On Alternative Political Parties in China

First, before we can discuss this topic, we have to briefly understand how officeholders are elected in the PRC. The PRC political system is composed of a series of indirect elections in which one People's Congress appoints the members of the next higher congress. In this voting system voters dirctly elect an assembly based on popular vote, which in turn elects the major officeholders from amongst themselves. The PRC is, of course, not alone in the use of this system. The Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe and NATO also employ this method, and so does the U.S. Presidential election, with the indirect vote from the Electoral college the sole determinant of the victor. Of all elective methods it is the most dissatisfying, of course. It's only marginally representitive and is, in broad scale elections, highly suppressive of popular will.

There are five central and local levels of people's congresses in China: 1) the National People's Congress, 2) the people's congresses of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government, 3) the people's congresses of cities divided into districts, and autonomous prefectures, 4) the people's congresses of cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, counties and autonomous counties, and 5) the people's congresses of townships, ethnic minority townships and towns. "The people's congresses at all levels are constituted through democratic elections" says News Guandong, an official newsbody from where I gathered the above sawdust. But as Bao Tong points out (during his most recent comments read on RFA, 2008-07-08), “It is a pack of bureaucrats nominated by the Communist Party, whose names have been picked out of a mechanical ‘election’ process, who have been given a franchise on state power, with no competition.”

In China only the lowest People's Congresses are subject to direct popular vote. This means that although independent members can theoretically get elected to the lowest level of congress (and occasionally in practice do), it is impossible for them to organize to the point where they can elect members to the next higher people's congress without the approval of the CCP. Therefore, they are not able to exercise oversight over executive positions at the lowest level in the hierarchy. This lack of effective power also discourages outsiders from contesting the people's congress elections even at the lowest level.

Thus, only one political party, the CCP, holds effective power at the national level, though eight minor parties also participate in a token fashion within the political system under the leadership of the dominant party. The PRC political system allows for the participation of some non-party members and those affiliated with minor parties in the NPC, but they are vetted by the CCP. In almost all cases those individuals do not satisfy the Party's criteria for "suitability".

A further damper to the ambitions of an outside party is that there is no provision in the PRC constitution which would give non-CCP political parties any corporate status. This means that a hypothetical opposition party would have no legal means to collect funds or own property in the name of a party. More importantly, PRC law also has a wide range of offenses which can and have been used against the leaders of efforts to form an opposition party such as the China Democracy Party, and against members of organizations that the CCP sees as threatening its power. These include the crimes of subversion, sedition and releasing "state secrets" (a buzz word that the Party uses a lot for anything it finds incriminating of itself). Moreover, the control that the Party has over the legislative and judicial processes means that the Party can author legislation that targets a particular group it doesn't find "suitable".

The argument that the CCP uses to defend single party rule is fallacy of necessity for the ages: without it in power the country would fall apart. A different party in power would ensure that the country had, indeed, fallen apart, ergo; no other party can rule because the country would fall apart. There is also the bare assertion that this is true because the Party says it's true. Consequently, by suppressing a free media and other political organisations, finding alternatives to governing the nation more pluralistically become, well, let's just say, exceedingly difficult. The Chinese are brilliant logicians.

Credit to Wikipedia Authors: "Alternative Political Parties in China"

Introduction, part III

This page has a higher aim then merely arbitrary Panda mugging of the precious and deeply sensitive Chinese. It is a loud beckon for a world beyond the industrial Capitalist/Communist ethos; a program of exploitation run on behalf of mega-industrialists, financiers, and Party officials who diabolically bend society to meet the ends of business and state in both China and the West.

Behind both is modern state authoritarianism, be it the bold, reckless and clearly visible manifestation of it in China or the more subtle and sinister manifestation of it in the West. In calling for a move beyond what is clearly in our day an absurd conjunction between Capitalist and Communist agendas, where one hand has provided the much needed capitol, know-how, and markets and the other the much needed cheap and tractable labor, there is a clear realization that both systems hold their citizens in line through a hegemonic education system and establismentarian media (not to mention an array of police mechanisms) that conditions them to become docile workers and consumers, and that this system is mostly indiscernible to those it bends into obedient and subordinate shape.

Together they form a total institution, one with the characteristics of a contemporary cruise line; Chinese workers way below deck tending the engines of production and living just above the bilges, and layers of Western workers and consumers in higher cabins, unaware of the extent to which they are really and actually being controlled, even constrained, within an environment of “luxury and security” designed to subtly manipulate their behavior in accordance with the wishes that the “Captains of Industry” that were carefully formulated back in the days of the American robber barons. Docile and complacent, crew and patron alike are being transported on this neurotic voyage into an ice floe by the sociopaths who pilot this titanic mess. Blithely the violins play a swan song on this sinking ship.

This is the boat we are all in. This page hopes to somehow point to global prospects that transcend “business as usual”; in short, to an entirely new paradigm that could exist if the industrial Capitalist/Communist ethos were ever to be tossed in the historical recycling bin. I will admit, an ambitious - and for now ill-defined project - but one very good start on this long road toward a positive global shift would be an immediate end to any further foreign investment in China, and the definite halt in the production of any further foreign sponsored factories in China. The West needs to somehow put distance between itself and China. I confess, how this could be done and whether this could be done given the enormous scale of current investment I can't say. There shall be later meditations on this matter.

Introduction, continued.

All web logs are dialectical in kind, only varying in degree. This page will have, en suite, a thesis/antithesis approach to the matter of China, or rather, a synthesis will be drawn out of paralleling America and China, at their worst, on a regular basis. This page, which could have as easily been called “Bilateral Cemeteries” as “Chinese Ant Farm”, will quite often have a feature entry under that former rubric that will just as scathingly rip America to shreds for each and every of its ill-deeds as it will China’s. There will always be an overarching understanding of the American government's international, eh-hmm, "foibles", and further, an awareness of certain Western attitudes and actions that are at the heart of many of this world’s problems. I don't want to be accused of "the pot calling the kettle black". They're both black, and I will often criticize them in the same post. China, however, will receive the major share of the criticism due to its bleaker socio-political existence. Partisan though as I am against China, I will still strive to deal with it as fairly and objectively as I can, but I warn you, there is venom in my pen for this country. It will be my main personal responsibility to keep it from leaking too profusely onto the page.

Thus, the fair tactic of this page will have no need of begging pardon from anyone who holds a pro-China stance, particularly be they a rustic Chinese “intellectual” from Beijing working on his Master’s in Industrial Groupthink who has never received the slightest bit of training in genuine critical thinking (and will babble the protective mantra from all foreign evil, “you don’t understand China”…as if there were something arcane and unfathomable to understand about it beyond the dark, pervasive mystery of its gross ineptitude itself) or from a Western ex-pat from some unremarkable place on the soft, squishy side of liberalism who’s intellectual processes have been permanently adulterated by the ‘80’s PC movement (heaven forbid I encounter one steeped in "cultural neutrality" who will probably babble similar nonsense as his Chinese counterpart)- or even, but perhaps unlikely - from one of the Western business elite who walk a tight line on their own business blogs and elsewhere, never uttering more than a brief sentence of highly dissembled criticism of the Chinese for fear that it might ruin their business prospects if it ever got out what they really think. They will definitely question my position that China needs to cease being invested in and enriched in anyway.

But my hard line stance is this: no apology is needed because the more one truly understands the benighted legacy of China's ancient feudal value system and its continuance into its present day authoritarian police state, its impending environmental collapse due to ineptitude and greed (be it from having over-produced factories or having mindlessly over-reproduced children), and its increasingly questionable actions on the world stage, particularly in Africa, the more one realizes how greatly suspect an entity China is - and that this message needs to be pronounced loud and clear on the internet - whether some, such as the above, will like it or not. I assure you, I understand China just fine.

All the same, each and all are invited, should they ever find this address, to respond to this and subsequent postings. I will aim my best to rejoin every rebuttal accordingly, if only that I might assist each out of their delusion, being the Bodhisattva of Wrath that I am.

Introduction

This, the debut essay of Chinese Ant Farm, initiates an unapologetic, hard line anti-China stance on the China blogosphere. It will be decisive, unhesitating, and virtually relentless in its condemnation of China, but will come from what will have to be realized in time as a progressive position, though no doubt there will be some who will refute that.

Its advent is born from five years of expatriate experience. With it I have finally decided to pronounce a verdict on what I have discerned after residing in all of Greater China, save Macao, at one length of time or another. Very early on in my expatriation, which began in Taiwan back in '91, I arrived at the conclusion that the Chinese, as denizens of the “modern industrial world”, had created a complete human fiasco on nearly countless levels, one simply unmatched in scope, in my opinion, by anywhere else in the world.

This conclusion has only increased in magnitude and certainty over time, and despite much introspection that has sought to arrive at a more wholesome disposition toward this corner of the globe, still find that what my reason reports regarding it to be unimpeachable- and that this antipathy will not be departing any time soon.

Nevertheless, I will strive to approach the subject of China with as much dignity and compassion as I may. Given the name of this blog and its predominant bias, that may not always be clear or evident.
.