A recent academic paper ― “China’s Ideological Spectrum” ― written by two young scholars at Harvard and MIT has reignited the debate on the future of the Chinese political system.

After the collapse of the Soviet communist system, scholars have been debating whether the Chinese communist system after Mao will survive or face the same fate as the Soviet system and whether it will transform into a Western type of political system if it survives.

China under the Deng leadership adopted socialism with Chinese characteristics to avoid both collapse and democratization. A popular view influenced by convergence theory is that as China modernizes and economically develops, its political system will become unsustainable because an increasing number of the Chinese people will become Westernized and demand individual rights and democracy. The authors seem to support this view.

Their empirical study shows that as China became more economically developed and modernized, it also got more Westernized. In concrete terms, as the Chinese grew richer and more educated, they have become more politically liberal. Also, a region in the country which is more urbanized and engaged in foreign trade has become more Westernized and politically liberal.

These findings portend that the Chinese will increasingly desire the Western political, economic and socio-cultural values ― such as civil liberty, constitutional democracy, rule of law, free market, less state intervention in the economy, individualism and materialism ― rather than communist ideology and traditional Chinese values ― such as the one-party system, Maoism, nationalism, state control and planning, collectivism and Confucianism.

If this trend continues, the political system with Chinese characteristics will be seriously threatened.

The present Chinese political system is based on a one-party system under a collective leadership, a state-planned and controlled economy with a limited free market, and a collectivist and authoritarian socio-cultural order. The Chinese leadership holds that there is no link between economic development and ideological change and therefore the reform and opening-up development strategy cannot change their political system. However, there is no historical precedent to support this view.

The Soviet Union and its satellite states collapsed, and in most non-Western countries the popular demand for democratic rule is becoming stronger as they modernize and develop economically.

Modernization is a broad movement encompassing political, economic, social and cultural developments. It usually starts with industrialization; industrialization is promoted by science and technology; science and technology can be developed through rational thinking; industrialization leads to urbanization, social mobilization and mass communication; and industrialization requires functional groups rather than primary groups.

On the other hand, Western civilization is characterized by rationalism, spirit of competition, individualism, human rights, secularism and the rule of law.

This shows that the Western values were the driving force for the modernization of the West, particularly for its economic development. This also explains why capitalism and democracy came first to the West.

The former Soviet Union attempted to modernize without being Westernized, but failed. The Chinese leadership attempts to modernize China by accommodating and utilizing the very Western values that can contribute to modernization.

Modernization and industrialization trigger social and cultural changes, which in turn nurture political change. In the case of the West, modernization ― the enlightenment ― began first and led to industrialization, which in turn accelerated democratic development.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is based on the conviction that China can avoid this three-stage historical process. But there is a strong possibility that as China modernizes, more Chinese people will become westernized and challenge the one-party system. In such a situation the Communist leadership will face a serious dilemma: a return to the Maoist regime or gradual democratization. If this view is correct, the greatest challenge to China at present is how to preserve socialism with Chinese characteristics, not the threat from the U.S. or Japan.

North Korea is another communist country which intends to preserve its political system with North Korean characteristics by all means. The North Korean political system is different from the Chinese political system in two respects: One is that its communist leadership is not collective but a one-person dictatorship. Another is that it rejects the Chinese style economic development strategy. It experiments with an extremely limited free market but rejects the Chinese style opening-up strategy.

In this sense, North Korea is a third type of communist country which attempts to achieve industrialization and modernization without Westernization. If the thesis of “China’s Ideological Spectrum” is also valid in the case of North Korea, the absolute majority of the North Koreans must be “conservative” in the sense that they support the one-man communist leadership and collectivism, believe in Juche ideology and are anti-Western because they are poor, not well-educated and enjoy no freedom of movement even though the country is relatively urbanized.

This is the reason why the North Korean leadership maintains its closed door policy as the former Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao did.

So far, the Chinese political system has been successfully modernizing without complete Westernization, but its future still remains uncertain. North Korea now stands at the crossroads to the Western model and the Chinese model. The Western model means the end of the North Korean political system, while the Chinese model will give the North Korean leadership breathing space.

At present, many underdeveloped countries are faced with a similar dilemma as China and North Korea. 

By Park Sang-seek

Park Sang-seek is a former rector of the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University and the author of “Globalized Korea and Localized Globe.” ― Ed.