The history of the United States is so short that most Americans are ignorant of regime cycles and blindly optimistic about the status quo. In fact, any regime or political system has a life span, which can be as short as a few years or as long as a few hundred years. It will eventually be replaced by another regime or system. (See America Is in Big Trouble.)
But with thousands of years of history the Chinese understood that well. China has gone through thirty-one dynasties since its unification under the Qin (pronounced chin) Dynasty in 221 BC. Among them, the nine longest-lived dynasties that ruled all of China are the Western Han Dynasty, 231 years, the Eastern Han Dynasty, 195 years, the Tang Dynasty, 289 Years, the Eastern Jin Dynasty, 103 years, the Northern Song Dynasty, 167 years, the Southern Song Dynasty, 152 years, the Yuan Dynasty, 162 years, the Ming Dynasty, 276 years, and the Qing Dynasty, 295 years. The rest are all less than a hundred years.
Every dynasty at its inception achieved a balance acceptable to all interest groups and political factions through redistribution of power, land, and wealth. Over time, that balance would be broken. Land was annexed again by the landlord class, wealth was reconcentrated into the hands of a few, and political power was seized by the new wealthy to serve their own interests. When most people lost the means of production, the economy lost vitality. At the same time the regime was depraved by corruption, weakened by factionalism and partisan fights, alienated into oligarchy, plutocracy, dictatorship, tyranny, militarism, etc. Bad governance and mismanagement such as profligacy, corruption, militancy, overspending, excessive taxation, heavy debts, uncontrolled issuance of currency, etc., eventually led to political, economic and financial failures, which often were intensified by natural disasters, plagues, foreign invasions, rebellions, etc., causing the regime to collapse. The life span of a dynasty might vary, but the regime would peril regardless. Three hundred years is the upper limit of how long it takes for a regime to decay. In China, no dynasty, even among the most successful ones, survived for more than three hundred years. (See Democracy vs. Plutocracy.)
From their long history the Chinese have learned many things that countries with a short history do not know. For example, a country with a short history often pursues a policy of plundering, exploiting and bullying the weak, but the Chinese understand that the ultimate winner must be the one with justice, fairness, moral integrity, and support from the people. (See Understanding China: Geography, Confucianism, and Chinese-Style Modernization.) Based on this knowledge the Chinese instituted their current government, the People’s Republic of China. It is a government that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people, aimed at the well-being and prosperity of all its citizens rather than a small number of landlords, industrial tycoons and bankers. History has also taught the Chinese that one major cause of regime cycles is land annexation. To forestall the gradual concentration of resources in the hands of a few, land in China has been nationalized and distributed to the people for use, but buy and sale of land is prohibited. The Chinese also learned that the dominance of capital over politics is a cause of corruption that leads to regime cycles. The state must put capital under state supervision on behalf of the people and not allow capital to influence political decisions in favor of the special interests. History has also taught the Chinese that equality and common prosperity are the foundation of social stability; therefore, the government provides people with policies, opportunities, projects, and financial and technical supports to help them be successful in all kinds of business ventures, but prohibits them to use competitive advantages to form monopoly and cut off other people’s opportunities. This approach harnesses individual initiative while maintaining state oversight of capital to safeguard the interests of all people. That way, China has eliminated poverty, become the world's largest manufacturing powerhouse, and created the world’s largest middle class population.
History has also taught the Chinese to prevent regime cycles through good governance, meritocracy, collective leadership and continuous reform. They select officials with both high moral integrity and practical abilities based on long-term reviews of the candidate's character and performance, and have continuously carried out reforms to address the shortcomings within the system. These reforms include clean government, self-correction, collective decision making, disciplinary inspections, anti-corruption, people's supervision of the government, whistle-blowing and petitioning systems, age and term limits for officials, and impeachment procedures, etc. Political decisions are made by consensus through research, inquiry, consultation and discussion rather than partisan fight. Thousands of years of political experiences have made the Chinese deeply aware of the dangers of partisan politics. Parties only represent the special interests. Partisan fights severely weaken the government’s ability to govern and cause deep divisions among the people. Rotation in power by opposing parties leads to incoherent policies and makes long-term planning impossible. Voters are not always well-informed and rational, and can be easily manipulated by empty promises, emotional incitement and misinformation. The elected politicians tend to be sensational and lack moral and practical experience in governing. They work more for their donors and their own re-election than the long-term interests of the people. The current administration often takes irresponsible actions such as overspending, over borrowing and overprinting of money to benefit its own tenure, leaving disastrous consequences to future administrations. Without continuous reforms, these myopic practices motivated by self-interest will make a regime impossible to escape its historical cycle. (See Pluralism vs. Monism.)
No comments:
Post a Comment