Ideas vs. Propaganda: Debating the Future of the National People’s Congress in China

Last month, China held the 2nd Plenary Session of the 11th National People’s Congress (NPC) in Beijing. This event set off wide discussion in the media on the NPC’s future. Strongly argued requests for reform were met with counter arguments from the official news agencies in an attempt to justify the safeguarding of the NPC’s current role. Mr. Cao Siyuan, the president of Siyuan Merger and Bankruptcy Consultancy, published an article in the Southern Weekly following the NPC session. His article argues for reform of the National People’s Congress with the aim of enhancing Chinese democracy. Specifically, Mr. Cao provides five recommendations:

• The number of representatives should be reduced from 3,000 to 300 to promote focus, efficiency, and effectiveness.
• The NPC should be put in charge of fiscal policy to provide greater checks and balances and improve public oversight.
• Representatives should be given the opportunity to publicly debate issues in the Congress to encourage policy discussions and visibility.
• The NPC should be held in October or November to allow representatives to review and approve next year’s budget, not in March when a quarter of the budget has already been expended.
• The media should be able to attend the entire session and broadcast without restriction in the interest of transparency.

Mr. Cao’s article was posted on various blogs. Government officials seemed to have noticed the high salience of this argument and turned to the state propaganda organs to fight back. On April 1, an article appeared in the Communist “Qio Shi” periodical (and was subsequently widely disseminated by the official Xinhua News Agency) arguing strongly against the introduction of the separation of powers in China where such an approach is supposedly ill-suited. As evidence, the article describes the historic failure of the Sun Yet-Sen government – which employed a complex system of checks and balances – to demonstrate that such a system does not fit Chinese culture. The article further states that certain political systems – such as democracy – may work well in other countries, but that this does not mean it should be replicated elsewhere where conditions are likely to be different. The article then concludes that only the Chinese Communist Party – which puts the general public’s interest utmost – can lead the country towards socialist democracy.

The Chinese government appears to have relaxed its control over editorials, allowing more liberal articles to appear in the media. This change in policy likely flows from the realization that it can no longer block the spread of such messages in the age of the internet. Instead, the CCP responds with attempts to shape public opinion in the “right” direction by making full use of its propaganda tools. However, it remains to be seen if the public can be convinced so easily.