Zhang Xianming on Full-Process Democracy

Zhang Xianming, “The Logic of the Politics of Responsibility in Full-Process Democracy”[1]

Introduction and Translation by David Ownby
 
Introduction

Zhang Xianming (b. 1970) is Vice-President of the Chinese Association of Political Science 中国政治学会 as well as Professor and Dean of the School of Public Administration of Jilin University 吉林大学行政学院, and his name also appears in a State Council-run repertory of Chinese think tanks, suggesting that he perhaps divides his time between the worlds of academics and government.  To my knowledge, Zhang is not a prominent public intellectual, and I chose to translate this text because it perhaps shines some light on the overlap between propaganda, most of which is produced by Party and state organs, and academic work, particularly as the CCP prepares to celebrate its hundred-year birthday this summer.
 
The theme of Zhang’s text is “full-process democracy 全过程民主,” a concept that appears to have been coined by Xi Jinping in a speech he gave in Shanghai in November of 2019 as part of a discussion of the development of Chinese democracy:  “Full-process democracy includes the process of democratic elections, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic supervision.”  The term provoked a certain amount of skepticism at the time (see here for a BBC Chinese report), but “theoretical discussions” have continued, and in March of 2021, a formal proposal was introduced to amend the Organic Law of the National People’s Congress to include the concept of full-process democracy.
 
Zhang Xianming’s remarks were in fact delivered as part of a round table organized by the journal Exploration and Free Views on the one-year anniversary of Xi Jinping’s first use of the term.  Participants in the round table explored different aspects of the idea; Zhang’s focus was on the “politics of responsibility,” i.e., the notion that for democracy to function, all parties must be responsible, including citizens, voters, politicians, policy-makers, and administrators.
 
Although Zhang’s text is heavy on “responsibilities” and light on “rights” (the term only appears twice), there is nothing particularly exceptional or objectionable about what he has to say.  Responsibility is important to democracy, after all, whether or not it the democracy is “full-process.”  At the same time, the text is frustratingly vague, or abstract.  Zhang cites Lenin on the necessity for elections without discussing the state or fate of elections in China.  He stresses the importance of government accountability as part of the politics of responsibility and China’s full-process democracy without discussing the degree to which the Chinese Party-State is accountable (in fact, it is not clear whether full-process democracy is part of socialism with Chinese characteristics or if it is a free-standing process China is offering to the world).   One can, I suppose, make the argument that elitism is superior to populism in the management of a country’s affairs (the philosopher Zhao Tingyang makes just such a case here), but Zhang makes no such argument, but simply insists that we should all be responsible.

Indeed, Zhang’s text is so vague that it is impossible to tell if he is saying that China has already achieved full-process democracy, or has yet to achieve it, whether he is praising China for implementing full-process democracy, or calling China out for having failed.  Perhaps this is the best that an academic can do when asked to work on propaganda themes, at least if he wants to stay on the think tank circuit.
 
Favorite quotes
 
“What we call the politics of responsibility is the integration of responsibility into all aspects of political life, whether it be daily private life or the public life that concerns the functioning of politics, and responsibility is the pillar that provides norms and coordination for different actors, thus achieving a harmonious and orderly public life. The politics of responsibility is used to describe a form in which every actor in public life is responsible, and all institutional mechanisms are constructed according to the basic requirements of responsibility.”
 
“Democracy is not just a form, it is a mechanism that affects the participants themselves, and in this sense the form of democracy is as important as its content, and democracy must be both social and ethical if it is to have both form and content. To interpret this ethical nature in terms of responsibility means that if one does not participate in democracy in a responsible manner, one is not only harming the interests and well-being of others, but also belittling one's own rights and dignity. Thus, for any political actor, responsibility and participation are highly unified, and without responsibility, the value of participation inherent in democracy is lost.”
 
“Once again, the idea is to improve an accountability framework that will be compatible with the modernization pattern of national governance. One of the characteristics of the people's democracy is its breadth, and in the context of the participation pattern of multiple actors in national governance, the renewal of the accountability system should focus on the accountability of actors other than the Party and the government. In a nutshell, the quality of full-process democracy should be improved through accountability, covering not only the entire process of democracy but also the entirety of participating actors, so that all those who participate can do so in an orderly manner under the incentive of an accountability mechanism, and jointly contribute to the realization of high-quality full-process democracy.”
 
Links to others texts of the site
 
For texts related to the theme of the CCP, click here
 
For texts related to the theme of democracy, click here

Translation

The people's democracy is a full-process democracy, whose characteristics and essence lie in this "fullness," which also describes its basic nature and advantages. By "full," we mean the organic unity of the operation of multi-level democratic interfaces, systematic democratic operation processes, and diverse forms of democratic functions. Democracy is an indispensable value and mechanism in modern political systems, but in a sense it "can only prevent certain evils, and cannot guarantee the realization of good politics."
 
To adhere to and improve socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics, we must deeply explore its value connotations and institutional advantages, enhance the quality of people's democracy by cultivating a soil conducive to its development and constructing a mechanism for its scientific operation, so that people's democracy can become an institutional guarantee for the realization of a good life for the people.
 
The people's democracy is full-process democracy, and responsibility is a political value and organizational principle that always accompanies human social life. Full-process democracy also necessarily requires that the politics of responsibility penetrate the entire process of democratic system construction.  Realizing the deep integration of the responsibility system and full-process democracy will give full play to the superiority of people's democracy.
 
Full-Process Democracy from the Perspective of the Politics of Responsibility
 
The relationship between responsibility and democracy is not a new issue, and the construction of modern political systems has tended to view democracy and responsibility as intersecting institutional systems. But this line of thinking is grounded in representative government and emphasizes the nature of responsibility in the client-agent 委托-代理relationship, i.e., the responsibility to ensure that the agent's behavior meets the expectations of the client.
 
However, full-process people's democracy as is not as simple as in a representative system. In modern societies, both the composition and operation of institutional systems are characterized by complexity, and the theory of the relationship between responsibility and democracy is in urgent need of further exploration to accommodate this change and to define the operation of more systematically democratic institutions. For this reason, we use the term "the politics of responsibility" to analyze the value of responsibility in democracy.
 
What we call the politics of responsibility is the integration of responsibility into all aspects of political life, whether it be daily private life or the public life that concerns the functioning of politics, and responsibility is the pillar that provides norms and coordination for different actors, thus achieving a harmonious and orderly public life. The politics of responsibility is used to describe a form in which every actor in public life is responsible, and all institutional mechanisms are constructed according to the basic requirements of responsibility.
 
The politics of responsibility has developed over the course of history. Traditional society needed responsibility, and modern society needs responsibility all the more, and the types of responsibility, the operational modes of responsibility, and the guarantee mechanisms of responsibility in modern society are more diversified and complex than those found in traditional society.
 
In the client-agent relationship of modern democracy, one of the intrinsic requirements of democracy is that "the people should be the owners of power, the government should be under the control of the people, and the policies and actions of the government should be based on the will of the people, i.e., be accountable to the people." In this logical framework, there is a certain degree of overlap between the politics of responsibility and democracy. This logic is more concerned with outcomes, but there is a complex process to arrive at these outcomes, and thinking about "popular accountability" in a democracy must be understood in the context of full-process democracy.
 
This involves three dimensions: first, democracy is an electoral process. From the standpoint of electoral democracy, the goal is to elect a competent person to exercise power, and for that person to fulfill their commitments and responsibilities. Accordingly, the election of competent people also requires a responsible voting process, and if voters go to the polls with an attitude of indifference, it is difficult to say that the result will be satisfactory, and voters will have no incentive to monitor the future behavior of the person they have elected to hold power.  In this case, the idea "popular accountability" becomes meaningless.
 
Second, democracy is a participatory process. Drawing on the political psychology of participatory democracy theory, people tend to be most concerned with matters that are closely related to their own interests. The public at large may not be interested in political events distant from their personal concerns, but tends to pay attention to what is happening around them. Therefore, the construction of democracy should start from grassroots governance, social governance, and even daily life, and construct the basic cells of democracy one by one.  If every cell in a society is democratic, then the whole society will also be running on a democratic track.
 
Third, democracy is the process of achieving accountability. Without an effective accountability system, there is no mechanism to correct mistakes and the exercise of power may deviate from its original purpose. Accountability entails costs, and in the client-agent relationship, the client is often at a cost disadvantage due to information and other factors, so accountability cannot be purely results-oriented, and must cover the entire democratic process to avoid "bad results" as much as possible, and in order to reduce the costs of accountability.
 
The above three aspects reflect problems both in the construction and operation of democracy and in the basic relationship between responsible politics and full-process democracy.  In other words, the construction of responsible politics is conducive to the quality of full-process democracy. If all actors participate responsibly in the democratic process and practice the various aspects of democracy in a responsible manner, the democratic results obtained will be responsible, even if they may not be optimal. In this sense, responsible politics is a guarantee mechanism to prevent the flowering of democratic good from bearing bad fruit. 
 
The Concept of Responsibility Guides the Quality Improvement of Full-Process Democracy
 
Ideas are a combination of political understanding, political attitudes, and political emotions, reflecting the "public sentiment" and culture of a country or nation, and are the soil for the growth, survival, development, and change of institutions. According to new institutionalism, "concepts are the cornerstone of systems," and conceptual elements have become key variables in analyzing the development of a system. One of the primary tasks in building a responsible politics is to cultivate a concept of responsibility throughout the entire society.
  
Traditional Chinese culture is rich in the idea of responsibility, and by emphasizing its precedence in the maintenance and development of social order, and internalizing responsibility as a basic way of public life, responsibility penetrates the entire political process. One of the primary characteristics of traditional Chinese society is that it relies more on primitive emotions to maintain social order, and responsibility takes precedence over rights as the basic logic of the operation of traditional Chinese society, which is also very different from Western culture.

​Although responsibility in traditional society mostly refers to moral responsibility, responsibility functions as a fundamental support for the stability of the social structure. Whether it was demanding that the gentleman practice cultivation or insisting that people be happy in their assigned role, traditional Chinese culture made it clear that each individual should fulfill their responsibilities according to their position in the hierarchical structure, in the absence of which "calamities will ensure 德不配位，必有灾殃," to quote Zhu Xi (1130-1200).  In other words, an individual's integration into political life must take the responsibilities conferred by their status as their basic code of conduct, and their participation in political life must also be based on a responsible attitude.
 
Democracy is not just a form, it is a mechanism that affects the participants themselves, and in this sense the form of democracy is as important as its content, and democracy must be both social and ethical if it is to have both form and content. To interpret this ethical nature in terms of responsibility means that if one does not participate in democracy in a responsible manner, one is not only harming the interests and well-being of others, but also belittling one's own rights and dignity. Thus, for any political actor, responsibility and participation are highly unified, and without responsibility, the value of participation inherent in democracy is lost.
 
We can borrow the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's (1930-2002) concept of "habitus" to explain the ideal situation of responsible politics. What he called habitus are universal and stable trends in daily behavior appearing in any particular society. In a responsible politics, the ideal concept of responsibility is a situation in which responsibility is considered a social "habit.” Responsibility in modern society is multifaceted, emphasizing both public and moral responsibility, as well as promoting and fulfilling legal responsibilities, while political officials are also constrained by political, disciplinary, and administrative responsibilities. To consider responsibility as a "habit" means to transform all kinds of responsibility from external compulsory constraints to internal rational constraints, i.e., the public actively participates in all aspects of democracy related to their own interests in a responsible manner, responsibly performing all democratic procedures.
 
Full-process democracy is in fact full-process responsibility, and whether it is a question of a vote or a consultation, the result will definitely be satisfactory, because a democracy of full-process responsibility integrates and reflects to the greatest extent possible what the public wants and needs.  Consequently, the public will feel the authenticity and effectiveness of democracy, as well as their own sense of political efficacy, and receive a genuine civic education promoting the improvement of individual political ability and accomplishment.
 
The Responsibility Structure Guarantees the Quality Improvement of Full-Process Democracy
  
Relying solely on the concept cannot genuinely guarantee that responsibility fulfills its functions, and the quality improvement of full-process democracy requires a systematic responsibility structure to provide such a guarantee.
Democracy is about the decision-making process, and full-process democracy can be seen in the pre-decision and post-decision phases, as well as at the moment when the decision is made. The pre-decision process includes feedback from public opinion, issue framing, and the selection of participating subjects; the decision-making process includes voting, consultation, and other procedures; and the post-decision process includes feedback on policy evaluation, accountability, and error correction.
 
Thus, a responsibility structure that guarantee the quality improvement of full-process democracy should fully cover the pre-decision, decision-making, and post-decision phases, not only to ensure that the participating subjects and policy issues are responsibly selected, but also to ensure that the participating subjects actively perform their responsibilities in the process of participation through specific institutional mechanisms.  At the same time, specific accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure that the decisions can be responsibly implemented and corrected in a timely fashion.
 
Full-process democracy is necessarily an open and transparent democracy, and an open and transparent “sunshine politics” is a catalyst that encourages the fulfillment of responsibilities. The democratic process should not be a closed-door club, rather the entire process of democracy should be made public while ensuring the participation of multiple subjects, while the transparency of various links strengthens the supervision of the democratic process, so that even people who are not involved can sense its true process. 
 
Lenin once pointed out that "'the principle of broad democracy’ must fulfill the following two necessary conditions:  first, complete openness; second, all offices are elected. It is ridiculous to talk about democracy without openness." The core purpose of sunshine politics is to strengthen supervision, and closed-door decision-making not only contradicts the requirements of modern politics, but also creates a hotbed of backroom corruption. In full-process democracy, first of all, we should guarantee the openness and transparency of the topic to be decided, and integrate the issues the public is most concerned about into the decision-making agenda.
 
Second, we should guarantee the openness and transparency of the selection of participating actors. This selection should meet the requirements of pluralism and be closely related to specific policy issues, ensuring the representiveness and professionalism of the participating actors, thus preventing "inside bids" and other kinds of complicity with the participating actors. Again, this will ensure the openness and transparency of the decision-making process, as the consultation or voting process will be made entirely public, facilitating all-around social supervision.

​Finally, we should guarantee the openness and transparency of policy implementation, and disclose the relevant actors, the various resources needed and the expected policy results, so as to provide the basic information needed for the democratic supervision of society.
 
Full-process democracy is inevitably a fully accountable democracy, and full accountability inevitably requires further attention to improvement of the accountability system mechanism. With the introduction and deepening of strict Party governance, the strength of the accountability mechanism has also reached unprecedented heights. While the accountability mechanism has done a great deal to promote the idea of purging corruption and purifying the political ecology, the reform of the accountability system mechanism still needs to be improved in the following aspects.
 
The first is to speed up the construction of a relatively complete fault-tolerance mechanism to balance the negative effects of "blame avoidance" brought about by accountability systems. The phenomenon of "blame avoidance" has become a stumbling block in the implementation of the current policy, because if the policy can not be implemented responsibly, then the results of responsibility for democracy will be meaningless.

​The second is to transform "results-oriented" accountability, and build a "before, during, and after" organically unified accountability mechanism. The essence of accountability is prevention, and accountability in the modern sense is not only responsible behavior after-the-fact, but also "the design of organizational and political mechanisms that induce or lead individuals or departments to adopt responsible behavior from the outset.”
 
Once again, the idea is to improve an accountability framework that will be compatible with the modernization pattern of national governance. One of the characteristics of the people's democracy is its breadth, and in the context of the participation pattern of multiple actors in national governance, the renewal of the accountability system should focus on the accountability of actors other than the Party and the government. In a nutshell, the quality of full-process democracy should be improved through accountability, covering not only the entire process of democracy but also the entirety of participating actors, so that all those who participate can do so in an orderly manner under the incentive of an accountability mechanism, and jointly contribute to the realization of high-quality full-process democracy.
 
Responsible Actions Drive the Quality Improvement of Full-Process Democracy
 
Responsibility is without doubt an "other-oriented" action. Actions are not isolated, but are often governed by specific concepts and shaped by certain institutional forms. In addition to the influence of ideas and structures on actions, the "planned" and "reflective" nature of action itself can also have a significant impact on the quality of full-process democracy.
 
Any action can produce a specific outcome. In action theory, the actor who wants to invest an action with meaning must necessarily adjust their action to take account of the other people with whom they are dealing. To plan is to make basic predictions and assessments of the expected outcomes of one's actions, and on that basis fix and adjust the intentions, methods, and processes of one's actions, with an eye toward making the outcomes of one's actions more desirable. In democratic participation, the planning of action is first based on the participant's understanding of democracy.
 
The participant has to clarify their position in the overall national governance pattern or democratic process, understand the purpose of participation and the possible effects of participation on themselves, on others, and on the public life around them. Thus, before participating in the democratic process, the participant must fully understand the basic situation of the issue they are participating in and the awareness and expectation of other “publics” about the issue. Responsibility is the relationship between expectation and response, in that only when an action meets the expectations of the target can it be called a responsible action.
 
Therefore, just as in the system through which National People’s Congress deputies or Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference members contact the public, only by fully grasping the information about a particular issue, and fully researching the wishes of the public, can we reflect, in our participation, the interests and expectations of the general public to the greatest extent.  Only then can we be considered truly responsible. From this point of view, "planning" is the work to be done before beginning the process of participation. 
 
Participants need to cultivate this kind of understanding:  serious participation is not only reflected in formal procedures, instead, the preparatory work that occurs prior to the democratic process is also an important variable that affects the outcome of democracy. Before participating, the participants should plan each step of their participation scientifically and systematically, learn the relevant policy knowledge, know how to use democratic procedures, and adhere to the rational attitude required for democracy.
  
What we call reflexivity is the process of making corrections in the course of action to prevent the influence of incidental factors or uncertainties in the on the outcome of these actions. Reflexivity is an important concept in Anthony Giddens' (b. 1938) sociology of action. It can provide a guarantee for the planning of our actions. In everyday experience, a well-planned action can be affected by external factors, so the function of reflexivity is to add an element of reflection to each step of the action, and to ensure that the action does not "deviate from its original objective" by constantly responding to changes in the external environment.
 
For example, in a democratic process, the information between different participants may be asymmetrical. Asymmetric information can cause an actor with an information advantage to sway the preferences of other actors. Thus, reflexivity is here the process of information sharing, and only when different actors adjust their preferences, resulting in the full sharing of information, can they maximize consensus and find the maximum overlap of interests. It is in light of this phenomenon that many theorists of consultative democracy have emphasized the importance of communication in the democratic process. In this sense, reflexivity is essentially a process of preference adjustment and transformation that takes place as actions develop, making one's actions more appropriate to the goals of participation through changes in the actor’s preferences.
 
Likewise, reflexivity plays an important role in the process of policy implementation. As the public's interests may change, policies such as the provision of basic public services should be flexible to a certain extent to avoid forming an hide-bound system, and constantly reflect on and adjust to changes in the public's interests, so that the policies can continuously meet the public's expectations.
 
Notes

[1] 张贤明, “全过程民主的责任政治逻辑,” published online on March 8, 2021 in Exploration and Free Views 探索与争鸣.  Originally published in the print edition of the same journal, December 2020.