Deliberations in an authoritarian context and lessons for deliberation in Europe

The discourse on deliberation seems to be a mostly European one. It is nestled somewhere between narratives of western origins of democracy and deliberation, the construction of a discursive rational and much lauded examples of public deliberation in local decision-making processes, for example the Madrid’s City Council Budget or Irelands national referenda.[1] [2]  The lessons learnt are, therefore, also limited to a predominantly European perspective. This does not have to be the case. Deliberation, as much as recollections of Athenian fora make it out to be, is by no means a uniquely European phenomenon. Instead, the People’s Republic of China can serve as an invaluable example of how deliberation can also be understood and implemented.

The PRC is dominating headlines, not as an example of citizen engagement, but as a paragon of another kind. The Beijing’s successful lockdown of Wuhan has become the de facto role model for European countries wrestling with the Corona-outbreak. A success story that serves to legitimize temporary limitations on democratic freedoms in nations like Italy, Austria, Spain and France. But besides delivering an example of the effectiveness of authoritarian measures, the PRC could also serve as an example of how to strengthen democratic decision making. As it turns out, China has a history of its own regarding deliberation, that have led to what has been termed “authoritarian deliberation”.[3]

Based on the Confucian imagining of the junzi (君子), which is commonly translated as gentlemen, Chinese history has been co-shaped by these intellectuals and their practice of remonstration. The Junzi’s mission was to ensure that the emperors’ leadership did not stray from the people’s interests. Even the emperor was human, and thus, prone to making mistakes. [4]  This was done by consulting or deliberating with the emperor, local leadership and other intellectuals and constructing what the common good entails.[5]  While the origin of this form of consultation, straddling the line to deliberation, can be considered elitist, as it only empowers the Confucian intelligentsia, it laid the groundwork for people-centric governance.[6] Minben (民本), or people-centeredness was a fundamental concept of chinese authoritarian rule, stating that rulers must serve the interest of the people.[7] The evolution of people-centric governance might have seen major upheaval, such as Mao’s denunciation of Confucian thought during the “Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius” campaign, but Confucianist phrases and ideas have re-emerged in the last two decades, with terms like “harmonious society”, “excellent traditional culture” and “people-centred thought” at the forefront.[8] With these terms and a re-interpretation of the PRC’s political evolution; Consultative Democracy, the current culmination of Confucian people-centred governance, has become the PRCs answer to mounting pressure, domestically and internationally. An answer the PRC seeks to advertise on various media outlets with ties to the Chinese government,[9] and an answer that might serve well as a lesson to Europe.

But how can a look at today’s authoritarian deliberation help find answers to deliberation in Europe? Limitations of deliberative practices commonly cited in the European discourse are numerous: fears of polarization of deliberating parties, the problem of follow-up implementation, the issue of unequal participation and so on. These pitfalls have also been noted during the deliberative experiences made by the PRC. Once implemented on a small scale in local village experiments in, for example, the Zegou Township in Wenling City, they have become more widespread.[10] Now, even national reforms, like the reform of the national healthcare system in the aftermath of the 2002 SARS outbreak, involved citizen participation.[11] Deliberation has become a legitimacy-stream, and as such, issues that limit the generation of legitimacy have become a matter of importance. Whether by local governments, universities or think-tanks; action to tackle polarization, implementation and inequality have been made – and Europe ought to have a look at them.

While expanding on all the methods employed would not be feasible in this short blog post, I will try to shortly cover the aspect of Implementation. Implementing the consensus reached in a deliberation is difficult. Firstly, deliberations do not necessarily result in actionable outcomes. Secondly, even if the outcome is actionable, deliberating parties are seldomly the parties with the means needed for implementation. Looking at European cases of deliberation, like Tomorrows Europe,[12] implementation is not something to be taken for granted. The Chinese solution to the issue of implementation is a simple one. The state’s monopoly on power extends to public fora, as such, public deliberation is held with the involvement of the state. In all cases reviewed, public administrations served as organizers or initiators of public deliberation. While this obviously can cause a host of problems,[13] it does bring two distinct benefits: The deliberation happens under the auspices of state actors, who set forth the agenda of the deliberation, so as to guarantee concrete and actionable outcomes – the deliberations are thus effectively coming to an implementable consensus. Furthermore, the state actors also take the role of a guarantor, which ensures that the consensus reached will be implemented, otherwise a loss of trustworthiness, public cooperation and, lastly, legitimacy will be incurred – the state is thus providing resources required for implementation. The potential loss of political capital if public deliberation results are not respected is often too big a risk for local governments. This dependency also serves to somewhat offsets the imbalance of power. [14]  

There are, of course, also numerous European examples of such state-facilitated institutionalized forms of public deliberations, like the “Better Reykjavik” programme.[15] But this is by no means the norm. If public deliberation is to become an important part of decision-making, it must be understood as an important venue of legitimacy and an invaluable method of effective administrations. This does not mean that European nations should strive for a monopoly on public deliberation, but to expand the venues for public participation by further institutionalizing state-sponsored deliberative venues.

In times of an encroaching authoritarian threat in Europe, the re-strengthening of democratic legitimacy is important. While the People’s Republic of China might seem to be an unlikely candidate, it’s experiences can help improve deliberation in Europe in the hope to re-ignite the public’s interest in participation. By doing so, Europe can start to, instead of succumbing to the attraction authoritarian answers, work on the more important task: to strengthen democratic inclusion.  

[1] Manfredi Sánchez, J. L., & Calvo Rubio, L. M. (2019). Public deliberation and participation in the Madrid City Council budgets (2016-2018). Doxa Comunicación, (28).

[2] Democratic Audit UK. (2015, June 5). The legalisation of same-sex marriage in Ireland was a triumph for deliberative democracy, as well as equality. Retrieved from https://www.democraticaudit.com/2015/06/08/the-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriage-in-ireland-was-a-triumph-for-deliberative-democracy-as-well-as-equality/

[3] Notable literature on the term:He, B., & Wagenaar, H. (2018). Authoritarian deliberation revisited. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 622-629.
He, B., & Warren, M. E. (2011). Authoritarian deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on politics, 9(2), 269-289.
He, B., & Warren, M. E. (2017). Authoritarian deliberation in China. Daedalus, 146(3), 155-166.

[4]He, B. (2014). Deliberative culture and politics: The persistence of authoritarian deliberation in China. Political Theory, 42(1), 63f.

[5] He, B. (2017). Confucian Speech and Its Challenge to the Western Theory of Deliberative Democracy. Speech and Society in Turbulent Times: Freedom of Expression in Comparative Perspective, 62f.

[6] Shi, T., & Lu, J. (2010). The Meanings of Democracy: The Shadow of Confucianism. Journal of Democracy, 21(4), 125ff.

[7] Murthy, V. (2000). The democratic potential of Confucian Minben thought. Asian Philosophy, 10(1),33ff.

[8] Kubat, A. (2018). Morality as Legitimacy under Xi Jinping: The Political Functionality of Traditional Culture for the Chinese Communist Party. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 47(3), 48-56.

[9] Examples are: Global Times. (11.02.2019). Chinese democracy has its own merits. Retrieved from http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1141696.shtml
Global Times. (24.12.2019). West fails to understand China's democracy. Retrieved from https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1174652.shtml

[10] For more on this: Fishkin, J. S., He, B., Luskin, R. C., & Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative democracy in an unlikely place: Deliberative polling in China. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 435-448.

[11] Kornreich, Y., Vertinsky, I., & Potter, P. B. (2012). Consultation and deliberation in China: the making of China's health-care reform. The China Journal, (68), 176-203.

[12] Center for Deliberative Democracy. (n.d.). Final Report: Tomorrow's Europe, the first EU-wide Deliberative Poll. Retrieved from https://cdd.stanford.edu/2007/final-report-tomorrows-europe-the-first-eu-wide-deliberative-poll/

[13]For examples, see: Tong, D., & He, B. (2018). How democratic are Chinese grassroots deliberations? An empirical study of 393 deliberation experiments in China. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 630-642.

[14] See: Tong, D., & He, B. (2018). How democratic are Chinese grassroots deliberations? An empirical study of 393 deliberation experiments in China. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 19(4), 630-642.Ma, D., & Hsu, S. C. (2018). The political consequences of deliberative democracy and electoral democracy in China: an empirical comparative analysis from four counties. China Review, 18(2), 1-32.

[15] Citizens Foundation (2010, May 6). Better Reykjavik. Retrieved from https://www.citizens.is/portfolio_page/better_reykjavik/