This has become necessary, with China’s meteoric growth, still under the ruthless stewardship of the Communist Party, in recent decades, to re-examine the very architecture of authoritarian rule, which, somehow or in any other way, as long-malignant remnant of the past, a seemingly existing, even ominous model of high statecraft.
The country has turned into an economic power plant in the world which used to be a poor agrarian society. China is the world’s second-largest economy in terms of nominal GDP. The given World Bank data, presents number of Chinese people living, <$ 1.90/day between 1980-2020, has decreased by about 770–800 million people. Nevertheless, this change has presented a question to observers whether there is more effective way to take a state-guided market orientation under one-party regime in China.
Economic Development under Party Rule
Chinese economic performance is impressive, as the world’s manufacturing centre. The country had spent heavily on infrastructure, education and technology. The GDP of a country has now increased by 10% every year for decades, due to which millions of middle-class category have entered country. This growth has attracted attention from all over the world and has shaped the popular acceptance of governance among the people. People have credited the Communist Party and Xi Jinping for giving jobs, increasing standard of living and boosting national power. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, uses performance as justification for its monopoly, emphasising “high-quality development” and economic prosperity for all. In reality, the state still maintains influence over important industries and balances market reforms with state guidance by directing growth through industrial strategy and five-year plans.
Still, the question remains of ‘Which model is better?’ Even the Chinese economic model has its own drawbacks. The slower recent growth and the ageing population raise a concern. Scholar Christopher Colley makes the crucial observation that few, if any, countries have been successful in imitating China’s experience and that there is no clear “model” for other nations to follow: “There is no agreement on what exactly the China ‘model’ is.” He makes the point that global data do not show that the dictatorship has outperformed democracies in development; indeed, democracy tends to do better on average. In simple words, the quick development of China shows that, under some circumstances, an authoritarian government may achieve rapid growth, but it does not indicate that autocracy is the best or only path to success.
Xi Jinping’s Centralisation of Power
The turn of Xi Jinping was a turning point towards a tighter authoritarian regime in China. During the last ten years, many of the institutional safeguards established by his predecessors have been diminished by him. In the year 2018, he had the legislature abolish presidential term limits, which gave him the power to rule indefinitely. With the end of his first term, people described him as the most powerful leader after Mao Zedong. To make sure the power filtered up to Xi, the authority to make decisions was transferred from the government departments to Communist Party committees, which are directly responsible to Xi.
The reinforcement of centralisation was done with different measures, such as ideological campaigns, strict party discipline, and a sweeping anti-corruption drive, by assigning more than a million officials for this purpose, which included the senior general and rivals. Even if these measures strengthened party unity and eliminated factional checks, they also decreased avenues for internal debate and fostered a personality cult. Critics say that with such power in the hands of one individual, errors in the economy or foreign policy will go unpunished. One-man rule has its advantages and disadvantages in the way Xi does things. On the one hand, institutional flexibility and pluralism are reduced. Alternatively, decisions must be fast and regular.
Authoritarian Stability and Legitimacy
It has been argued that China’s model brings stability. With a focus on preserving order, CCP demonstrates its regulations as performance-based and tends to impose them through programmes like the “social credit” system and surveillance. To most Chinese, especially the older generations, sacrificing some of their rights to feel safe and prosperous appears reasonable. Chinese legitimacy is the absolute opposite of democratic legitimacy. Liberal systems have the power to protect rights and electoral consent. Conversely, the CCP relies on ideology, economic outcomes and nationalism. The official discourse now champions “whole-process people’s democracy”, which in reality refers to highly regulated involvement as opposed to free elections. Scholars suggest that model provides effective, technocratic “benevolent authoritarianism” as an option where democracies seems to be deadlocked.
In the entire world, the success of China unsettles theory of modernisation that held that economic development would lead to democracy. However, comparative studies indicate that authoritarian governments are not always superior to democracies. Stable democracies that have robust institutions and the rule of law tend to have more permanent growth and innovation. China has demonstrated that it is possible to attain rapid development using authoritarianism, and that inadequate checks can also make one vulnerable.
Conclusion
The China of Xi Jinping is an ideal demonstration of the strengths and weaknesses of centralised rule. The system describes the rapid judgment and state ability. Also, its longevity lies in the judgment of one leader. ‘Whether such governance can adapt in the long run or whether liberal democracies’ – is a question that is not yet fully resolved and this is why the question of whether messier but more lasting institutions prevail is shaping the debate on legitimacy and progress in the twenty-first century.
