By Aneesh Sood
When the United States conducts foreign policy, it needs to remember movements inside of authoritarian countries that want to incorporate western-style ideas into their culture.
The People’s Republic of China, an authoritarian culture, possesses liberalizing tendencies even though the country has become very authoritarian under its current leader. On that note, there have been similar movements to liberalize countries in other parts of the world. From the Arab Spring to the Venezuelan uprising, these movements are numerous and global in reach. However, when taking a closer look at what makes such revolutions succeed or fail, it’s clear to see that without the support of some elites – weather in the military or individuals already holding some political power – it is often difficult for these movements to achieve their desired goals. Therefore, the argument can be made that the most expedient way to advance reforms within a government may be through the support of those sympathetic to your cause who already hold power, not just through protests and activism alone.
To see this idea in action, one can look the ideas and career of Hu Yaobang. He was a top Communist official of the People’s Republic of China, serving first as Chairman and then as General Secretary in the 1980s. He rose to power following the death of Mao Zedong, with whom he clashed in his earlier years and who purged him during China’s Cultural Revolution. Upon his return to the Communist Party, Hu embarked on a series of political and economic reforms under the direction of paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. He developed a reputation of being an open-minded leader who was more than willing to incorporate Western values and ideals into China such as freedom of the press, government transparency, and free market reforms. As Cary Huang wrote for the South China Morning Post, it was Hu’s actions that “led the bid to free China from the bounds of Marxist and Maoist orthodoxy, which eventually made capitalistic reform possible, even under communist rule.” He was critical of the totalitarian style of rule ushered in by Mao, and sought to introduce age and term limits, as well a collective leadership system rather than one-man rule, into his party. Clearly, this was a man who sought to make the system work better for the people of China, while operating within and working with the party he sought to change. As Bonnie Girard wrote for The Diplomat, it is important to remember that at the end of the day Hu was still “a true Communist stalwart” – he never sought to overthrow his party, but simply change it. Yaobang’s ideas served as ammunition for others in China who wanted democratic reform. He inspired the pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square.
Unsurprisingly, there were many within the party that opposed Hu’s actions. When students began to protest for further reforms, Hu took their side and was forced to resign as General Secretary of his party. While his successor sought to continue many of his reforms, things eventually stalled, and today Xi Jinping and his government have taken steps backwards from the vision Hu had from his country. The government at a point censored details of Hu’s life within the country, landing a further blow to what he sought to achieve, but censorship of his life was lifted in 2005 and he is seen as a beacon for reform once more.
While some might say that Hu failed in his motives due to his ouster and subsequent censorship by the government, in my eyes, he achieved significant reforms from the inside and stood up for those who sought a better China, allowing liberal values to take hold within the Communist political system. One cannot help but wonder what more he may have done, but the example he set shines bright among liberals in China even today.
There is an important lesson to be learned from Yaobang’s example. Writer Michael Lind addressed the issue of Humanist and Rationalist cultures in his story “Toward a Sino-Hellentic Humanism.” He defined Humanist Cultures as having “a focus on human life, combined with a high degree of indifference toward supernatural and metaphysical questions; an emphasis on practical reason or common sense, as opposed to supernatural revelation, deductive rationalism or individual genius; and a respect for the classical literary tradition embodying the wisdom of the past (as distinct from scriptural tradition from allegedly divine revelation).” Humanists seek to improve the human condition through reason and set aside the supernatural. However, that doesn’t mean religion is not practiced in humanist societies or by humanists, as people practice religion in humanistic societies and there are religious forms of humanism. Lind also states that humanism was a mode of thought that emerged in ancient Greece, Rome and China as well as the Renaissance and Baroque areas.
In contrast, rationalist cultures seek to build an ideal society based on the idea that reason can create a new society. It treats social science as the same thing as physical science. Societies like the old Soviet Union and Maoist China are rationalist. However, reformers like Yaobang sought to make their countries more Humanist, or like the west.
The example of Yaobang proves that when problems emerge in a society they often seek to incorporate ideas from other societies and even become more like opposition societies. When societies become more alike, they tend to be able to cooperate more. Cooperation is key when it comes to arms control and reducing the number of armaments in the world. Arms control is based on Humanist principles, or using human reason and experience to solve problems. Humanist principles also take into account various human experiences in various cultures.
A China where the ideas of Yaobang take hold will be able to engage more openly with western societies. This is important because of nuclear weapons and other deadly arms in various countries’ arsenals. A method of engagement in the style of Donald Trump where foreign countries, such as a geo-political competitor like China, are treated as the enemy almost by nature will not strengthen Humanist tendencies but will make extreme nationalist like Jingping more powerful. Which tendency will win? Only time will tell.
Aneesh Sood is an Arms Control Fellow at the Peace Economy Project.
