TIBET-ENVOY • EUROPE

Blogs, Democracy and China’s Future

Zhang Wen at My1510.cn

The former information officer at the French embassy in China, Mr. Henuo (transliteration of name into Chinese) recently grouped me alongside Han Han, Xu Jinglei, Wang Xiaofeng and Hong Huang as the five most famous Chinese bloggers in a French magazine.  This is somewhat embarrassing for me.

Strictly speaking, Wang Xiaofeng and I are media workers who share the same concerns.  While we have different writing styles, it makes some sense to put us side by side.  But I am basically not on the same “path” as literati such as Han Han and especially Hong Huang and Xu Jinglei.

With respect to my skepticism, this French ex-diplomat who speaks Chinese, loves Chinese culture and married a Chinese wife explained to me in a serious manner that he and his assistant spent a lot of time on traffic volume and influence analysis before they came up with this list.

But let us put this aside for now.  That essay led to something else which was interesting enough to retell.
A renowned French documentary producer Jean-Michel Carre read that essay and became very interested in making a documentary about Chinese bloggers.  He traveled from France to Beijing and interviewed me last Thursday.  The interview took three hours (note: an interpreter was required).  I explained my views on blogs, democracy and China’s future.

I personally thought that there was cause to remember this event, and therefore I have come up with a text  of that interview based upon my memory.

Q: You are a traditional media worker.  So why did you start a blog?  What is the blogging’s biggest attraction for you?

A: I started my first blog in October 2005.  I was working for Xinhua’s Huanqiu magazine.  The chief editor Ma Xiaolin had resigned from his Xinhua post which he had held for 17 years to become the chief executive of the Daqi website where he created the first real-name elite blog.  He asked me to write a blog too.  I asked him, “To write about what?”  The answer was: “You can write whatever you want to write.”  So this was how I became a blogger.  In a blink, I have five years of blogging experience now on a number of blogs.
What I want to say is that the main reason why I love to blog is that I can say anything I want about my personal views.  Blogs are not tightly controlled like traditional media are.  There does not seem to be any censorship system.  There is no need to adhere to the so-called main themes and propaganda lines.  When I blog, I feel free and relaxed.  When I write for traditional media, I have to watch out for a lot of things.
Of course, blogs also have control and censorship systems.  But basically these only show up afterwards.  Unlike traditional media, it is impossible to communicate with every single blogger on an issue beforehand.  Each blogger holds the initiative when they write and post.  The blogger does not control how long the blog post will survive.  But even if the blog post survives for only a few minutes, it is very likely to have been read and re-posted somewhere by someone.  Therefore, it is impossible to control blogs completely.

Q: Many of your blog posts concern international relations.  Some of them had a lot of impact.  Our understanding is that Chinese individuals had not been allowed to comment on international relations.  Only the Xinhua reports can be used.

A: Your impression is generally correct.  In the past, other media can only use the Xinhua reports to report on international relations (especially those that are related to China).  But there are some exceptions.  For example, a bi-monthly magazine titled <Strategy and Management> has many good essays on international relations.  But its circulation is only several thousand copies and its influence is limited to certain elite intellectuals only.

It was after the Internet came along that citizens were really able to discuss international relations.  The Internet provided the stage and space.  The blogs brought this characteristic even further forward.  Unlike the blogs, the Internet forums have a mixed bag of different people.  When bloggers (especially the well-known ones) discuss international relations, they do so from the own points of view disregarding the main themes and lines.  Sometimes they go in the opposite direction as the main theme and get a lot of attention and impact.

After North Korea test-launched a satellite, I wrote many blog posts to discuss the consequences.  The reaction was tremendous, especially the blog post <China ought to abandon North Korea> which had more than 1 million page views and more than 8,000 comments.  Phoenix TV’s <Current Affairs Debate Forum> even used it as a debate subject for people to argue about whether China should make a major adjustment in its North Korean policy.

That would have been unthinkable before.  The North Korean issue is sensitive.  The traditional media wouldn’t dare discuss “China’s new thinking about North Korea.”  When I wrote that blog post, I was somewhat worried about getting into trouble.  But there was no trouble afterwards.  Nobody spoke to me and my blog was not harmonized.  This showed that there is even some differences in opinion among the senior leaders about the North Korean relations, with some of them agreeing with my viewpoints.

Q: Your blog’s slogan is “May China have democracy and rule of law, more than merely thriving and prosperous.”  What is your idea of democracy?

A: That was the slogan when I started the blog five years ago.  It has not changed since.  It stated my hopes for China.  My idea of democracy is basically the so-called “western democracy”: elections, multi-party system and separation of powers.  Actually, I don’t think that democracy is divided into western and eastern democracy.  The regional differentiation makes no sense.  Anyone who wants to make the regional differentiation is either stupid or multifarious.

I once debated the so-called “Chinese-style democracy” with someone.  I asked him what are the elements of Chinese-style democracy besides elections, multi-party system and separation of powers?  He honestly replied: “I haven’t thought it through.”  Democracy is the common fruit of human civilization, it is a universal value, it does not differ by region.  Just like the market economy, everybody in the world can borrow it for their own use.  You may need to add a qualifier such as “socialist market economy” but it is the same thing in practice.

Of course, I don’t agree with the so-called “direct copying of western democracy.”  This is a false issue.  The more proper way is to say that we should not copy the “western democratic system” directly.  Democracy is a concept for governance.  The same concept can be carried out in different ways.  That is quite normal.  Under democratic systems, the systems of governance could not be the same everywhere.  But as long as the three powers are separate and balanced, it will be alright.  In England, the United States and Germany, the prosecutorial system is an independent government department; in France, the prosecutorial system is part of the court system.

I firmly believe and agree that Chinese democracy must have its own unique characteristics.  The organizational arrangements must be suitable for the national traditions, customs and cultures.  But no matter what, the democratic elements must be allowed to realize themselves.  This is different from some people who castrate democracy under the guise of having “unique characteristics.”

Q: There is an assertion now that the Internet, including the blogs, is a place for people to let steam off.  To a certain extent, this is helping the Communist Party.

A: This is a very peculiar perspective.  The logic is peculiar.  I think that in any country, even western ones, the more channels for people to let steam off, the more stable the governing body becomes.  The assumption is that the government pays attention to public opinion and actively rectifies its mistakes based upon the feedback from the public.

Therefore, it is very normal for blogs to be an outlet for citizens to vent their feelings.  As to whether this is helping the Communists, it depends on whether the Communists perceive the social crises based upon the expressed discontent and hence take remedial steps.  If so, it will obviously help their rule.

Q: Do you think that the Internet (including the blogs) will help to promote democracy in China?

A: My answer is, Definitely.  I have said many times before that I thank God for bringing the Internet to China.  The Internet allows information to flow more freely.  It has increased the cost of controlling information flow, even making it impossible.  There may be mixed messages on the Internet, including large amounts of false information.  But at the very least, it has broken the monopoly of communication channels.  People can listen to different voices.  There is no longer an absolute authority.  Every person can make his own judgment based upon the various information in his hands.  What I called the age of solo singing has arrived.  Individuals, not groups; diverse, not monolithic.  This is the pre-condition as well as essential characteristic of a democratic society.

Q: What do you think about the Internet controls of the Chinese government?

A: There is no doubt that all nations and governments monitor the Internet, but there are basic differences.  Overall, I think that the Chinese government is somewhat stupid in how it controls the Internet.  First of all, it spends a vast amount of taxpayers’ money to damage the taxpayers’ right to now.  This is illegal.  Also, this counter-trend action may deliver short-term results, but it is a joke in the long run.  Think about what will happen in another ten years.  All Chinese middle schools will have computers.  Every junior high school student is going to know computer technology.  They will know how to jump over the Great Firewall.  What can stop them from seeing what they want to see?

Q: Let us talk about international relations.  Internationally, people like to talk about G2.  Some people say that China has almost caught up to the United States.  What do you think?

A: This is a somewhat old topic.  Frankly, I am Chinese and I obviously want to see my own country grow strong and carry influence internationally.  But I know better and I am clear-headed enough.  The reforms have been working in China for thirty years, and the economy has continued to grow rapidly.  The overall national strength has increased and the international standing has risen.  But China is far from being a strong nation yet.

Firstly, all world strong nations must own both hard and soft powers.  The Roman empire of yore and the United States today are like that.  They must be super-strong economically and militarily, and they must also be inspirational and attractive culturally speaking.  All other nations will admire them.  Recently a 100-year-old man named Zhou Youguang said that the development of China follows normal rules with no miracles or a “Chinese model.”  He was telling the truth.  Our development over the years is based upon bringing in the market economy and leveraging our cheap labor to become the factory for the whole world.  We are facing the big problem of making a transition.  This model won’t attract westerners.  We even want to give it up ourselves, but we find it hard to do so immediately.  So how can we proudly announce the “China model”?

Secondly, all world strong nations must lead and follow global trends.  The United States advocates freedom and democracy all over the world.  They defeated totalitarianism and conservatism in the former Soviet Russia and became the sole superpower.  (Of course, in recent years, American unilateralism has damaged its international image and caused an unprecedented international confidence crisis.  Obama has taken steps to change the situation and we await the results.)  Who could say that China’s practice of democracy has impressed the world?  With respect to these universal values, we have always be shy and evasive; when we speak, we need to provide qualifications and explanations.  We have been talking about “socialist democracy with unique Chinese characteristics” for many years, but we never dare to bring democratic elections into the cities from the rural villages (which have poor civic qualities).  We have been talking about the so-called “democracy inside the party,” but we don’t even dare to run a competitive election for the party secretary-general.  We signed the <International treaty of civil and political rights> in 1998, but the National People’s Congress has yet to approve it.  The Chinese government has been frequently criticized inside and outside China about its failure to protect civil rights.  Overall, it is embarrassing to say that China has not exported any admirable and inspiring values to the rest of the world (beyond the now forsaken “revolutions”)!
Therefore, China is not yet a world strong nation based upon the two reasons mentioned above.  Its influence does not measure up to that of the United States.  It is a regional power at most.  Its influence in Asia has increased a great deal, surpassing Japan.  But it has a long way to go before it can be a global superpower like the United States.

Q: One final question.  Please assume that millions of people will be watching this program.  Can you tell us your views about the future of China?

A: Ha ha, this is not a realistic assumption so I am not worried.  Back to the subject.  I think I want to emphasize that I and myself and many of my friends do not agree with, or even resent, what the Communist Party is doing in reality.  But we don’t want them to collapse overnight.  That would be a catastrophe for China and its people as well as the rest of the world.

The Communist Party has ruled for sixty years.  No other political organization is capable of taking its place.  If it collapses overnight like the former Soviet Union Communist Party, China will be split up and drowned in chaos.  Many of the children of the rich and powerful in China have emigrated overseas.  So it will still be the common folks who will suffer just like before.  The collapse of China will be a catastrophe for the world economy which depends on China.

We hope that the Chinese Communists can introduce reforms under internal and external pressures, at a rate that can keep with the discontent in society.  The construction of a “harmonious society” as advocated by the Communists is not a bad idea but it must be put into action.  I believe that harmony requires reconciliation first.  First of all, the Communist must reconcile with the people whom they have hurt; they must apologize to the people for their past mistakes (if they did right, then it is what they should be doing anyway and requires no special praises).  For example, they must acknowledge the anti-Rightist campaign, the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square incident.  Only when they do so can they clear up the discontent and gain the maximum sympathy.  By turning over the ancient pages of history, they can proceed to write new pages.

Apart from the reconciliation between the party/government and the people, the various social strata must reconcile.  They must not hate each other, they must not hate rich people, they must be wary about populism.  They must tolerate dissent and fight together to protect their legal rights as citizens.
The key to the future of China lies in the hands of the Communist Party.  It will also depend on the individual awakening of the people.  I want the Communist Party to be a responsible political party and I want the people to awaken sooner to give pressure as well as help to the Communist Party.