Guy Sorman: China's Next Revolution
[Mr. Sorman, a contributing editor at City Journal, is the author of 20 books on French politics and international affairs as well as “Empire of Lies: The Truth About China in the Twenty-First Century” (Encounter Books, 2008).]
The Chinese Communist leaders would like the rest of the world to believe that China is a unique historical and economic case. Are we to understand China based on some universal rules of human evolution? Or should we share a Sinocentric interpretation of everything that happens in this supposedly different civilization? It seems to me that China is, of course, different, as any nation is, but she does follow a well-known cycle which already took place in the West. Thus, Alexis de Tocqueville could be more relevant today to understand where China stands than Confucius.
In "The Ancien Régime and the Revolution" (1856), the book that followed “Democracy in America," Tocqueville explained how the French became more hostile to their monarchy as their prosperity and freedom increased. He rightly described this paradox as a cycle of rising expectations. When the French were poor, oppressed and hopeless, they would remain quiet, except for some local rebellions here and there, and they would support the king.
Toward the late 18th century, increased prosperity and a more tolerant regime made the French restless; when the people start tasting freedom, they do not tolerate any more restrictions.
This could very well be the case in China today.
As we know, the Communist Party argues that its political monopoly and enlightened despotism is the reason for China’s relative new wealth. It is also true that the Chinese are more free today than they were during the Mao Zedong regime: thousands of dissidents are in jail, but this cannot be compared with the past Laogaï. It is now tolerated to express individual opinions in China, even to criticize the Party, as long you do not create an anti-Party organization.
Non-Chinese observers familiar with China often conclude that the Chinese never had it better; therefore, stability and Communist monopoly should prevail. If this is the case, how do we explain the collective rebellions which took place in Tibet, in Sichuan after the earthquake, in Guizou after the murder of a young girl?
Tocqueville helps us to better understand the link between these separated events: the Chinese, because they never had it better, are more and more frustrated. They will not be grateful to the Party; they better get rid of the Party. But nobody knows how to replace the Party?
This as well resembles the French situation on the eve of the revolution. Initially, the French philosophers and new political leaders believed that the monarchy could be improved: a Constitution was adopted, the rule of law was proclaimed. But the monarchy crumbled because despotism cannot that easily be improved....
Read entire article at Far Eastern Economic Review
The Chinese Communist leaders would like the rest of the world to believe that China is a unique historical and economic case. Are we to understand China based on some universal rules of human evolution? Or should we share a Sinocentric interpretation of everything that happens in this supposedly different civilization? It seems to me that China is, of course, different, as any nation is, but she does follow a well-known cycle which already took place in the West. Thus, Alexis de Tocqueville could be more relevant today to understand where China stands than Confucius.
In "The Ancien Régime and the Revolution" (1856), the book that followed “Democracy in America," Tocqueville explained how the French became more hostile to their monarchy as their prosperity and freedom increased. He rightly described this paradox as a cycle of rising expectations. When the French were poor, oppressed and hopeless, they would remain quiet, except for some local rebellions here and there, and they would support the king.
Toward the late 18th century, increased prosperity and a more tolerant regime made the French restless; when the people start tasting freedom, they do not tolerate any more restrictions.
This could very well be the case in China today.
As we know, the Communist Party argues that its political monopoly and enlightened despotism is the reason for China’s relative new wealth. It is also true that the Chinese are more free today than they were during the Mao Zedong regime: thousands of dissidents are in jail, but this cannot be compared with the past Laogaï. It is now tolerated to express individual opinions in China, even to criticize the Party, as long you do not create an anti-Party organization.
Non-Chinese observers familiar with China often conclude that the Chinese never had it better; therefore, stability and Communist monopoly should prevail. If this is the case, how do we explain the collective rebellions which took place in Tibet, in Sichuan after the earthquake, in Guizou after the murder of a young girl?
Tocqueville helps us to better understand the link between these separated events: the Chinese, because they never had it better, are more and more frustrated. They will not be grateful to the Party; they better get rid of the Party. But nobody knows how to replace the Party?
This as well resembles the French situation on the eve of the revolution. Initially, the French philosophers and new political leaders believed that the monarchy could be improved: a Constitution was adopted, the rule of law was proclaimed. But the monarchy crumbled because despotism cannot that easily be improved....