Political elites in deliberative democracy: beliefs and behaviors of Chinese officials

Abstract

Political leaders and elites play an enormous role in shaping a country's political development. Participatory and deliberative governance represents a major trend of political development around the world; while many studies focus on the ordinary people involved in public deliberation, little is known about the roles elites play in facilitating or impeding the progress of this deliberation. Utilizing a new survey on Chinese officials, we offer the first empirical study that reveals Chinese officials’ perceptions and practices of deliberative democracy. We find that cultural and political traditions alongside personal and social factors have deeply shaped elites’ understandings of democracy, especially the new socialist deliberative democracy. Chinese officials understand democracy largely according to the Confucian tradition of minben and the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) political heritage of mass line, both of which emphasize that officials should listen to the people and make benevolent policies for them. While many embrace the significance of deliberative institutions for improving democratic governance, others emphasize the pragmatic value of consolidating the status quo, or believe it is merely a political show. Democratic oriented officials in the Chinese sense – those who view themselves as servants of the people who should respond to their needs, value public input, are willing to converse with the people in an equal manner, and are less concerned about risks in social stability – are more likely to engage the public in daily decision-making through various channels. Our study suggests that different practices of authoritarian deliberation may lead toward distinct prospects for democracy.

The Influence of the Ruling Elite on Political Activity in the Conditions of Destructuring the Essence of the Philosophy of Law

“…The main problems of the formation of the elite and the political class of the countries of Eastern Europe, in particular Ukraine, are advisable to include (Zhang & Meng, 2018): oligarchization of elite groups, their alienation from other strata of society and transforma-Mykhailo KELMAN, Myroslava KRISTINYAK, Iryna ANDRUSIAK, Sergii PANCHENKO, Rostyslav KELMAN tion into a closed privileged caste. This process was most striking during the transition from communist-nomenclature totalitarianism to post-communist-nomenclature neo-totalitarianism; the negative influence of the phenomenon of the "party of power" Ŕ special institutions, which are characterised by a high degree of mutual responsibility and clan obligations, a tendency towards authoritarianism, a combination of the nomenklatura and oligarchy, the state apparatus and property; de-ideologisation of party programs of political parties and movements contributes to the growth of electoral support; a gradual decrease in the permanent public "war of elites" and their consolidation around the possibilities of using state-administrative resources in order to satisfy their selfish interests by monopolising specific segments of client-patronage networks, their change and redistribution; the desire of a large number of people to join the elite and acquire a significant social status, despite the lack of the necessary natural talents and possible potential, by obtaining a prestigious education or profession or "enrolling" to a passing place on the party"s electoral list, supposedly open the way to "a brilliant career"; creation of favourable conditions for the purposeful manipulation of the consciousness of the broad masses of the electorate due to the neglect of the law, the dominant role of the individual over society in the conditions of total computerisation and globalisation.…”

Authoritarian deliberation revisited

“…Indeed, as we found, officials, constrained by imperative policy goals and tight project deadlines, also endorse ‘deliberative’ values such as fairness, ‘public-mindedness’ and adherence to collective interest (He, 2014, 64; Niu, and Wagenaar, 2018). Interestingly, many Chinese officials believe in the intrinsic value of democracy based on their understanding of Confucian peoplehood ( Menben ) and the Party's mass line, and these officials tend to support and endorse public deliberation out of faith, rather than purely acting on instrumental grounds (Zhang and Meng, 2018). Future studies need to trace the intellectual transformation from an instrumental to intrinsic understanding of democracy among Chinese elites and citizens , which holds a key for Chinese democratic development.…”

“…If we want deliberative democracy to be more than a convenient way to produce consent among the population, it is imperative that we understand how these officials view, endorse, or resist deliberative democracy and also how they develop and implement public policies through deliberation. This understanding is critical in order to further develop the cause of deliberative democracy (Zhang and Meng, 2018).…”