins Indian American and Chinese American vote have such open disdains with American Democracy that he will not conceded if the vote doesn’t go his way, openly asks Russia hackers to help him, want American to leave NATO, and openly changing his party’s platform to match that of Vladmir Putin’s Russia. We are witnessing the last throes of American Democracy here.
And since China Change org has previously allied with Republican because only Republican would listen to Chinese Democracy Activists, this is the last throes of China Change org as well, because its only allied turned out not only don’t want Democracy in China, they were on a 30 years crusade to overthrow American Democracy as well because a left leaning government threatens to confiscate their wealth with taxes.
Thanks for your comments. Now, how do you get the impression that ChinaChange.org has been allied with Republicans (or Democrats for that matter)? This website is not partisan. Reluctantly, let me tell you that I was mocked on Twitter by Ms He Qinglian (何清涟) as someone who live on the margin and try to hold unto my little rice bowl (for running this website and engaging in advocacy) when I simply pointed out that a lot of those rabid Chinese supporters of Trump don’t even read enough English and probably don’t know what “gerrymandering” is, when they eagerly spread lies about Democrats committing voter fraud.
Again, reluctantly, let me tell you that I’ll be voting for Hillary on Nov 8th, and I voted twice for Obama. But US policy toward China is neither Democratic or Republican; it’s the United States.
If you are bothered by China Change’s criticism of Obama’s lack of leadership in dealing with China, please read the following piece to find some balance:
A Young Political Prisoner in the Grand Picture of US-China Diplomacy in the Wake of June 4th Massacre
https://chinachange.org/2016/05/11/a-young-political-prisoner-in-the-grand-picture-of-us-china-diplomacy-in-the-wake-of-june-4th-massacre/
Thanks for reading us!
Yaxue
When it comes to relations between nation states self interest always rules.
US record for supporting democracies in other countries have always been spotty:
1. 1953 Iranian coup d’etat where CIA supported strong man Shah of Iran that eliminated democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh, and thereby toppled nascent Iranian democracy in favor of a murderous despot, that later culminated with Iran falling into the grip of Khomeini’s revolution in 1979.
2. Toppled democratically Salvador Allende in Chili in favor of despot Augusto Pinochet who turns out to be a despot that murdered many other Chilean democracy activists, and still managed to escape a war crime trial after he was finally arrested in UK for medical treatment in 1998.
3. Attempted toppling of elected Venezuela President Hugo Chavez by President Bush in the interest of Big Oil who wanted to secure Venezuela oil that failed with 48 hours.
What bothers me isn’t your criticism of Obama’s China policy which can always been improved, The problem is with the singular focus on marginal personalities in China who were overtly oppressed for show by the Chinese communist government. The persecution is comparable with the persecution of Wikileak’s founder Julian Assange. However this is a losing narrative since Democracy’s strength has never been with individual worship – it is a favorite trait of despotism. This is why personality such as Julian Assange would quickly falter in their pursuit of democratic values in favor of Putin style Kleptocracy who happily manipulates him for his own ends. Once a democratic movement begin to focus solely on the fate of individual personalities it becomes indistinguishable with the target, and can easily be manipulated to become agent of destruction in democratic institutions (even US government)
What actually matters is alliances with other groups who share similar goals for change and preservation of existing democratic institutions. Before Russia begin meddling with the upcoming US presidential election they had trial runs manipulating Montenegro’s election first. However China Change never even mentioned them. Neither did China Change spoke out about Ukraine’s Maiden Movement. China will never change if there is no external pressure, and that external pressure is not sufficient coming US (or even the Western World) alone.
A change in strategy is sorely required to buckle the current losing trend for democracy around the world.
Thanks for spilling so much ink. I don’t agree at all that China Change “focus[es] on marginal personalities in China” and that our work is about “individual worship.” You are right that China Change didn’t write about struggles in Ukraine nor what’s happening in Montenegro – wait until we change our name into World Change 🙂
For the time being, we are content with giving our readers a decent report on elections in China.
Sincerely,
Yaxue
What a shame. Thank you for the courage to finally make your position clear, and good luck with your reporting.
[…] For Over 36 Years, Grassroots Elections in China Have Made No Progress – An Interview With Hu Ping, November 1, 2016 […]
[…] For Over 36 Years, Grassroots Elections in China Have Made No Progress – An Interview With Hu Pin…, China Change, Nov. 1, 2016 […]
[…] For Over 36 Years, Grassroots Elections in China Have Made No Progress – An Interview With Hu Pin…, China Change, November, 2016. […]
[…] For Over 36 Years, Grassroots Elections in China Have Made No Progress – An Interview With Hu Ping, November 1, 2016. […]