CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA
– One question that should have been asked about the Chinese Communist Party’s
just-completed leadership transition is whether the entire elaborately
choreographed exercise was akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The installation of a new leadership may matter little if the end of CCP rule
is both foreseeable and highly probable.
Many observers would find this assertion shocking. The CCP, they insist, has
proved its resilience since the Tiananmen crisis in 1989 and the collapse of
Soviet communism in 1991. Why should predictions of the collapse of CCP rule be
taken seriously now?
While the future of China
is unpredictable, the durability of its post-totalitarian regime can be
estimated with some confidence. China
may be unique in many ways, but its one-party rule is hardly exceptional.
Indeed, its political order suffers from the same self-destructive dynamics
that have sent countless autocratic regimes to their graves.
Among many of the systemic flaws of autocracy, degeneration at the top, epitomized
by ever-weaker leaders, is progressive and incurable. The exclusive and closed
nature of autocracy bars many talented individuals from rising to senior
government positions, owing to a pattern of succession that rewards political
loyalty over capabilities. In fact, savvy autocratic rulers favor
less
talented successors, because they are easier to groom and control on their way
to power.
Leadership degeneration accelerates as the autocratic regime ages and grows
more bureaucratic. As individuals in such regimes ascend the hierarchy,
patronage and risk-aversion become the most critical factors in determining
their chances for promotion. Consequently, such regimes grow increasingly
sclerotic as they select leaders with stellar resumes but mediocre records.
The most lethal strain of leadership degeneration is escalating predation
among the ruling elites. The most visible symptom is corruption, but the
cause is intrinsic to autocratic rule. Typically, first-generation
revolutionaries have a strong emotional and ideological attachment to certain
ideals, however misguided they may be. But the post-revolutionary elites are
ideologically cynical and opportunistic. They view their work for the regime
merely as a form of investment. And, like investors, they seek ever-higher
returns.
As each preceding generation of rulers cashes in its illicit gains from
holding power, the successors are motivated by both the desire to loot even
more and the fear that there may not be much left by the time they get their
turn at the trough. This is the underlying dynamic driving corruption in China
today. In fact, the consequences of leadership degeneration are easy to see:
faltering economic dynamism and growth, rising social tensions, and loss of
government credibility.
The puzzle is why neither the compelling self-destructive logic of
autocratic rule nor the mounting evidence of deteriorating regime performance
in China has
persuaded even some of the most knowledgeable observers that the end of CCP
rule is now a distinct possibility.
An obvious explanation is the power of conventional thinking. Long-ruling
regimes – think of the Soviet Communist Party, Indonesia’s
Suharto, and Egypt’s
Hosni Mubarak – are typically considered invulnerable, even just before they
collapse. But those who believe that the CCP can defy both the internal
degenerative dynamics of autocracy and the historical record of failed
one-party regimes might benefit from reading Leon Trotsky, who knew something
about revolutions. Dictatorships are regarded as indestructible before they
fall, Trotsky reminds us, but their demise is viewed as inevitable once they
are toppled.
Another explanation is fear of contemplating the unknown. CCP rule may not
last, but the alternative – state failure and civil chaos – could be far worse
than the
status quo. But the record of democratic transitions since
1974 suggests that regime change in China
is unlikely to be calamitous. The decisive factor will be whether it is
initiated and managed by the ruling elites, as in Taiwan,
Mexico, Brazil,
and Spain.
Managed transitions produce more stable democracies. Should such a process
occur in China,
the CCP could transform itself into a major political party competing with
others for power, as formerly autocratic parties have done in Mexico
and Taiwan.
Even a disorderly regime transition, however traumatic and chaotic in the
short term, could yield a system that, on balance, is an improvement over a
stagnant, repressive, and corrupt autocracy. Indonesia’s
new democracy may be imperfect, but has thrived despite its initial poor
prospects. Likewise, Vladimir Putin’s Russia,
a deeply flawed hybrid autocracy, is nonetheless a far better place to live
than the Soviet Union was.
If there is one lesson to be learned from the remarkable history of the
democratic transitions of the past 38 years, it is that when elites and the
public reject authoritarian rule, they do their best to make the new system
work. Should such a transition occur in China,
there is no reason to think that the process and the outcome will be
fundamentally different.
Minxin Pei is
Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and
a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United
States.
