In the following article, which was published by Global Times on March 11, three foreign observers, including Keith Bennett, present their views on the following questions in the context of China’s two annual sessions – of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC):
- How are consensuses achieved swiftly and on a broad scale?
- How do the down-to-earth style of CPPCC members and NPC deputies differ from Western lawmakers?
- And how do weighty national issues debated each year genuinely resonate with the daily lives of ordinary people?
Keith notes that: “China’s whole-process people’s democracy represents and embodies the interests of the vast majority… The key reason is that the type of consensus, uniting state and society, that can be achieved in a socialist country like China, is actually impossible to attain in a capitalist society. At the end of the day, such societies are divided into classes with fundamentally irreconcilable and antagonistic interests.”
In the West, Keith observes, “We see an increasing trend to treat politics as just another profession, with Western legislators going rapidly from elite university to a political think tank or a job in parliament and then rapidly to a parliamentary seat. In this way, any lingering concept of serving the people is disappearing and the people are noticing. In this situation, Western legislators lead lives that are ever more divorced from the people and communities they are supposedly meant to serve.”
“In contrast, through whole-process people’s democracy, people in China have a real input into who will be elected and chosen to represent them. Mostly, they continue to live and work among the people they serve. They are well placed to articulate people’s concerns because in most instances they are their concerns, too.”
China’s two sessions offer a window into how the country aims to advance its high-quality development and sustain the momentum of its reform in an ever-changing global landscape. How are consensuses achieved swiftly and on a broad scale? How do the down-to-earth style of CPPCC members and NPC deputies differ from Western lawmakers? And how do weighty national issues debated each year genuinely resonate with the daily lives of ordinary people? The Global Times invites three foreign scholars to share their perspectives.
Reaching consensus
Denis Simon (Simon), a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC: China’s two sessions sit at the apex of a governance system designed to convert broad political priorities into implementable programs with unusual speed and scale. What often appears to foreign observers as “instant consensus” is, in fact, the product of four interacting features: tightly organized agenda-setting, hierarchical responsibility and evaluation, policy experimentation, and extensive mobilization capacity across Party, state and quasi-state institutions.
Announcements at the two sessions function as authoritative signals that align state organs, markets, and society around a defined set of priorities – economic stabilization, industrial upgrading, employment, common prosperity, carbon peaking, artificial intelligence, or public health capacity.
Continue reading How does whole process people’s democracy differ from western democracy?