Confucian Rule in China: In the House of Virtue and Talent

B. Gilley
{"title":"Confucian Rule in China: In the House of Virtue and Talent","authors":"B. Gilley","doi":"10.29654/TJD.200707.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is the best of times for scholars and policy analysts who propose alternative visions of China’s political future. The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is in the midst of a far-reaching process of identifying exactly how it might remain in power for many decades to come. Chinese society is experiencing rapid value changes that may, from today’s vantage point, support any number of forms of political organization. Last but not least, democracy itself, which enjoyed a brief heyday in the 1990s as the only feasible form of political organization, has come under attack from both the left and the right (as it did following its previous heyday in the 1950s), thus relegitimating discussions of nondemocratic forms of government. The new alternative modernities of left and right share a disdain for electoral democracy. But they differ substantially in their proposed remedies. Those on the right typically emphasize elite rule, political stability, and the imposition of traditional values. Those on the left typically emphasize direct participation, economic redistribution, and the imposition of progressive values. In the Chinese case, the eruption of competing left and right visions for the future owes in part to the signals given by the CCP. Since the failure of communism in China and elsewhere in 1989 and the beginning of the 1990s, the CCP has been groping to redefine its future. Official phrases such as “political civilization” and “harmonious socialist society” have been proffered as alternative modernities, but without any clear institutional content. A State Council White Paper on democracy issued in 2005 called for left-wing democratic centralism and right-wing rule by “experts” both at the same time. It is no wonder that the future seems a wide open field, and that many thinkers have rushed in to fill the void. Daniel Bell is the most prolific, well-read, and high-profile advocate of one type of right-wing alternative modernity, which he calls “Confucian democracy.” The outlines, contained in his new book, Beyond Liberal","PeriodicalId":403398,"journal":{"name":"Taiwan journal of democracy","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Taiwan journal of democracy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29654/TJD.200707.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

It is the best of times for scholars and policy analysts who propose alternative visions of China’s political future. The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is in the midst of a far-reaching process of identifying exactly how it might remain in power for many decades to come. Chinese society is experiencing rapid value changes that may, from today’s vantage point, support any number of forms of political organization. Last but not least, democracy itself, which enjoyed a brief heyday in the 1990s as the only feasible form of political organization, has come under attack from both the left and the right (as it did following its previous heyday in the 1950s), thus relegitimating discussions of nondemocratic forms of government. The new alternative modernities of left and right share a disdain for electoral democracy. But they differ substantially in their proposed remedies. Those on the right typically emphasize elite rule, political stability, and the imposition of traditional values. Those on the left typically emphasize direct participation, economic redistribution, and the imposition of progressive values. In the Chinese case, the eruption of competing left and right visions for the future owes in part to the signals given by the CCP. Since the failure of communism in China and elsewhere in 1989 and the beginning of the 1990s, the CCP has been groping to redefine its future. Official phrases such as “political civilization” and “harmonious socialist society” have been proffered as alternative modernities, but without any clear institutional content. A State Council White Paper on democracy issued in 2005 called for left-wing democratic centralism and right-wing rule by “experts” both at the same time. It is no wonder that the future seems a wide open field, and that many thinkers have rushed in to fill the void. Daniel Bell is the most prolific, well-read, and high-profile advocate of one type of right-wing alternative modernity, which he calls “Confucian democracy.” The outlines, contained in his new book, Beyond Liberal
儒家在中国的统治:德才之家
对于提出中国政治未来不同愿景的学者和政策分析人士来说,这是最好的时机。执政的中国共产党(CCP)正处于一个意义深远的过程中,即确定它如何在未来几十年保持执政地位。中国社会正在经历迅速的价值观变化,从今天的有利位置来看,这种变化可能支持任何形式的政治组织。最后但并非最不重要的是,民主本身,作为唯一可行的政治组织形式,在20世纪90年代享受了短暂的全盛时期,现在受到了左翼和右翼的攻击(就像它在20世纪50年代的上一次全盛时期所做的那样),从而重新合法化了对非民主政府形式的讨论。新的另类现代性左翼和右翼都对选举民主不屑一顾。但他们提出的补救措施存在很大差异。右翼人士通常强调精英统治、政治稳定和传统价值观的强加。左派通常强调直接参与、经济再分配和进步价值观的强加。就中国而言,左翼和右翼对未来愿景的竞争在一定程度上要归功于中共发出的信号。自从1989年和90年代初共产主义在中国和其他地方失败以来,中共一直在摸索重新定义自己的未来。诸如“政治文明”和“社会主义和谐社会”之类的官方用语被当作现代性的替代品,但没有任何明确的制度内容。2005年国务院发布的一份关于民主的白皮书呼吁左翼民主集中制和右翼“专家”统治同时进行。毫无疑问,未来似乎是一片广阔的开放领域,许多思想家纷纷涌入填补这一空白。丹尼尔·贝尔是一种右翼另类现代性的最多产、博览群书、最引人注目的倡导者,他称之为“儒家民主”。这些提纲收录在他的新书《超越自由主义》中
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信