The Factors That Contributed to the Creation of the Power-Sharing Regime of the KMT and the CCP - Essay Example

?Account for the factors that contributed to the creation of the power-sharing regime of the KMT and the CCP in twentieth century China Introduction The development of political systems worldwide is related to a series of factors. Normally, the economic and social conditions of a country are set the criteria on which the country’s political framework has to be based. At this point, it has been proved that the level of influence of the above conditions on local politics can be differentiated; China is such case. Due to its strong culture and traditions – which have managed to keep their power despite the pressures from Western ethics – the country managed to remain autonomous in the international community; this target was mostly achieved through the establishment of a political system which emphasizes on the independency of the country, not just in terms of culture but also of the production (industrial and agriculture). It seems that the power-sharing regime of KMT and the CCP parties has contributed to the above result. The factors that led to the development of the above regime are examined in this paper. Emphasis is given on the political conflicts and agreements that characterize the specific regime and the initiatives developed each time for the political stabilization of the country. 2. Factors that contributed to the creation of the power-sharing regime of the KMT and the CCP in twentieth century China. The fall of communism in Eastern Europe had left the impression that all countries with similar political systems were likely to follow the same route; however, there was an exception; reference is made to China, a country the political framework of which is based on the principles of communism (Gore, 2010, p.10). The fact that communism has survived in China has been extensively examined by academics worldwide; the answer to the question how communism in China kept its power is rather related to the development of a power-sharing regime with the participation of kmt and ccp parties. At a first level, it should be noted that the power-sharing regime has not been, traditionally, an acceptable political system in China; in fact, the governance of the country has been traditionally related to the imperial power, which was considered as ‘absolute and inalienable’ (Zheng, 2010, p.62). In the context of the imperial power, the emperor had the power to govern with no limitations or restrictions, keeping his power to delegate certain tasks to ‘other individuals and organizations’ (Zheng, 2010, p.62). Also, it was under the influence of the imperial power that China’s political system had accepted the views of Rousseau on political governance – and not that of Locke (Zheng 2010, p.62). In other words, the power-sharing regime, which currently characterizes the political system of China, can be considered as differentiated from the country’s traditional political thought. However, this difference is not as high as expected, a view, which can be developed after examining the political practices of CCP and KMT parties – which participate in the political group that currently governs China. More specifically, a closer review of the political decisions and initiatives of China’s Party can lead to the assumption that the power-sharing regime has two different dimensions: at a first level, the CCP is able ‘to decentralize its powers to other actors according to its needs’ (Zheng 2010, p.62); however, CCP can also ‘recentralize its powers with no notice, if this is necessary’ (Zheng, 2010, p.62), a fact that proves the limited borders of the power-sharing regime in China. The reasons that led CCP to accept a power-regime framework with non-communist parties are analytically explained in the study of Zheng (1997); in accordance with the above study, the first of these reasons was relate with the political power of KMT. The followers of the party were many. The leaders of CCP understood that even many of the supporters of Chiang Kai-Shek decided to follow him in Taiwan, still many of them would remain in China; and these people were in important positions, in terms of the local social, political and economic life. So, they would be able to influence people against the CCP; this practice, if continued for quite a long could cause severe political instability – being an actual threat for CCP (Zheng 1997, p.42). Therefore, the power-sharing regime could ensure that the political enemies of CCP would be under control – they would be given the power to take political decisions for which they had to report to CCP and through this way they would be controlled regarding their political activities. Moreover, with the participation of the KMT leaders and supporters, the CCP party would become stronger and could secure its position in the country’s governance. At this point, it should be noted that the political power of KMT in China cannot be ignored; an indicative example of this power is given in the study of Morton et al. (2005); during the war against the Japanese, China was governed by two different political powers: ‘the KMT was in control of the southwest and the CCP was in control of the northwest’ (Morton et al 2005, p.197). Another important factor that led to the development of the power-sharing regime between CCP and KMT is the need for controlling the cities and the country’s financial and industrial activities. CCP has been a party traditionally related to the countryside of China; this fact has been the result of the strategy of Mao Zedong ‘gathering strength in the villages, using the villages in order to surround the cities and then taking the cities’ (Mao, 1961, Vol 4, p.363 in Zheng, 1997, p.42). Indeed, this strategy was proved critical in order for CCP to take the control of China’s cities; however, after the success of the above plan, another problem occurred: the members of CCP, being mostly ‘peasants, poorly educated and unskilled’ (Zheng, 1997, p.42) were not able to govern the cities; for this reason, the highly educated members of KMT and the intellectuals were necessary in order for the various sectors of the country to be effectively governed. At this point, the help of KMT was crucial for CCP in order to keep the control of the country. The following issue should be also highlighted: when CCP came in power, the economy of China was in a bad condition – mostly because of the war with Japanese – a war that lasted for 8 years – but also because of the civil war – which lasted for 4 years; the recovery of the economy was immediate, but the above target could not be achieved without help; the CCP needed the help of the appropriately skilled members of KMT for supporting the agricultural and industrial production across the country (Zheng, 1997, p.43); the cooperation with KMT was the only available option for CCP in order to achieve the recovery of economy – in all its aspects; if the above target was not achieved, the presence of CCP in the governance of the country would be threatened. For the above reasons, the leaders in CCP decided to accept a power-regime framework, which, in any case, was not particularly restrictive for CCP – in the context described above. The need for a power-sharing regime also emerged because of the following reason: CCP has managed to take the control of the land of China – through its strategy to gain the villages, as explained above; however, the above Party was still far from gaining the mind (Zheng, 1997, p.43); in fact, despite the competence of CCP in controlling the land of the country, its ability to resolve the country’s political, social and economic problems was doubted by highly educated people across China – reference is made to the ‘intellectuals, urban residents and industrialists’ (Zheng, 1997, p.43). By giving to the members of KMT the chance to participate in the country’s political decision the CCP gave to the educated people of the cities the impression that the country’s matters would be adequately and effectively addressed – by people who have the necessary skills. From this point of view, the power-sharing regime would give to CCP the chance to eliminate the social and political conflicts, a fact that would allow to its leaders to govern the country without having to face internal political and social turbulences; the power of intellectuals in Chinese cities is also highlighted in the study of So et al. (2003, p.215). From a similar point of view, Fung (2000) notes that the power-sharing regime in China should be considered as unavoidable because of the following reason: by accepting such regime, CCP shows a trend for accepting certain aspects of democracy in governing the country; this fact is particularly important in order for the country’s intellectuals to help CCP in developing various political and social activities (Fung 2000, p.193). Without accepting such scheme, the CCP would not be able to get the support of intellectuals; in the long term, such failure would negatively affect the efforts of CCP to keep the control of the country. On the other hand, reference should be made to the following fact: the development of a different regime in China would be extremely difficult, because of the following reason: the traditional political beliefs in China are related to the imperial power, as explained above. Because of the above reason, it would be stated that ‘the official ideology of China is antithetic to democratic concepts’ (Brodsgaard et al. 2006, p.218). Under these terms, the governance of the country by a party, which supports democracy, is not feasible. In the context of this view, KMT, which is based on ‘the political ideology of the Three Principles of the People’ (Brodsgaard et al. 2006, p.218) would not be able, ever, to get the control of the country, taking into consideration the political beliefs of Chinese people, who are likely to support a ‘unique power and a unique leader’ (Brodsgaard et al. 2006, p.218) political system. Indeed, the fact that CCP managed to get the control of China and remain in this position up today, verifies the above view. At the same time, the participation of KMT in the governance of the country would ensure the development of more effective political decisions – a fact that would lead again in favour of CCP, which is the party that governs China (Hauss, 2006, p.521). In accordance with Li (2008) the development of the power sharing regime in China reflects the transition of the country’s governance from an imperial power regime to ‘compromise making and consensus building’ (Li 2008, p.14), a fact which helps CCP to secure its political influence. In accordance with the above, the power – sharing regime in China can be characterized as absolutely justified: KMT does not meet a fundamental requirement in order to get the country’s control – referring to its opposition with the traditional political ideology of China – while CCP does not have appropriately skilled members in order to control the country’s economic, political and social activities. In other words, each of the above parties covers the weaknesses of the other and they can both participate in the country’s governance; however, the advantage belongs clearly to CCP, which has the power to take all critical political decisions, while KMT has only a supportive role, as described previously. The achievement of two important political targets:’ the return of Hong Kong and Macau to Chinese control in 1997 and 1999’ (Schmitt, 2009, p.65) verified the effectiveness of the style of governance of CCP and secured its political power. 3. Conclusion The development of power – sharing regime in China has significantly helps towards the stabilization of the country’s political and social environment. The literature published in the specific field, as presented above, has proved that the specific regime has been rather unavoidable; in fact, this regime was necessary in order for CCP to keep the control of the country. At the next level, the introduction of this regime reflects another trend: the gradual independency of China from its political past (Hunt 1996, p.110); moreover, in the study of Deng et al. (2005) emphasis is given on the increase of economic life as a critical factor in the development of key political decisions (Deng et al. 2005, p.32). Indeed, the level of the country’s economic development since the introduction of power-sharing regime proves the effectiveness of this model of governance. At the same time, this regime guarantees the participation of intellectuals in the development of critical political decisions, a fact that is encouraging regarding the political future of China. References Brodsgaard, K., Zheng, Y. (2006) The Chinese Communist Party in reform. New York: Taylor & Francis Brown, M. (2000) The rise of China. Cambridge: MIT Press Deng, Y., Wang, F. (2005) China rising: power and motivation in Chinese foreign policy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Fung, E. (2000) In search of Chinese democracy: civil opposition in Nationalist China, 1929-1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gore, L. (2010) The Chinese Communist Party and China's Capitalist Revolution: The Political Impact of Market. New York: Taylor & Francis Hauss, C. (2006) Comparative politics: domestic responses to global challenges. Belmont: Cengage Learning Hunt, M. (1996) The genesis of Chinese Communist foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press Li, C. (2008) China's changing political landscape: prospects for democracy. Virginia: Brookings Institution Press Morton, W., Lewis, C. (2005) China: its history and culture. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Professional Schmitt, G. (2009) The rise of China: essays on the future competition. New York: Encounter Books So, B., Wang, G. (2003) Power and identity in the Chinese world order: festschrift in honour of Professor Wang Gungwu. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press Wong, T. (2002) Hegemonies compared: state formation and Chinese school politics in postwar Singapore and Hong Kong. London: Routledge Zheng, Y. (2010) The Chinese Communist party as organizational emperor: culture, reproduction and transformation. New York: Taylor & Francis Zheng, S. (1997) Party vs. state in post-1949 China: the institutional dilemma Cambridge modern China series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Read More