Defining CCP Legitamacy
"When Yuan Shi-Kai proclaimed his emperorship in less than four years after the Republican Revolution of 1911, there almost existed no such a thing as "political legitimacy" in modern China. The failure of the Nationalist government to deliver what they had promised led to a common belief, at least amongst the Chinese Communists, that the Nationalist government by no means could have gained political legitimacy through the efforts of reform and that a revolution was the only way to establish the political legitimacy of a regime. "
--Tak-Hin Benjamin
http://people.brandeis.edu/~hin/POL147a03.html
For all the talk on the blog and in class of Chinese political reform, pluralism, civil liberties, etc.,
I submit that the bottom line on whether a government is legitmate rests solely on whether or not it sucessfully acheives that which is the purpose of government: the prosperity and physical security of the people. Standard of living, due process, rule of law, employment and the like are
conceptualizations that measure how secure is a person's physical freedom, how secure is his property and land, how secure is his ability to become educated, to work, to make a living, how secure he is from arbitrary arrest or torture. Government really has no other purpose than that. While democracy, specifically pluralism and free speech have their virtues, typically there value lies in one's ability to complain against the status quo, to oppose current regimes policies as they affect individual wellness. Should the CCP achieve a decent standard of living for all of its people, in a society free from fear of government oppression, I think the need for pluralism and whether the regime is elected largely becomes moot. Any government that does not "get the job done", thus posesses a legitamacy deficit. The CCP should be warey of the fact that the frustration and struggling of over one billion people will erupt on a massive scale sooner or later.
posted by Chiang Kaishek @ 3:29 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I agree with this post. And I agree that China falls short, especially when it comes to standard of living (in rural areas) and due process.
But there is enough prosperity in enough areas to give hope to the general populace, while the rest lives in fear of protesting for change.
Fear -- if there is enough of it -- provides security even for a government in a legitamcy defecit.
That is true, if people live in fear of their government, they aren’t going to complain much. So the government doesn’t feel compelled to change policies, because the population seems “fine” with the current situation since they aren’t raising a fuss about anything.
So are you making a claim of whether the government of China is legit or not? I don't seem to understand your claim. Because I think the CPC is legit because it provides for the people.
I disagree with jimmyfallen. If whether a government is legitimate or not rests soley on whether or not it sucessfully achieves the purpose of government like the prosperity and physical security of the people, I would say the Chinese goverment is not legitimate because it does not succeed in terms of the purpose of government. Of course, it achieved somewhat prosperity and thus allows the people to enjoy better standard of living. However, does it recognize individual's physical freedom? We all know very well basic rights the Chinese people have not been guaranteed.
However, I would say judgement on legitimacy of a nation should not be decided by this one aspect: whether a government completes its responsibility without any problems. Every nation has problems: unemployment, income gap between the rich and the poor, corruption and on and on. No government is perfect so we can not say a government is not legitimate when it fails to solve those problems perfectly.
According to the definition provided, the Chinese Government is not legitimate. The CCP is not "getting the job done" (as outlined in the post) and is therfore suffering or about to suffer a legitimacy deficit. I think that China that exists and the China that is defined by the Chinese government are two different things. I agree with this post and expect to see some ideological changes in the future (no time soon) that align the two China's into one.
I think true legitimacy is determined by fulfilling a social contract with the people. The people voluntarily give up some of their freedoms in order to benefit from a central government. I think a huge part of that is the power of the people to review how their government is living up to this contract and change their government when it's not fulfilling its part. The CCP is suppressing the people's right to have a say in government. Just that simple fact already makes the government illegitimate in my book.
Post a Comment
<< Home