(Keynote speech by Prof. Zhang Weiwei, distinguished professor of Fudan University, president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and researcher at the Shanghai Chunqiu Institute for Development and Strategic Studies, at the International Forum on Chinese Path to Modernization and Global Community of Shared Future)
Chinses path to modernization has secured spectacular success that awes the world. Looking back at history, the 18th and 19th century saw the prime of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, countries that harbor populations in the tens of millions. In the 20th century, the United States and Japan emerged with populations in the hundreds of millions. However, in the 21st century, China’s rise with a population in the billions has surpassed them all, exceeding the combined population of all Western countries. The impact of the scale alone is nothing short of monumental.
To comprehend the success of Chinese path to modernization in this process, it is imperative to grasp China’s political system, particularly the Communist Party of China and its impact.
The term “party” in the name “Communist Party of China” carries a distinct meaning from the “party” in Western political parties. In Western languages, the word “party” derives from “part”, hence the theory of political party in the West is essentially a representation of various interest groups in society or a country. Its game rules are as follows: when one political party receives 51% of the vote, and the other 49%, the party with 51% wins, and the winner takes all. If there is a dispute, the Supreme Court can make a ruling, and everyone must accept it. This is game rule of Western democracy.
然而今天我們看到的現實情況是什么呢？非西方國家采用西方——我叫做“部分利益黨”模式之后（Partial interest parties或者Parties and interest parties），往往陷入社會分裂，甚至是永遠整合不起來，結果現代化事業舉步維艱，發展不起來。西方這種“部分利益黨”模式確實遇到巨大挑戰，今天西方社會基本都是紛紛分裂的社會。我記得前段時間，英國《經濟學人》雜志一篇封面文章，就把美利堅合眾國叫“美利堅分眾共和國”（The Disunited States of America）。
But what is the reality we see today? Non-Western countries that adopt the Western “partial interest parties” (or parties and interest parties) model often face social fragmentation and may never be able to integrate, crippling the course of modernization and social development. The Western partial interest party model is indeed facing mounting challenges, with Western societies today being largely divided. A case in point is a recent cover story of The Economist, where the United States of America was referred to as “the Disunited States of America”.
In contrast, the Communist Party of China follows the “holistic interest party” model, which is rooted in China’s long-standing political traditions. As a civilizational state (also known as the “sum of a hundred of nations”), China has integrated hundreds or even thousands of states in its long history and thus developed its unique governance tradition. The most distinctive feature of this tradition is the presence of a unified ruling entity, without which the country would fragment, divide, and experience civil war, causing untold suffering. After the Revolution of 1911, China tried to adopt the Western partial interest parties model, which resulted in a period of warlordism. I believe that the leadership of the Communist Party of China in modernization today is, to a significant extent, a continuation and development of the traditional practice of a unified ruling entity in Chinese history.
Our world today welcomes the holistic interest party model, which is more pragmatic and relevant. First of all, as long as there exists a political force representing the overall interests of the people in power, it doesn’t matter whether a country chooses the multi-party system, one-party system or non-party system. If such a force exists, the country’s development may proceed relatively smoothly; if not, the development process is likely to encounter various setbacks.
In China’s case, the political force that represents the overall interests of the people is the Communist Party of China. With its guidance, Chinese modernization has been progressing smoothly, and through mechanisms like consultative democracy, consensus is reached in a vast nation of 1.4 billion people. Then, together we join force for a better future. With its guidance, we can engage in medium- to long-term planning, such as five-year, ten-year, fifteen-year, twenty-year, half-century, and century-long plans, avoiding the rampant populism and myopic mindset prevalent in the Western partial interest party model.
Secondly, as international competition becomes increasingly fierce, all countries need to reform to respond to the changing international landscape. However, the biggest challenge of reform is to overcome vested interests. Without a political force representing the overall interests of the people, reforms will encounter various obstacles and become difficult to proceed. The US is a typical good-for-nothing when it comes to reform. I looked up our history, and found out that prior to our Revolution of 1911, the US had already proposed universal healthcare. However, over a century has passed, such a proposal is yet in suspense. Can gun control be achieved in 20 years? I doubt so. Perhaps in 100 years? I don’t know. Because vested interests are pulling the strings behind such reforms, hindering their success. China, on the other hand, unravels a different story. One of the keys to our modernization miracle in the past decades is our unremitting reform to keep up with the times.
Third, a holistic interest party model upholds the interest of the whole country and its people. It implements the people-oriented philosophy of development, as opposed to the ballot-oriented philosophy.
In typical Western countries, participants to major elections or other elections account for about 50% of the constituency, perhaps even less. Therefore, a ballot-oriented philosophy failed to consider the interests of the majority.
A typical US election may see 55% of the constituency voting on a good occasion, and it only takes 27% to 28% percent of the ballots to win out. However, a people-oriented philosophy focuses on the majority. Consequently, with partial interest parties as political players in the West, elections become political marketing—a game of money, shows and empty talks, populism, and extremism, which leads to the split of society and hinders national development.
最后一點，無論是對內還是對外，西方部分利益黨模式所遵循的原則都叫“分而治之”（divide and rule）。對內就是身份政治，少數主義和多數主義之間，伊斯蘭教徒和基督教教徒之間，同性戀者和反同性戀者之間，墮胎者和反墮胎者之間等等，結果造成矛盾重重，互不退讓，激烈對抗。對外在國際上，西方總是拉一派打一派，挑撥離間，挑動顏色革命，輸出民主結果變成了輸出動亂乃至戰爭。
Finally, whether on domestic or international affairs, some partial interest parties in the West follow the principle of divide and rule. Identity politics is applied to domestic affairs, intensifying unresolvable conflicts between the minority and the majority, Muslims and Christians, homosexuals and homophobes, abortionists and anti-abortionists, and the list goes on. Internationally, the West plays one side against another and provokes color revolutions—it claims to promote democracy but brings turbulences and even wars.
中國的做法完全不一樣，我們是整體利益黨的做法，這源于中國自己文明的傳統和中國式現代化的成功經驗，如果西方是divide and rule“分而治之”，中國的做法就是unite and prosper“合而富之”。我們鼓勵所有的國家要團結，全世界要團結，拉丁美洲要團結，中東要團結，非洲要團結，東南亞要團結，歐盟也要團結。這和西方的做法是完全不一樣的。我們現在推動“一帶一路”倡議，它的黃金原則是共商、共建、共享，也反映了“合而富之”的原則。
China, led by a holistic interest party model, has an entirely different approach. Our methods originate from our time-honored traditions and successful experiences in modernization. While the West practices “divide and rule”, China’s approach is “unite and prosper”. We encourage all countries to unite: countries in Latin America, in East Asia, in Africa, in Southeast Asia, and in the EU. We are promoting the Belt and Road Initiative, the golden principle of which is consultation, contribution and sharing—a display of our principle of “unite and prosper”.
不久前，我接受《今日俄羅斯》記者的采訪，談到對俄羅斯的制裁，我說俄羅斯被西方孤立了，但西方被非西方世界孤立了。非西方世界幾乎沒有國家參與對俄羅斯的制裁，也就是說非西方國家都認為我們應該unite and prosper，合而富之、團結富強。在今天這個歷史十字路口，我想起了1945年我們抗戰勝利在望，當時毛澤東主席在中國共產黨第七次全國代表大會上提出非常重要的命題，就是“兩個中國之命運”：“光明的中國之命運和黑暗的中國之命運”。后來證明毛主席的這篇講話和這個思路，決定了中國選擇光明的命運。
Not long ago, I was interviewed by a journalist from Russia Today about the sanctions against Russia. I said while Russia is isolated by the West, the West is also isolated by the non-Western world. Almost no countries in the non-Western world are involved in sanctions against Russia, which means that non-Western countries all think that we should unite and prosper. Today, at this historical crossroad, I recall the year of 1945 when we were on the verge of victory in the War of Resistance against Japan. At that time, Chairman Mao Zedong put forward a very important proposition at the 7th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, which was China’s two possible fates, namely the bright future and the dark one. Later, it was proved that Chairman Mao’s remarks and his idea directed China’s choice of a bright future.
In a sense, the world is also at a crossroad today, facing the fate of two different worlds. One is represented by the United States, which I believe has no future. It is a world of benefiting oneself at others' expense, of zero-sum games, of wars and turbulences, and a world protects and enforces the West’s interest at others’ expense; the other is exemplified by China’s modernization, which represents our holistic interests. It is a world of shared prosperity and unity. Therefore, I think China and all countries in the world, especially the non-Western world and educated people in the West, should work together to pursue a brighter world.
