Response 2

In reading Mary Gallagher’s article on the lagging process of democratization in China despite the growth of capitalism and market principles, I was struck by the extent to which the Communist Party in China has actually abandoned many of the traditionally socialist values in order to make way for market principles. As Gallagher traces the history of Foreign Direct Investment in China, we see that the various regions and private enterprises of China have embraced competition as a necessary element of the modern economy in order to make China, its labor, and its skilled workers competitive. Furthermore, as China continues to develop, the general failure of state-owned organizations (Gallagher notes that almost half were losing money in the 1990s, and that while they are only responsible for about 30% of the country’s industrial growth they consume 70% of its loans) only points to the likelihood of an increase in the use of market principles in China’s future (Gallagher 352).
Yet the Communist Party has brilliantly reformulated itself as a party of national interest rather than economic or class interest. Gallagher notes that even though the ruling Communist regime has increasingly embraced capitalist principles, the change is “framed as being in the national interest and as essential for national economic survival in an increasing globalized economy” (345). In light of this, I think that the modern Chinese Communist Party is best labeled as an authoritarian party that relies on nationalism and a thriving economy to support its platform rather than any fixed ideological principles. As long as people are willing to tolerate this regime for the benefit of the performance of the nation as a whole, China will remain the exception to the theories first started by Lipset about ties between economic and political change.
However, even though Gallagher’s article emphasizes China’s exception to these paradigms, she herself can’t overlook the fact that legal institutions are growing, albeit only to mediate economic conflicts. She also notes that as incomes grow, citizens are gaining access to lawyers and a greater consciousness about civil and political rights (Gallagher 371). It will be interesting to see how much further the “Communist” party is willing to adapt and change as these institutions become more entrenched through China’s increased contact with the global market. Though it is certainly a strong and unified party, the extent to which it is able to dictate its future versus the extent to which it must adapt should itself be a marker of the progress China is making, even if the party itself has not been ousted from power in the traditional democratizing pattern we have seen elsewhere in the world.