Freedom in context: The Western misunderstanding of Chinese democracy

________________

OPINION

By Nnanda Kizito Sseruwagi

Several Western-based polling organisations rank China among countries with the least freedom of expression. According to Freedom House, which regards itself as the oldest American organisation devoted to the support and defence of democracy around the world, China is ranked as “NOT FREE” as per their 2024 Freedom in the World report.

Its Global Freedom Score and Internet Freedom Score both rank at 9/100, making it apparently not free. In addition, according to the 2024 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, an organisation based in France, China ranks 172^nd out of 176 countries as a country with the least press freedom.

There are so many problems and caveats with these reports. Utter prejudice and malignant intentions aside, there is the major problem of genuine ignorance. Many “experts” in the Western capitals who write these reports do not understand Chinese society, history or aspirations. They understand aspects of freedom of expression within the limits of Western epistemic biases. Freedom of expression is a very subjective phenomenon. It is not a universal standard.

People in different geographical, economic and historical zones around the world understand and exercise their freedom within a particular context. They also understand it in disparate ways. What Americans consider freedom might be found to be utter immorality by a people of a different society.

Freedom is not only what Americans; the British; or French citizens understand it to be. The Chinese have their own understanding of Freedom, and they might not find expression within Western knowledge or experience. That does not make their idea or ideals of freedom any less viable. It is sheer arrogance and tyranny for the Western world to dictate to the world what freedom looks like.

However, it may be more informative for us to study the classical works of China’s founding father, the towering Mao Zedong, to help us understand the ideas behind the nature of society in China today.

Mao Zedong was a passionate defender of freedom of expression. Again, this might sound alarming to some ears, because we have been accustomed to stereotyping him as one of the worst autocrats, even when few people have read his writing and interrogated his soul.

Mao was not just the founding political father but also the chief ideologue and philosopher whose ideas shaped modern China. In his speech, which became a classical work on political administration, titled, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People,” Mao delineated several themes pertaining to the governance of China. He thoughtfully guided CCP leaders on how to resolve contradictions within Chinese society.

One such contradiction is related to freedom of expression in China.

He reflected on some of the questions Chinese citizens may ask genuinely regarding their free speech. He observed that since Marxism was widely approved as the guiding ideology of China, some citizens would wonder if it could be criticised. He responded that certainly it could.

He understood Marxism as a scientific truth which fears no criticism. He noted that if it did, and could be defeated in argument, it would be worthless.

Indeed, he noted that “idealists” criticised Marxism every day and in all sorts of ways, but it did not lose its utility.

As opposed to suffocating freedom of speech, Mao encouraged Chinese leaders not to be afraid of criticism from any quarter. Quite the contrary, he urged them to steel themselves and improve themselves to win new positions in the teeth of criticism and the storm and stress of struggle.

He keenly observed that “Fighting against wrong ideas is like being vaccinated- a man develops greater immunity from disease after the vaccine takes effect...” If read and understood, this was a hero of countering speech with speech and ideas with ideas. Unfortunately, he has been wrongly framed by Western scholars as a brute who maimed and killed those who disagreed with him. This is an utter abuse of his philosophy and ideas on free speech.

Chairman Mao also probed into what China’s policy should be towards non-Marxist ideas.

He advised “specifically” that counterrevolutionaries and wreckers of the socialist cause should simply be deprived of their freedom of speech. However, he emphatically reiterated that it is quite a different matter when China is faced with incorrect ideas among the people. He thoughtfully remarked that it would not do much to ban certain ideas and deny Chinese citizens the opportunity to express themselves.

To capture the depth of his take on this issue, he posited thus:“It is not only futile but very harmful to use crude and summary methods to deal with ideological questions among the people, with questions relating to the spiritual life of man. You may ban the expression of wrong ideas, but the ideas will still be there. On the other hand, correct ideas, if pampered in hot-houses without being exposed to the elements or immunised from disease, will not win out against wrong ones. That is why it is only by employing methods of discussion, criticism and reasoning that we can really foster correct ideas, overcome wrong ideas, and really settle issues.”

From Mao’s line of thought on this, one realises that he clarified how to deal with contradictions between speech by citizens genuinely expressing dissent, and “counterrevolutionaries” seeking to malignantly disrupt the government. The two categories of people are to be dealt with differently. This is not different from how almost all countries deal with such contradictions. In fact, for the World’s greatest democracy – USA, “counterrevolutionaries” are dealt with brutally, often through torture (typically euphemised as enhanced interrogation) at Guantanamo Bay.

But with regard to Chinese citizens, Mao championed the idea that they should be allowed to express themselves and in case some of the ideas expressed are wrong, people should be corrected, not silenced.

He argued that citizens should not be countered with methods of suppression to prevent them from expressing themselves, but should be allowed to do so and at the same time argue with them and direct well-considered criticism at them. Mao regarded argumentation quite highly for him to tyrannically annihilate dissent. He observed that “What is needed is scientific analysis and fully convincing arguments. Doctrinaire criticism settles nothing.”

Ultimately, China is not a perfect society. Its leaders may make mistakes – just like leaders of any society. However, as explicated above, the guiding philosophy of Mao Zedong profoundly encouraged respecting freedom of expression among Chinese citizens. Even in case of disagreement or in the face of wrong ideas, Mao advised that such contradictions should be resolved through counter-arguments and reasoning, not the use of force to silence critics. Above all, Western actors need to understand China and appreciate the differences in culture and history which define how Chinese people understand freedom. There is no one-size-fits-all in measuring freedom indices.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Development Watch Centre