Most Chinese love their central Government.
What do you say, "they can possibly like a totalitarian government that suppresses their normal freedoms!?" Yet, a 2016 study from Harvard University's Ash Center took a long-term view of how Chinese citizens view their government at the national, regional and local levels It was the longest academic survey of Chinese public opinion conducted by a research institution outside of China.
95.5 percent of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the central government in Beijing. In contrast to these findings, Gallup reported in January 2020 that only 38 percent of U.S. citizen satisfaction with the American federal government. Yet, the numbers were reversed in respect of local government
At the township level, the lowest level of government surveyed, only 11.3 percent of Chinese respondents reported that they were “very satisfied” - whereas a 2017 Gallup poll found that 70 percent of U.S. respondents had a “great” or “fair” amount of trust in local government.
The Harvard survey team suggested several possible explanations for Chinese respondents viewing the central government in Beijing so favourably including: the proximity of central government from rural citizens and highly positive news proliferated throughout the country. Whereas, as we have observed, town planning and local government ordinances are the principal aspects of government interacting Chinese citizens day-to-day. China typically has three levels of government but there can be up to five. Local government is locally elected. As elsewhere in the world, representatives and officials are frequently accused of corrupt or self-serving practises and Beijing is relied on to sort these out.
Other Harvard related papers make interesting reading about China. Those interested should read What the West Gets Wrong About China in the Harvard Business Review that, among other things, suggests that despite Capitalist and free-market economic elements, Marx and Lenin remain strong influences in China; and that many Chinese people view Communist authoritarianism as advantageous.
Yet, work like this has had a downside for the University.
According to The New York Times:
| "President Trump has portrayed Harvard’s ties to China as a national security risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called for an investigation into the university’s ties with a Chinese company whose leader had been subject to American sanctions over its treatment of workers, which could lead to criminal charges.
Now Harvard’s ties with China are coming back to haunt the university. Those connections were forged when Harvard was more financially vulnerable and when much of the foreign policy establishment believed that higher education could play a part in pushing America’s democratic ideals to China and the rest of the world. But American foreign policy has turned sharply hawkish against China, and even though Harvard has steadily reduced its ties there, the Trump administration has made the relationship another line of attack in its broader effort to bring the university to heel. The administration has stripped away billions of dollars in federal research funding and is trying to revoke its right to host international students and also end its nonprofit tax status." - How Harvard’s Ties to China Helped Make It a White House Target |
Meanwhile, China has a couple of serious Public Relations hurdles to overcome in the West.
According to the BBC:
| "China’s mass detention and surveillance of ethnic Uyghurs turned Xinjiang into a global symbol of forced labour and human rights abuses, prompting both the United States and the European Union to adopted laws aimed at preventing consumers and businesses from funding the persecution of Uyghurs in China. But the Chinese government has found a way around the ban — by moving more Uyghurs to jobs in factories outside Xinjiang. A joint investigation by The New York Times, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Der Spiegel found that state-led programs to ship Uyghur workers out of Xinjiang are much more extensive than previously known. China has placed Uyghurs in factories across the country that make a wide range of goods used in brand-name products around the world, the investigation found. And it has done so with little to no visibility for supply-chain auditors or border and customs officials charged with spotting labor abuses and blocking the import of tainted goods. These state-run labour transfer programs pose a significant challenge. It may be possible to target imports from Xinjiang, but tracking the relocation and treatment of workers from Xinjiang to factories across China is a much more difficult endeavour." |
This is seen as symptomatic of a general lack of concern for civil rights and freedoms. The list of examples is too long to include here. Several involve policies anathema to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
While China has ratified several Human Rights Treaties, there are several it has not. Among these are Protocols against: torture; enforced disappearance; capital punishment; or the 'International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families'. Maybe they will ratify these when the US does?
Another issue is State surveillance. China, unapologetically, monitors its citizens for signs of troublemaking; actions against the State; or antipathetic media. On previous trips we've been unable to use Google Maps or US based search engines. It was called the 'Great Firewall of China'. This time it was all there. But I did note that one of my Facebook posts failed to see the light of day. It commented on the compulsory acquisition of some traditional housing to make way for further development in Shanghai (not particularly controversial I would have thought - a common practice worldwide).
Further, China is not a Democracy. It's most often described, and self-described, as a one-party dictatorship.
Yet, that doesn't mean that they don't elect representatives and officials at each level of government. Constitutionally, any citizen can stand in the elections for any level of Government. To quote from the official website:
| "All citizens of the People’s Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of ethnic background, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education level, property status or length of residence. People who have been deprived of their political rights according to law do not have the right to vote and stand for election. One voter has only one vote in each election." |
The National People’s Congress is one such elected body, with about 3,000 delegates (not all of them are Communist Party members), is the top governing body of the Chinese government. Its main job is to write laws and supervise the government.
But the Communist Party of China (CPC) totally dominates the elected assemblies. The CPC has a pyramid structure, with Xi Jinping at the top and over 4 million grassroots branches at the bottom, with a collective total of some 89 million members, by far, the largest political party in the world. To reach the Politburo party members must ascend through the ranks, through ability and/or guile. It's rather like the Roman Catholic Church.
In practice, it is the CPC's Politburo, that appoints the President and controls every government department, military force, court, and parliamentary meeting in China. The Politburo consists of 25 members, including seven on the Politburo Standing Committee (the seven most powerful men in China) who's decisions affect every facet of life. Many of them are close to Xi Jinping and his allies. Some hold other high roles in the government, party, or military.
Thus, Xi Jinping, is President, not because he was democratically elected by the people, but because he is General Secretary of the CPC. For a more detailed explanation: Click Here...
So, it's not a free country and it's not a Democracy.