The Chinese Dream

As the founder of the Kuomintang, Sun-Yat Sen put forth many of his visions in the party's enacted policies. One of the core elements of his ideology was the theory of the "Three Phases of the Fundamentals of National Reconstruction". This was the dominant theory at the time on how the KMT was to secure power and enact a modern state in China. The first phase was military rule/revolution, the second phase was political tutelage (党国）, and the third phase was constitutional government. The first and third phases are relatively easy to interpret. Military rule was necessary to ensure that the KMT was actually able to unite the country and defeat the disparate warlords, along with the imperial government. The third phase is also intuitive - Sun-Yat Sen envisioned a multi-party democratic state to be implemented in China. Indeed, it is the second phase that is the most controversial. Political tutelage is characterized by a period of one-party rule, by which economic and political stability could be achieved. Sun envisioned this period of rule to be completely dominated by the KMT to "lay the groundwork" for a democratic society to be implemented in China. This vision of the three phases obviously never occurred. But before getting into why I want to talk about Sen's perspective in this regard. 

Sen seems to imply that the priority of any state ought to be the safeguarding of human freedom. This includes principles of freedom (freedom of speech, right to vote, etc.), as well as applied freedom (i.e freedom from disease, freedom to survive, etc.). In fact, he credits Chinese economic development in the 80s and 90s to its high literacy rate. In particular, he mentions that "when China turned to marketization in 1979, it already had a highly literate people...in this respect, China was not very far from the basic educational situation in South Korea or Taiwan" (42). However, the way Sen interpreted this result and the way many Chinese nationalists had interpreted this result is significantly different. Sen seems to imply that the applied freedoms the Chinese government implemented were simply a part of a whole. That is, if all freedoms, including principles of freedom, were implemented, all aspects of human freedom could be maximized. This includes traditional economic returns and utilities. More importantly, it gives agency to the people on where they want the economy, which affects them the most, to head.  

Many modern Chinese intellectuals, including Sun-Yat Sen, seem to have another interpretation of Sen's analysis. It seems that in ensuring the existence of applied freedoms, authoritarianism, at least initially, necessarily exists. The argument goes, that only an authoritarian state is able to create the sort of assertive policy that is able to guarantee massive literacy rates, massive healthcare systems, etc. As Zac and others have pointed out, authoritarianism guarantees the sort of macro-policies necessary to ensure long-term economic returns, in part through the mobilization and implementation of large-scale policies. 

This latter account, when applied, however, seems to be categorically untrue. As the failure of the Chiang Kai-Shek government, the Great Leap Forward, and other policies shows us, authoritarianism acts as more of a band-aid in response to short-term pain, rather than a long-term catalyst. Even the current Chinese system, which at the outset has seen consistent economic growth, is plagued by issues inherent to the authoritarian system. Issues with state-run monopolies, corruption, nepotism, and more recently, demographic issues stemming from the one-child policy, indicate that bursts of economic growth from authoritarianism seem to be always negated by problems within the system. On the contrary, the presence of democratic institutions is a self-correcting mechanism. The sheer possibility of being voted out of office, and the ability for people to vote for their self-interests, inherently self-corrects issues within society. These could be seen in economic issues, but also social issues, such as the tradition vs. modernity example pointed out by Sen. This ability to self-diagnose and self-correct is the root of the attractiveness of the liberal system, and the deviation from such a policy is the reason why Chinese history has been marred by instability. Indeed, the secret to the Chinese dream is stable, democratic institutions that could ensure societal development and the development of rights. The economic growth of that society would soon follow as a byproduct.