Economic and Political Studies
Vol. 1, No. 1, January 2013, ??-??
Deliberative Democracy in China: A Sociology
of Knowledge Perspective
HUOSHENG TAN*
Abstract: This paper analyzes from the perspective of the
sociology of knowledge how the theory of deliberative democracy
was introduced into China. This perspective means that the
analysis of this article will not focus on the theory itself, but
rather on the various strategies adopted in this process (strategy
of introducing this theory and the strategy of putting this theory
into practice) and their effects.
Keywords: deliberative democracy, theoretical introduction,
embedded development
I. Introduction
DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AS THE LATEST achievement of Western
democratic theories has only a history of about 20 years. At the
turn of the century, this au courant theory was introduced to China,
where it soon attracted a flurry of interest. This article analyzes,
from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge, how this theory
was introduced to China. As a result, the analysis of this article
will not focus on the theory of deliberative democracy itself, but
rather on the process of selecting various strategies (theoretical
input strategy and the strategy of combining theory and practice),
as well as the effects produced by these strategic choices.
*Huosheng Tan is from the Department of Political Science, Tsinghua University.
Economic and Political Studies
Deliberative democracy theory first entered the Chinese academia
around 1998 through the Taiwan Province of China. The earliest
interest in this theory occurred among sociologists rather than
political scientists. Yang Yijing (1998) published “Utopia of Public
Opinion Poll,” which, to the best of my knowledge, is the earliest
Chinese article about deliberative democracy. Soon, China’s
political scientists followed suit, resulting in more systematic
research (Chen, 1999; Xu, 2000; Li, 2000). In contrast, it was the
great reputation of Habermas that helped this theory land in the
Chinese mainland. Thanks to the translation of Habermas’s “The Three
Normative Models of Democracy,” scholars from the Chinese mainland
began to notice this theory. The earliest publication addressing
this theory was Wang Xingfu’s book (2002) A Road to Discourse Democracy: A
Dialogue with Habermas. The following year, the reform of Peking
University sparked controversy. With the theory of deliberative
democracy, Xu Jilin (2003) analyzed this issue in the article
“‘Deliberative Democracy’ in the Reform of Peking University,”
gaining the attention of academia. However, scholars were not so
enthusiastic about this theory in this period despite the
publication of Deliberative Democracy edited by Chen Jiagang (2004) and
the convening of the “International Symposium on Deliberative
Democracy Theory and China’s Local Democracy” in Hangzhou in August
of 2004. In 2004, there were only five papers on deliberative
democracy in academic journals of the Chinese mainland. Two of them
were introductory articles written by the same author, Chen Jiagang;
of another two articles, one was a translation, and the other a
review of Chen’s Deliberative Democracy. In 2005, 16 articles on the
topic appeared, of which seven were the result of the 2004 symposium
in Hangzhou. However, starting in 2006, the number of articles
soared on deliberative democracy. According to an online search
2
Deliberative Democracy in China
(www.cnki.net) by the author on 28 April 2011, 160-180 articles were
found with “deliberative democracy” in the title each year during
2008-2010, and 38 appeared in the first quarter of 2011. From 2004
to the first quarter of 2011, the overall total stood at 760.
FIGURE 1
Number of Articles on Deliberative Democracy in Academic Journalsof the Chinese Mainland: 2004-2010
Similarly, master’s theses relating to deliberative democracy theory
also showed an upward trend. A search in China Master’s Theses Full-
text Database included in cnki.net shows that from 2004 to 2010, a
total of 75 papers were about deliberative democracy, of which in
the two-year period of 2009-2010 alone there were 46, accounting
thus for 61.3% of the total! The academic enthusiasm for
deliberative democracy theory is thus visible and still growing.
FIGUER 2
3
Economic and Political Studies
Number of Master’s Theses about Deliberative Democracy in the
Chinese Mainland: 2004-2010
The theory of deliberative democracy was introduced into China
only a few years ago. Nevertheless, there has been enormous related
research up to now,1( and these publications have been relatively
concentrated: 83.6% of periodical articles and 92% of master’s
degree theses were completed between 2007 and 2010. Moreover, in the
few short years, experimentation guided by this theory in China hassparked the interest of the international academic community, where
very quickly there appeared related articles and works (Leib, and
He, 2006; Hess, 2009; Fishkin et al., 2010; He and Warren, 2011). One
can only be curious as to why, after the introduction of this
1 A comparison with studies concerning other Western theories or even otherdemocratic theories reveals that this number is very notable. According to asearch on cnki.net, as of May 2011, only 16 articles contain “elite democracy”in their titles; 7 have “pluralist democracy” in the title; article titles with“liberal democracy” amount only to 76 (of which the first article appeared in1952, and a considerable number of articles merely introduce the LiberalDemocratic Party in many countries, having nothing to do with liberal democratictheory itself); 119 articles contain in the title “participatory democracy”; 80articles include “direct democracy” in the title; 60 articles involve“representative democracy.” All of these articles, taken together, only add upto 358 (of which many are counted repeatedly), less than 1/2 of articles with“deliberative democracy” in the title during the last five years.
4
Deliberative Democracy in China
theory, there has been such a striking amount of interest in China
and China’s local experiments has attracted prompt response from the
Western academia. This paper seeks to perform a preliminary
exploration of the Chinese research of this theory from the
perspective of the sociology of knowledge. It will focus on the
following two questions: how was the Western theory of deliberative
democracy introduced to China? And how was this theory incorporated
into China’s knowledge system and even political and social
practice?
II. Sinicization: The Strategy for Introducing This Theory
into China
Ever since the “May Fourth Movement” of 1919, the introduction of
Western theories has become a permanent feature within Chinese
academia. Various Western theories have “sung on the Chinese stage,”
to which Chinese scholars have been accustomed. But why have some
foreign-originated theories vanished quickly after their
introduction into China, while others have been able to stimulate
long-term interest? Why do some theories have a real impact on
social and political practice, while others are merely limited to
narcissism within the ivory tower? These related questions remain
largely unexplored by academia. The dissemination of deliberative
democracy theory in China has provided us with a very interesting
case, through which we may propose a preliminary answer to the
aforementioned questions. In this section, we will try to
investigate further with these two questions: Who introduced the
theory? How was it introduced into China? Of course, these two
questions are closely linked; the choice of the theoretical
introduction strategy clearly influences the composition of
disseminators of this theory. During the process of importing
5
Economic and Political Studies
deliberative democracy theory, quite a few policy researchers from
government departments and even some government officials have been
engaged in related discussions. This success is largely attributable
to the introduction strategy of scholars, a strategy that stressed
the connection between Western democratic theory and China’s
political tradition.
In order for a theory from abroad to make an impact in a country,
the first task is to translate the basic literature and introduce
the core ideas and important scholars in the process of the theory’s
development; second, the theory must be consciously localized, that is,
be acclimatized to the target country’s conditions. It should be
said that deliberative democracy theory has been relatively
successful in this regard.
Firstly, academia’s translation of deliberative democracy theory
has achieved fruitful results. Since 2004 when the first anthology
on deliberative democracy was published, ten monographs or
anthologies have been translated into China. There are three
anthologies edited by Chinese scholars on deliberative democracy:
Chen Jiagang’s Deliberative Democracy (2004), Tan Huosheng’s Deliberative
Democracy (2007) and The Evolution of Deliberative Democracy edited by Chen
Shengyong and He Baogang (2006). The former two included some of the
core theses in the development process of this theory, covering the
basic stages of evolution, core concepts and controversies. They
have become basic reference material for Chinese scholars studying
this issue. Moreover, Tan’s Deliberative Democracy offers a 17-page
bibliography for further reading on the theme, including references
up to the year 2005, which provides a solid guide for further
research. The Evolution of Deliberative Democracy was compiled from theses
coming out of the 2004 Hangzhou conference, which included recent
6
Deliberative Democracy in China
research and several articles from overseas scholars (including
representatives such as James Fishkin and John S. Dryzek).
Apart from this, under the direction of Yu Keping, the Translation
Series on Deliberative Democracy has translated the core literature into
Chinese and played an important role in the promotion of
deliberative democracy theory in China. Up to now eight books have
been included in this series, among which four were published in
2006 and another four in 2009. All these books are the most
important contribution in this field. Some of them are anthologies
playing an important role in the 1990s, including Deliberative Democracy:
Essays on Reason and Politics, Deliberative Democracy and Democracy and Difference:
Contesting the Boundaries of the Political; there are also anthologies
reflecting the latest developments since 2000, for example, Debating
Deliberative Democracy and Democracy as Public Deliberation: New Perspectives.
However, there are some shortcomings in the translation work on
deliberative democracy, of which the biggest regret is, despite the
relatively large number of journal articles on deliberate democracy,
translated texts have been very rare. Almost all the translations
have been organized by the Central Compilation and Translation
Bureau (CCTB) , except Deliberative Democracy (Tan, 2007) which was
published under another translation plan. Within academic journals,
we rarely see deliberative democracy-related translations. The
results of a search on cnki.net show that during 2004-2011, there
are only six translation articles containing the term “deliberative
democracy” in their titles, accounting for only 0.79% of the total
of 760 papers, which seems way out of proportion for a Western-
originated theory. If again analyzing the distribution of these six
articles, one will find two published in 2005 came from the Hangzhou
conference; one article came out respectively in 2004 and 2006, and
7
Economic and Political Studies
both of them were translated by the CCTB; no translation article was
found between 2007 and 2009; one was published in 2010 in Comparative
Economic & Social Systems, a journal edited by the CCTB; merely the one
article published in 2011 has nothing to do with the CCTB.
The work of introducing deliberative democracy theory has been
fruitful only in the last couple of years. Despite the large number
of deliberative democracy-related articles in recent years, there
have been few real in-depth articles on this theory. Among the 760
articles published from 2004 to the first quarter of 2011, there
have been only 171 articles (or 22.5%) exploring deliberative
democracy theory itself (including six translated texts). It may
seem like a big number, but a closer examination will reveal that
most of these articles are general overviews without going into
depth of any issue inherent to deliberative democracy theory, and the
degree of repetition is quite high, in terms of both topics and
arguments. For example, there are 25 articles comparing electoral
democracy and deliberative democracy. As a result, the range of
introductions is quite limited. Not only are many important issues
basically overlooked, but many introductions of thinkers are
concentrated on Habermas (13 articles). At the same time, apart from
works by He Baogang, Chen Jiagang, and a few other writers, there
are not many related in-depth introductions. However, this situation
has improved in the last few years, as some younger researchers have
chosen deliberative democracy as the theme for their master’s theses
and PhD dissertations. They have published a number of papers
adapted from their dissertations, covering in depth core issues
including civism, reason, equality, consensus, legitimacy,
representative, preference, politics of difference, public policy,
etc. Some of them are quite good (e.g., Zhang, 2008; Diao, 2009; Yan,
8
Deliberative Democracy in China
2010; Du, 2009.). Some less important thinkers like Iris Marion Young
were also introduced into China (Ma, 2009).
In contrast with the relatively weak theoretical research, 77.5%
(a total of 589 articles) of articles on deliberative democracy
discuss China-related questions. Two aspects are worthy of our
attention about this clear practice-centered orientation.
First, this is the inevitable result of the introduction strategy.
When the academic community began to introduce deliberative
democracy theory, there was in fact such an intention of putting
this theory into practice. It was not purely to pursue knowledge
when scholars introduced this theory, but to provide theoretical
resources for the construction of democratic politics in China. The
translation of the term “deliberative democracy” was a manifestation
of this intention. According to the author’s reading, since the term
“deliberative democracy” itself entered the Chinese academic
vocabulary, there has been at least seven different types of
translations in the Chinese literature: “审审审审” (or “审审审审审,” “审审审审审”)
(used by Jiang Yihua, 2003; He Mingxiu, 2003; Chen Dongsheng, Lin
Guoming, 2003; Chen Junhong, 1999; Huo Weian, 2004; Tan Huosheng,
2007), “审审审审” (or “审审审审审”, “审审审审审”) (used by Hsu, Kuo-Hsien, 2000;
Xu Jilin, 2003), “审审审审” (used by Chen Jiagang, 2004; He Baogang,
2007), “审审审审” (adopted by Liu Shen, 2004), “审审审审” (used by Tong
Shijun, 2003), “审审审审审审审” (used by Liu Jingyi, 2002).2 (审审审审 2) In
Taiwan, the most commonly seen translation is “审审审审,” while on the
mainland, the most popular translation is “审审审审.”3 (审审审审 3) Among
these, the translation of “ 审审审审” (democracy through consultation)
2 Regarding the respective advantages and disadvantages of these translations,please see Tan (2007, 6-7).
3 Among the 760 articles, only 21 (or 2.76%) used the translation of “审审审审”,and only one article used “审审审审.”
9
Economic and Political Studies
makes it easier to combine this theory with local resources and
implement it in China. A high degree of consensus has been reached
on this point. The most vigorous advocate of deliberative democracy
in China is Professor He Baogang. He said privately more than once
that the more correct translation may be “审审审审” or “审审审审.” However,
“ 审 审 审 审 ” is more appropriate for this theory to be promoted in
practice. This translation can be connected with the Chinese
People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and the “mass
line,” thus providing more space for its development (He, 2008,
114). I agree with this point though I still choose the translation
of “审审审审.” I choose “审审审审” not only for more precise understanding
of the theory itself, but also for the sake of implementing this
theory in practice. The translation of “ 审 审 审 审 ,” though it is more
acceptable for the Chinese people, may make this theory less
inspiring. By contrast, the translation of “ 审 审 审 审 ” deliberately
creates a sense of alienation to prompt us to reflect upon our own
political practice. In this sense, the original intentions of these
two translations are both to promote China’s democratic
construction. It should be said that this strategy has been very
successful. This theory has not only quickly attracted wide
attention of scholars and the public, it also showed vigorous
vitality in grassroots political and social practice. As early as
2006, Vice President Li Junru of the Party School of the Central
Committee of CPC wrote many articles for newspapers and magazines,
stating that “deliberative democracy is an important form of
democracy” (Li,2006a; Li, 2006b). Because of his special status, his
view aroused heated discussions after it was reprinted by digital
media such as people.com.cn and xinhuanet.com. During the National
People’s Congress and the CPPCC in 2010, China Central Television
(CCTV) News made a brief review of deliberative democracy in China’s
10
Deliberative Democracy in China
political life under the title of “Deliberative Democracy Blossoms
in Vigorous Practice.” This shows that deliberative democracy has
been accepted not only by the general public, but also by top
leaders.
Second, coverage of the topics. According to this author’s
calculation, these 589 articles discussing Chinese-related issues
can be divided into the following categories (see Table 1).
TABLE 1
Coverage of Articles Addressing China-related Issues with the Theory
of Deliberative Democracy
Type
Number of
articles
Percentage
of the
Total
Contents
Deliberative
democracy with
Chinese
Characteristics
127 21.56% general introduction
Political
institutions169 28.69%
CPPCC: 94 articles;
political party system:
50 articles; unified
front: 5 articles;
people’s congress
system: 5 articles;
constitutionalism: 15
articles
Grassroots
Governance85 14.43%
new village
construction; village
autonomy; grassroots
elections; protection of
the rights of the
11
Economic and Political Studies
disabled; community
governance; wage
negotiations; town
governance; petition
letter; mass
disturbance;
disadvantaged groups;
democratic consultation;
budget reform
Civil Society and
Political
Participation
61 10.36%
civil society: 12
articles; media: 23
articles; political
participation: 21
articles
Service-oriented
Government and
Harmonious Society
Construction
51 8.66%
harmonious society: 33
articles; ethnic group
issues: 5 articles;
service-oriented
government: 13 articles
Public Policy 41 6.96%
hearings; scientific
decision-making;
democratic decision-
making
Deliberative
Democracy and
Ideology
13 2.21%
the mass line;
scientific outlook on
development; thoughts on
deliberative democracy
of Mao Zedong, Zhou
Enlai, Deng Xiaoping,
Jiang Zemin or Hu Jintao
Deliberative
Democracy in6 1.02% during Anti-Japanese War
(1931-1945); the War of
12
Deliberative Democracy in China
Practice in Modern
China
Liberation (1945-1949);
the New Democratic
Revolution (1919-1949);
early years of the PRC;
the Old Political
Consultation Conference
(1945-1946)
Others 36 6.11%
community policing;
hospitals; schools,
Communist Youth League,
etc.
From the table, we can find some interesting phenomena: first,
quite a number of articles interpret deliberative democracy as an
important form of socialist political practice with Chinese
characteristics. The titles of these articles often highlight that
“deliberative democracy is an important form of socialist democracy
with Chinese characteristics,” “deliberative democracy is an
important innovation of China’s 30 years of political construction,”
and “deliberative democracy: the Chinese form of democracy.” The
great majority of articles do not really care about the deliberative
democracy theory itself, the similarities and differences between
deliberative democracy and China’s political practice, or the
theory’s implications for China’s democratic political construction.
They aim at something else. Secondly, most articles discuss
deliberative democracy and China’s political institutions,
especially China’s political consultation system and the related
political party system. This is natural because when Chinese
scholars translated the “deliberative democracy” into “审审审审”, they
emphasized in their mind the connection between the two. Thirdly,
13
Economic and Political Studies
grassroots governance is the second most popular topic. If most of
the articles stressing Chinese characteristics merely “put old wine
into a new bottle,” then articles about grassroots governance mostly
“put new wine into an old bottle” (this will be discussed in more
detail in the next section). Almost all major issues about
grassroots governance have been covered in these articles.
We will find from these articles that practically all the hot
topics are labeled as deliberative democracy; and almost all top
leaders are regarded as important representatives of deliberative
democracy. Moreover, deliberative democracy has almost become
China’s greatest contribution to the world. One has to wonder
whether deliberative democracy has become some kind of panacea that
can solve all problems in China. This situation reminds us that when
people hastily introduce deliberative democracy to China, some
misinterpretations do exist. Despite some scholars’ warning as early
as 2007 (Jin and Yao, 2007), misunderstanding of this theory has
spread inevitably. It can even be said that the popularity of this
theory among scholars and the public is driven by this
misunderstanding. It is also due to its popularity that a previously
rare phenomenon has been observed: many policy researchers (mainly
in the CPC departments) and even some government officials have
joined scholars and use their magazines or journals to disseminate
this theory. According to my calculation, 35.3% of the 760 articles
are published in these magazines or journals (see Table 2):
TABLE 2
Distribution of Articles on Deliberative
Democracy
14
Deliberative Democracy in China
DepartmentNumber of
articlesPublications
CPPCC System 49
Theoretical Research of the CPPCC: 29
Jiangsu CPPCC: 11
CPPCC Affairs (sponsored by Fujian
CPPCC): 1
Boating Together (sponsored by
Guangdong CPPCC): 2
Unity (sponsored by the Revolutionary
Committee of the Chinese
Kuomintang): 6
United Front
Work
Department116
Journals of institutes of socialism:
113
China’s United Front (sponsored by the
United Front Work Department of CPC
Central Committee): 1
Sichuan United Front (sponsored by the
United Work Department of Sichuan
Provincial Committee): 2
Party School
System103
Journals of Party schools: 54
Journals of academies of governance:
40
Party and Government Forum: 6
Public Administration and Law: 3
Total 268
Note: Party Schools and School of Administrations are separated in a small
number of provinces and at the national level, but the two practically belong to
one system. So they are treated as the same thing in my calculation.
III. Embedded Development: Putting Theory into
Practice
15
Economic and Political Studies
When we say deliberative democracy is somewhat misread when it is
linked with China’s contemporary political practice, this does not
mean that we cannot link the two; on the contrary, we should do so.
However, the right way is not to take China’s political practice as
the realization of the ideal of deliberative democracy; nor can it
be rigidly and literally forced onto China’s political practice,
demanding our political practice strictly implement the ideal
standards set by this democratic theory. Instead, we should, on the
one hand, be aware that consultation is not deliberation (Jin and
Yao, 2007), and on the other hand, in accordance with the principle
of “limited deliberative democracy,” embed skills of deliberative
democracy into China’s reality and improve China’s political
practice gradually but constantly (He and Wang, 2007). In fact, soon
after this theory was introduced into China, it was put into
practice. It can be said that the theoretical introduction and
experiments in practice took place almost simultaneously. However,
despite the emergence of many forms of deliberative democracy—the
citizens’ council, urban resident council, meeting of villager
representatives, hearings and so on—virtually all of these
experiments have taken place thus far at the grassroots level.
Therefore, here we will analyze the interaction between theory and
practice with the relatively sophisticated practice of deliberative
democracy in Wenling, Zhejiang Province.
The practice of deliberative democracy in Wenling is in fact an
integral part of Wenling’s “democratic consultation” (minzhu kentan,
which literally means “sincere heart-to-heart democratic
discussion”) As some commentators have pointed out, regardless of
political results, Wenling’s “democratic consultation” has created a
miracle in terms of the amount of academic literature it generated.
In the period from January 2003 to September 2009 alone, 39 academic
16
Deliberative Democracy in China
articles on this topic were published in journals of the Chinese
mainland, and one appeared in an international academic journal (He,
2010). These articles have taken different theoretical approaches to
explain Wenling’s “democratic consultation.” However, as to what
concerns us here—how is theory put into practice—the existing
literature has not given a satisfactory answer. He Junzhi once
proposed that the conjunction of power, idea and governance skills
constitutes a key to understand the whole development of the Wenling
’s “democratic consultation,” and the sequence of appearance of the
three factors and the forms of their combination is the structural
framework determining the timing and ways of Wenling’s “democratic
consultation” (He, 2010). This explanation is very enlightening, but
it fails to illuminate how they are combined. He and Wang (2007)
raised their own views of the forms of combination, believing that
deliberative democracy should be embedded into China’s social
reality. Unfortunately, they just skated over the issue without
going into further discussion. Upon the heels of them, I use the
concept of “embedded development” to explain how the theory and
skills of deliberative democracy are combined with the practice of
Wenling’s “democratic consultation.”
This idea comes from the concept of “embeddedness” in sociology
which was first proposed by the famous sociologist Karl Polanyi in
the year 1944. Facing the compound characteristics of modern
society, he sought to explain how heterogeneous components are
integrated in modern society. He pointed out that the economy is not
autonomous, but rather part of the greater social system. Therefore,
the functioning of the economy was not only affected by economic
institutions, but also by politics, religion, social relations and
ideas (Polanyi, 1944). Forty years later, Granovetter provided a
systematic explanation of this issue in his classic article
17
Economic and Political Studies
“Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.”
He criticized, on the one hand, that Polanyi’s explanation of socio-
economic history with the concept of “embeddedness” was
insufficient; and on the other, he tried to enrich this concept from
a micro-perspective, and to find out a middle way between the two
existing paths: one is the undersocialised explanation, as in neo-
classical economics, which treats people as atomized individuals
detached from the social background; the other is the over-
socialised explanation in sociology, as in Parsons’s structural
functionalism, which regard individuals as puppets of the society
without any autonomy. Granovetter (1985) emphasized that the actor
was not an isolated individual, but was embedded in a particular
social structure; therefore, widespread social relations would
continue to influence the actor’s behaviors. Subsequently, there has
been a large amount of literature using the concept of embeddedness
to explain human behavior and institutional change. They are not
limited to the field of sociology, but have also spread into the
fields of economics, political science, law and other social
sciences. Of course, some scholars have tried to use this concept to
explain China’s development. For example, as early as 1994, Kevin O’
Brien (1994) used this concept to explain the evolution of China’s
National People’s Congress (NPC) in the reform era. Through
interviews with staff and representatives of the NPC, he found that
development of the NPC in this period was thanks to its cooperation
with Party committees and the government. Support and attention from
Party committees and government departments was critical for its
organizational development and increased capacity.
It is worth noting that in the section of concluding remarks of
O’Brien’s article (1994), he warned that we should not extend the
comparison unduly and use signs of embeddedness to outline a Chinese
18
Deliberative Democracy in China
path toward democracy; an embedded Chinese legislature may
ultimately contribute to increased state capacity and a more
efficient authoritarianism. The leap to democracy requires
systematic, non-incremental changes and going beyond embeddedness.
Obviously, according to O’Brien, embeddedness is a negative factor
which needs to be transcended to realize China’s democratization. On
this point, I would like to borrow a subheading in Block’s
Introduction to Polanyi’s masterpiece—Why Disembedding Cannot be
Successful—to express my concerns. If disembedding is not an ideal
choice, then how to face “embeddedness” is an unavoidable problem.
As far as my question is concerned—how does deliberative democracy
theory combine with China’s political practice—there is an important
difference between the issue of this article and that of O’Brien’s.
The NPC system is an existing institution, where legitimacy was not
a problem; instead, the problem is how to give full play to the
potential of this system. Therefore what we need to do is to focus
on the support and attention of other ingredients of the political
system. Nevertheless, as a heterogeneous element coming from abroad,
deliberative democracy should first solve the problem of legitimacy
before winning the support it needs. Therefore, its embeddedness
involves both the embeddedness in China’s ideology and the
embeddedness in China’s power structures. In terms of the results of
the embeddedness, I cannot agree with O’Brien’s pessimistic
conclusion. For China’s democratization, embeddedness may be a
viable option; the result may not necessarily be the strengthened
authoritarianism as expected by O’Brien, but may be updated social
and political structures.
Accordingly, the “embedded development” I propose here means the
embedding of some heterogeneous components into the existing social
and political structures, which will activate or remold some
19
Economic and Political Studies
functions of the structures and gradually revitalize the entire
structures through continuous improvement and expansion.
Specifically, what embedded development stresses is to win the space
for development through the means of “embedding.” This means we
cannot force reality to adapt to theory; instead, with the
conditions being unchanged, we should make new elements separately
infiltrate into existing social and political structures. At the
same time, “embedded development” requires that new heterogeneous
components can be “embedded,” which means that it must find a
counterpart in the existing social and political structures in order
to survive; in other words, it must find its connection with the
existing system and ideology. Only after this step will it possibly
activate some existing dormant functions and develop itself through
constant self-improvement. Moreover, its expansion within the system
also follows existing paths to power. During this process, it
reinterprets the original system and resets its functions. The
“embedded development” is easily confused with “path dependence.” In
my opinion, the most important difference between the two is that
while the latter is a passive adaptation, the former is a proactive
choice, which through the form of embeddedness gains space for
development and all kinds of necessary resources (institutional
resources, legitimacy, etc.).
Below is an examination of how much Wenling’s practice of
deliberative democracy and even the entire process of democratic
consultation can by interpreted by the above theoretical assumption.
As we all know, Wenling’s “democratic consultation ” at the earlystages of its creation was not a new form of democracy, but rather a
creative carrier of political and ideological work at the rural
grassroots level. Afterward, it gradually became “an original form
20
Deliberative Democracy in China
of grassroots democracy” (Chen, 2005), and then by incorporating
components of “deliberate democracy” it has turned into deliberative
democracy in practice and Wenling has become a leading practicer of
contemporary democratic theory (He, 2010). Every step has been
realized by “embedding” new governance skill into the existing
frameworks (i.e. power structures and ideological discourses) to
achieve improvement and innovation (Zhang, 2003).
Observed from the point of view of power structures, “democratic
consultation,” when it emerged in 1999 as a new form of political
and ideological work, was implemented under the municipal publicity
departments of Taizhou and Wenling in accordance with the plan of
the Provincial Party Committee. At that time, the municipal
publicity departments selected Songmen Town as the pilot site for
the “Agricultural and Rural Modernization Education Forum” and
agreed on specific operational measures together with the town party
committee and town government. It was the “mutual dialogue between
officers and the public” in imitation of the press conference that
became the initial form of the “democratic consultation.” The whole
process was run within the existing framework of power. After
“democratic consultation” achieved legitimacy within the existing
institutional framework, it became the substrate for developing
“deliberative democracy” and “budget democracy.” The practice of
Wenling’s deliberative democracy is in fact realized by implanting
the technique of “deliberative polling” into the original democratic
consultation. It is also achieved under the leadership of the Party
committee and government of the Zeguo Town. As some scholars have
pointed out, the whole process fully embodies the Chinese
characteristics of China’s grassroots participation through
consultation, that is, the domination of government (Lang, 2005). A
closer look at the procedures will make this clear. For example, the
21
Economic and Political Studies
town-level democratic consultation goes like this: the township
leading group of democratic consultation gather the opinions of the
representatives of town people’s congress or CPPCC, mass
organizations and individuals → the town Party committee and
government deal with the information →determination of the theme by
the joint conference of the Party committee, government and people’s
congress → the making of the implementation plan by the general
office of the town government → announcement of the time, place,
theme, and the participators generated through random sample →
preparing for the meeting, including delivering discussion materials
to the participators ahead of time, venue layout, and division of
labor → democratic consultation → after the meeting, the township
leading group study the opinions and suggestions brought forward in
the meeting, and map out the project → announcement the project →
town government’s implementation. In the whole process, the Party
committee and people’s congress supervise and solicit for feedback
opinions (Lang, 2009).
It can be said that the success of the strategy of “embedded”
development lies in that it is government-dominated and thus
controllable. “It does not directly challenge the existing power
structures, thus significantly reducing political obstacles and
risks of reform; technically, the Wenling mode is greatly
practicable. For cadres in charge, it is quite controllable; at
least they don’t have to worry about losing their future” (Jing,
2003).
Observed from the perspective of ideological discourses, Wenling’s
democratic consultation has evolved completely within the existing
ideological framework. In the early days, it was smoothly integrated
into the mainstream ideology and the discourse system of the
22
Deliberative Democracy in China
ideological and political work, and was interpreted as reflecting
the fine tradition of “maintaining close ties with the masses” in
the new era. Later, when it became a new form of grassroots
democracy, it was included in the system of interpretation of
democracy by the 15th CPC National Congress. According to this
official interpretation, democracy includes the four major parts of
“democratic election, democratic decision-making, democratic
management and democratic supervision.” Wenling’s democratic
consultation not only covers the last three aspects, but also avoids
democratic election which is too sensitive for local authorities to
touch. It fully meets the requirements of the 15th National Congress,
and is politically safe (He, 2010). Moreover, according to expert
interpretation (Chen, 2005), “democratic consultation” not only
manifests the unification of the Party’s leadership, people as the
masters and the rule of law, it also has implications for changing
the way of governance and improve the capacity of governance of the
CPC as a ruling party. Later, the method of deliberative democracy
was embedded into democratic consultation. Even though this practice
can be explained with Western theories, it still used the term of
“democratic consultation.” This is extremely important since it
gives a legitimate form to the Western-originated theory. Of course,
this is also related to the way deliberative democracy was
introduced: it was embedded in a technical way (new public opinion
survey skills). After its entry, it will inevitably bring with it
the values of equality, freedom, reason, and so on. But in the early
period it was neutral, without any ideological color. Furthermore,
this new public opinion survey skill can even be explained as
institutionalizing the mass line. On the one hand, it can make the
public understand and practice deliberation instead of resorting to
extreme measures to voice their political desires and demands to the
23
Economic and Political Studies
government; on the other hand, it allows government officials to
know the specific implications of democratic administration.
Therefore, deliberative democracy can be said as an innovative
embodiment of the mass line in the new era (Lang, 2005; Wang, 2005).
It can be seen that from a new method of political and ideological
work to deliberative democracy, Wenling’s democratic consultation
has found in each step its counterpart in the existing ideological
discourses, and gained the ideological legitimacy through new
interpretations. This is an important precondition for its
sustainable development. If we can say that democratic consultation
itself is “embedded” in the framework of political and ideological
work and gains space to grow, then deliberative democracy and budget
democracy are “embedded” in the framework of democratic consultation
and thus gain space for development. After surviving in the
framework of political and ideological work, democratic consultation
has turned into an “original form of grassroots democracy”; then
when deliberative democracy and budget democracy survive, will they
give rise to a mode of “governance based on deliberation and
cooperation” and then facilitate the transformation of China’s
grassroots governance, as expected by some scholars? This needs
further work: activation, institutionalization and diffusion.
Activation refers to the fact that when the heterogeneous
components are embedded in the existing social and political
structures, they may wake up some dormant functions, such as the
mass line, and the tradition of maintaining close ties with the
masses. This requires that the heterogeneous components do not
appear as alien things but as the new form of old components. For
instance, deliberative polling of deliberative democracy is
interpreted as the institutionalized and routinized mass line. This
24
Deliberative Democracy in China
is a type of creative work, which requires re-interpreting the
existing functions on the one hand, and localizing heterogeneous
components on the other. Only in this way can heterogeneous
components gradually become an organic part of the existing system.
This creative work requires the participation of experts and
scholars, as well as the combination of power, ideas and the art of
governance (He, 2010). In fact, throughout the entire development
process of democratic consultation, the participation of experts and
scholars and their timely theoretical guidance are key elements. The
transformation of Wenling’s democratic consultation from a new
method of political and ideological work to a new form of grassroots
democracy is the result of the efforts of experts and scholars.
According to Chen Yimin, the chief of the Theoretical Section of
Wenling Municipal Publicity Department , it was in the year 2000
when a summing-up meeting was held that they were enlightened by
experts and scholars: “At the time, we still thought it was a form
of ideological and political work, but experts from the Central
Party School and our province pointed out that the forum has already
gone beyond the scope of ideological and political work. It’s in
fact a new form of democracy.” It is after this meeting that the
Wenling Municipal Publicity Department officially identifies this as
a new form of democracy (He, 2010).
After deliberative democracy as a new technique of governance is
embedded into democratic consultation, it has not only activated the
mass line, but also revitalized to a greater extent people’s
congress, the core of the original political structures. The
experiment of deliberative democracy in the Zeguo Town has two links
related to the township people’s congress. The first is inviting
representatives of the township people’s congress to participate as
observers. The second is submitting the resolution of the meeting to
25
Economic and Political Studies
the township people’s congress, and inviting village representatives
chosen by means of sampling to participate in the discussion and
voting process. This design produces two results: one is the
strengthened self-consciousness of the representatives of people’s
congress. In February 2009, I visited the Zeguo Town and talked with
those representatives of the people’s congress. More than one of
them told me that they attended meeting and listened attentively
because they felt pressure: “These village representatives will come
to listen to our discussions in several days. If we cannot do as
well as they did, how embarrassed we will be as their
representatives!” The other result is the revitalization of
functions of the grassroots people’s congress. According to the
institutional design, the people’s congress has the power to review
and oversee the government budget. However, this power has long been
in a dormant state, though this procedure is fulfilled every year.
Thanks to the experiment of deliberative democracy, the township
people’s congress has started to genuinely exercise its power under
the pressure of village representatives who also review the
government budget. At the same time, the experiment of deliberative
democracy by village representatives provides a model for the
congress to understand how reviews should be conducted.
If we say activation is a key step in updating the system, then
institutionalization and diffusion are important conditions for the
sustainable development of the updated system.
Institutionalization provides an important stimulus for the
development of Wenling’s democratic consultation. From 2000 to 2004,
Wenling introduced a series of official “opinions” on democratic
consultation and developed related institutions. This has
institutionalized the obtained results at each stage, and the
26
Deliberative Democracy in China
institutionalization itself has in turn deepened this practice. In
this process, there are two crucial institutional designs: one is
the incorporation of democratic consultation into the assessment
system. Township leaders will get bonus points if they perform well
in democratic consultation. This promotes competition between towns
and the emergence of various forms of democratic consultation. The
other is the establishment of a top-down leading institution (i.e.,
leading group on democratic consultation) from the municipal to the
township (sub-district) level. The office of the municipal leading
group belongs to the Publicity Department. This structural force has
become a powerful force promoting the sustainable development of
democratic consultation. It is because once such agencies are
established, the meaning of their existence lies in the struggle for
the in-depth and sustainable development of democratic consultation
(He, 2010). The demand of self-expansion itself will press it to
consistently seek new forms and breakthroughs. In fact, it is
exactly this force that facilitates all kinds of innovative
practices to emerge at the appropriate time, just as practices in
towns like Zeguo and Xinhe.
Diffusion occurs in two forms. One situation is some sort of
innovative practice spreads between different levels, organizations
or fields. For example, the activation of the function of Zeguo’s
people’s congress has affected the municipal people’s congress. And
the standing committee of the municipal people’s congress has also
become an vigorous supporter of democratic consultation, promoting
the Xinhe Model to another four towns and including it into the
agenda of the municipal people’s congress. Another scenario is some
innovative practices have led to other innovative approaches. For
example, each town has made some kind of improvement of the original
model. This innovative process of mutual inspiration is currently
27
Economic and Political Studies
promoting the continuous development of democratic consultation
including deliberative democracy.
It is worth noting that all of these diffusion measures occur
within the existing power structures. Whether the supports came from
the municipal publicity department of the Party committee or from
the people’s congress, they are from the existing power structures.
And specific implementations are always under the leadership of the
Party committees and government departments; actually innovation has
been facilitated by them. Then a question arises: is democratic
consultation including deliberative democracy really “deliberation”
or just another form of government domination (Lang, 2005)? How
should we evaluate this form of deliberative democracy with Chinese
characteristics?
IV. Conclusion
Scholars have different opinions about this question. Lang Youxing
(2005) believes that this government-led deliberative democracy is
essentially dominated and controllable deliberation and therefore is
different from the ideal deliberative democracy. Recently, He
Baogang and Mark Warren (2011) jointly put forward the concept of
“authoritarian deliberation” based on China’s experience. In their
view, deliberative democracy in China is a particularly important
case: though it remains an authoritarian country led by the
Communist Party of China (CPC), its government is now permeated with
a wide variety of participatory and deliberative practices, such as
village-level elections, public hearings, deliberative polling,
citizen rights to sue the state, initiatives to make government
information public. However, deliberation is limited in scope and
focuses on particular problems of governance. This governance-
oriented deliberation is not unique to China, what distinguishes
28
Deliberative Democracy in China
China is that the governance-level participation is developing side
by side with the domination of the ruling party, and is combined
with a high degree of experimentalism with consultation,
deliberation, and limited forms of democracy. Therefore, He and
Warren call this “authoritarian deliberation.” It should be said
that their article is very enlightening. However, I still believe
that the term of “authoritarian deliberation” is somewhat
misleading, especially in China where authoritarianism is a quiet
negative word. Moreover, authoritarianism is regarded as a concept
opposed to democracy, thus combining the two seems a little far-
fetched to most (though He and Warren define in their article
“democracy” and “deliberation” in a broad way, and emphasize that
“authoritarian” and “deliberative democracy” may be combined
together).
Compared to “authoritarian deliberation,” “government-led
deliberative democracy” might be a more appropriate expression.
China is “governance-oriented” as some other countries, but it is
different because in other democratic countries democracy is driven
more by civil society organizations, while in China it is led by the
government. However, this government-led deliberative democracy
itself is not necessarily a negative phenomenon as viewed by Lang
Youxing. On the contrary, I believe the dominant role of the
government is one of the necessary conditions for the promotion of
deliberative democracy in China (this is also the inherent
requirement of the so-called “embedded development”). And
government-led deliberative democracy itself is a special kind of
deliberative democracy, as He and Warren remarked, so it is
unnecessary to criticize it according to the standard of the Western
deliberative democracy theory. Instead, we need to think about such
a question: if the dominance of government is an important feature
29
Economic and Political Studies
of the Chinese version of deliberative democracy, then which path of
embedded development should we choose, under such a given
precondition, in order to reinterpret the original system and
redesign its functions and finally facilitate the transformation
from the “authoritarian governance” to the “governance based on
deliberation and cooperation” model?
REFERENCES
Benhabib, Seyla, ed. 2009. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.Trans. Huang Xianghuai and Yan Haibin et al. Beijing: Central Compilation andTranslation Press.
Bohman, James and William Rehg, eds. 2006. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason andPolitics. Trans. Chen Jiagang et al. Beijing: Central Compilation and TranslationPress.
Chen, Jiagang, ed. 2004. Deliberative Democracy ( 审 审 审 审 ). Shanghai: Shanghai JointPublishing Company.
Chen, Jun-hong. 1999. “Sustainable Development and Democracy: Approaching toDeliberative Democracy” (审审审审审审审审审审审审审审审审: ). Soochow Journal of Political Science (审审审审审审), 1998 (9): 85-122.
Chen, Shengyong and Baogang He, eds. Development of Deliberative Democracy (审审审审审审审).Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2006.
Chen, Yimin. 2005. “The Wenling Democratic consultation: Creating Space forDemocratic Politics” (审审审审审审审 审审审审审审审审审审审: ). Decision-making (审审), 2005 (11): 32-33.
D’Entreves, Maurizio Passerin, ed. 2006. Democracy as Public Deliberation: NewPerspectives. Trans. Wang Yingjin. Beijing: Central Compilation and TranslationPress.
Diao, Aihui. 2009. “Politics of Difference and Deliberative Democracy” (审审审审审审审审审). Zhejiang Social Sciences (审审审审审审), 2009 (6): 30-35.
Du, Jixue. 2009. “Democratic Deliberation and Legitimacy” ( 审审审审审审审审 ). Ph.d.dissertation, Jilin University.
Elster, Jon, ed. 2009. Deliberative Democracy. Trans. Zhou Yanhui. Beijing: CentralCompilation and Translation Press.
Fishkin, James, Baogang He, Robert C. Luskin and Alice Siu. 2010. “DeliberativeDemocracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China.” British Journal ofPolitical Science, 40 (2): 435-448.
Fishkin, James and Peter Laslett, eds. 2009. Debating Deliberative Democracy. Trans.Zhang Xiaomin. Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press.
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem ofEmbeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481-510.
He, Baogang. 2008. Deliberative Democracy: Theory, Method and Practice (审审审审 审审审 审审审审审:、 ). Beijing:China Social Sciences Press.
30
Deliberative Democracy in China
He, Baogang and Mark E. Warren. 2011. “Authoritarian Deliberation: TheDeliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development.” Perspectives on Politics, 9 (2):269-289.
He, Baogang and Wang Chunguang. 2007. “Deliberative Democracy in Rural China: ACase Study” (审审审审审审审审审审审审: ). Sociological Studies (审审审审审), 2007 (3): 56-73.
He, Junzhi. 2010. “The Combination of Power, Ideas and the Techniques ofGovernance: The Mechanism of the Wenling ‘Democratic consultation’ Model” (审审 审审审审审审审审审审审 审审、:“审审审审审”审审审审审审审). Social Sciences in Nanjing (审审审审审审), 2010 (9): 49-56.
He, Mingxiu, The Theory of Communicative Action and Civil Society 审审审审审审审审审审审审() ,in Run Xinbang and Lin Rui eds, A Interpretation of The Theory of Communicative Action 审审(<审审审审审>审, Shanghai people's Publishing House, 2003, pp. 201-230.
Hess, Steve. 2009. “Deliberative Institutions as Mechanisms for Managing SocialUnrest: The Case of the 2008 Chongqing Taxi Strike.” China: An International Journal,7 (2): 336-352.
Huo, Weian, The Legacy of The Federalist Papers: From a Perspective ofDeliberative Democracy 审审审审审审审审审审审审 审审审审审审审审审审审审审(:), Open Times 审审审审审(), No. 4, 2004, pp. 99-116.
Hsu, Kuo-Hsien. 2000. “Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Imagination” (审审审审审审审审审审). Taiwanese Journal of Political Science (审审审审审审), 2000 (13): 61-92.
Jiang, Yihua, The Possibility of Rational Communication in Public Sphere 审审审审审审审审审审审审审审() , conference paperpresented in International Symposium on Public intellectuals and Modern China,December 14-16, 2003, East China Normal University.
Jin, Anping and Yao Chuanming. 2007. “‘Deliberative Democracy Should Not BeMisread” (“审审审审”审审审审). Theoretical Research of the CPPCC (审审审审审审审审审审审审审), 2007 (3):26-31.
Jing, Yuejin. 2003. “Adminstrative Democracy: Meanings and Limitations—Implications of Wenling’s ‘Democratic consultation’” (审审审审 审审审审审: ——审审‘审审审审审’审审审),Zhejiang Social Sciences, 2003 (1): 25-28.
Lang, Youxing. 2005. “Deliberative Democracy and China’s Local Experience: The‘Democratic consultation’ of Wenling, Zhejiang Province” (审审审审审审审审审审审审审 审审审审审审审: “审审审审审”). ZhejiangSocial Sciences, 2005 (1): 33-38.
Lang, Youxing. 2009. “A Chinese Citizen Conference: The Process and Function ofthe Democratic consultation in Wenling, Zhejiang province” (审审审审审审审审 审审审审审审审审审审审审审审审: ). Journal of PublicAdministration (审审审审审审), 2009(4): 48-70.
Lee, Shangyuan. 2000. “A Discussion on the Concept of Deliberative Democracy:From Seyla Benhabib to Joshua Cohen.” Master’s thesis, Taiwan University.
Leib Ethan and Baogang He, eds. 2006. The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China. NewYork: Palgrave.
Li, Junru. 2006a. “Deliberative Democracy Is an Important Form of Democracy” (审审审审审 审审审一审审审审审). Boating Together (审审审审), 2006 (6): 6-7.
Li, Junru. 2006b. “Deliberative Democracy: An Important Form of Democracy” (审审审审审审审审审审审审) . Shanghai: Wenhui Daily, July 27: 5..
Lin, Guoming and Chen Dongsheng, Citizen Meeting and Deliberative Democracy: TheExperience of Citizens Participating in Policy Making of Health Care 审审审审审审审审审审 审审审审审审审审审审审审(:) ,Taiwan Sociology 审审审审审审(), No. 6, 2003, pp. 61-118.
Liu Jingyi, Democratic Future of Republic.com 审审审审审审审审审审审() , Twenty-first Century 审审审 审审审(一) , Vol.69, 2002, pp. 153-156.
Liu Shen, translation, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction(审审审审审审), by WillKymlicka, Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore, 2004.
Ma, Xiaoyan. 2009. “A New Perspective on Social Justice: CommunicativeDemocracy’s Reflections on and Criticism of Deliberative Democracy” (审审审审审审审审审审 审审审审审审审审审审审审审审审:). Academic Monthly, 2009 (1): 52-58.
31
Economic and Political Studies
O’Brien, Kevin J. 1994. “Chinese People’s Congresses and LegislativeEmbeddedness: Understanding Early Organizational Development.” ComparativePolitical Studies, 27(1): 80-109.
Polanyi, Karl. 2001, The great transformation. The political and economic origins of our time.Boston: Beacon Press.
Tan, Huosheng, ed. 2007. Deliberative Democracy (审审审审 ). Nanjing: Jiangsu People’sPublishing House.
Tong, Shijun, Some methodological characteristics of Habermas’ Theory ofModernity 审审审审审审审审审审审审审审审审审审() , in Run Xinbang and Lin Rui eds, A Interpretation of The Theory ofCommunicative Action 审审(<审审审审审>审, Shanghai people's Publishing House, 2003, pp. 231-261.
Wang, Jinfen. 2005. “The Innovation of the Mass Line and Deliberative Democracy”(审审审审审审审审审审审审). Marxism & Reality (审审审审审审审审), 2005(5): 144-146.
Wang, Xingfu. 2002. A Road to Discourse Democracy: A Dialogue with Habermas (审审审审审审审审 审审审审审审审: ). Chengdu:Sichuan People’s Publishing House.
Xu, Jili. 2003. “‘Deliberative Democracy’ in the Reform of Peking University” (审审审审审“审审审审审”). China News Week (审审审审审审), 2003 (28): 71.
Yan, Feifei. 2010. “A Study of Representative in Deliberative Democracy” (审审审审审审审审审审审审). Journal of the Party School of Tianjin Committee of the CPC (审审审审审审审审审审), 2010 (5):34-38.
Yang, Yijing. 1998. “Utopia of Public Opinion Poll—A Discussion of DeliberativePoll” (审审审审审审审审—— 审审审审审审审审审审一). Public Opinion Research Quarterly (审审审审审审), 1998 (204): 63-76.
Zhang, Xiaojin. 2003. “An Important Attempt of Democratic Construction: SomeThoughts on Wenling’s ‘Democratic consultation’” (审审审审审审审审审审审审审: ‘审审审审审’审审审审审审). Zhejiang Social Sciences, 2003 (1): 21-25.
Zhang, Xiuxiong. 2008. “Deliberation Democracy and Citizenship Consciousness” (审审审审审审审审审). Academic Research (审审审审), 2008(8): 23-30.
32
Top Related