China’s doctrine is far better at promoting and sustaining minority political participation than the US and the West.

Comparison of ethnicities’ political participation system and practice

Main types of political participation system of Western ethnic groups

Political participation is an important variable that affects ethnic relations and issues. According to the traditional liberal view, the construction and political participation of a multi-ethnic country is almost an unsolvable difficulty. John Stuart Mill believed that national consistency (homogenization) is the basic premise for the construction of a “free and democratic” country. “The coexistence of ethnicities or ethnic groups in a country is not conducive to the establishment of representative democracy. In a nation composed of ethnicities, a free system is simply impossible. Among a people (ethnicity) that lacks common feelings and especially uses different languages, the existence of unified public opinions necessary for the implementation of a representative government is impossible.”(Mill 1982) Since the 1970s and 1980s, Western countries that are multi-ethnic have made great progress in the construction of the participatory political system. Many countries have begun to explore institutional channels for the acceptance of minority groups’ political participation on the basis of adherence to “homogeneous” universal suffrage and parliamentary democracy. Accordingly, there are two representative system types: one is Arend Lijphart’s “consociationalism,”Footnote 7 and the other is Donald L. Horowitz’s “centripetalism.”Footnote 8

Consociationalism and the centripetalism are important theoretical findings and practical summaries of Western countries’ experiences exploring multi-ethnic political participation. What both models have in common is that they recognize that the traditional liberal homogenization path is not conducive to the political participation of minority groups, that the solution to the problem lies in redesigning the institutional framework of power-sharing, and that institutional innovation in the political process may improve the political participation of minority groups, thereby enhancing the political identity of a multi-ethnic country and reducing conflicts among ethnic groups. The difference is that consociationalism tends to use a large-scale coalition government, group autonomy,Footnote 9 proportional representation, minority veto power, and other institutional innovations to promote political participation by minority groups when boundaries of ethnic groups are solidified; centripetalism tries to break down ethnic barriers in political participation and power sharing with the designs of cross-ethnic or trans-ethnic systems such as alternative voting systems, establishment of centrist alliances, regional presidential electoral systems, and administrative federalism when promoting multi-ethnic groups’ political participation.“From the perspective of theoretical logic, consociationalism mainly” achieves different ethnic groups’ political participation “by ensuring the effective representation and participation by various ethnic groups in the political process and decision-making process.” Centripetalism places emphasis on inter-ethnic integration, considering that political participation “could not simply be based on existing ethnic differences and make inter-ethnic differences highly politicized, but tries to induce inter-ethnic cooperation and adjustment before the election or during the process of collecting votes to reduce the degree of politicization in inter-ethnic differences through incentives”(Hongyuan 2012).

Consociationalism and centripetalism, as well as traditional liberal homogenization, constitute three important system types of political participation by ethnic groups in Western countries.Footnote 10

A comparative analysis of China’s and major Western countries’ systems and practices for solving ethnic issues

China’s system and practice for minority groups’ political participation were initiated long before the founding of the PRC.Footnote 11 In order to ensure orderly and effective political participation by minority groups, the Chinese government began ethnic identification work shortly after the founding of New China.Footnote 12 At the system level, the Communist Party of China led the formulation of a series of laws and regulations such as the constitution and the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law, with the political participation rights of ethnic minorities thereby guaranteed by both the constitution and the Basic Law. At the same time, the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law, amended in 2001, also defined the system of regional ethnic autonomy as “a basic political system of the country.”

At the practical level, the political participation by Chinese ethnic minorities is carried out at three levels. Firstly, at the national level, ethnic minorities directly participate in the country’s political affairs according to a certain proportion of representatives Footnote 13through two major platforms, namely the National People’s Congress and the Political Consultative Conference.Footnote 14Secondly, at the level of local ethnic autonomy, in accordance with the provisions of relevant laws and policies, ethnic minorities directly participate in the governance of local affairs.Footnote 15 Thirdly, in non-ethnic autonomous areas,Footnote 16ethnic minorities participate in local affairs in such areas through certain policy designs.

The political participation by Chinese ethnic minorities is carried out in an extensive, multi-level, multi-channel, and more importantly, blended manner.Footnote 17In Belgium, Switzerland, and other countries that have adopted consociationalism, although these multi-ethnic Western countries have also achieved relatively sufficient ethnic political participation, such sufficient participation is often accompanied by the adverse consequence of the loss of national unity. In Belgium, the political participation by ethnic groups strictly adheres to proportional representation. In actual operation, the whole of Belgium is increasingly divided into two camps, namely the Flemish speaking Dutch and the Walloon speaking French. The country is almost divided into two parts along the boundaries of language families, with such division resulting in the resignation of the prime minister, the replacement of the cabinet, and even the repeated emergence of anarchy. The biggest risk for Belgium in the twenty-first century is undoubtedly the division of the country. In contrast, Switzerland, which is also a multi-ethnic country, is in a much better situation. Switzerland is a federal state composed of twenty-six autonomous cantons with a high degree of autonomy. Different ethnic groups have achieved sufficient political participation through this unique federalism and internally highly developed democracy. Although it has also led to the coexistence of “one country, two federal courts,”Footnote 18“one country, two federal universities,”Footnote 19“one country, three languages,”Footnote 20 and even “one country, two capitals,”Footnote 21 in general, all ethnic groups can basically abide by the conviction that “Switzerland is a nation state.” So far no regionalist, nationalist, or sectarian issues that affect national unification have occurred.Footnote 22

In terms of political participation by ethnic minorities, both the achievements and problems of countries that adopt centripetalism such as the United Kingdom, Spain, and Canada are significant. From the perspective of achievements, these countries adopt a system of two levels of political participation at the central-local levels. In these countries’ central government or federal parliament, a certain number of seats are allocated to areas where minority groups are concentrated such as Scotland, Northern Ireland (UK), Catalonia, the Basque Country (Spain), and Quebec (Canada), so that these areas can effectively participate in national affairs.Footnote 23Meanwhile, these areas, as minority communities, enjoy a high degree of autonomy.

In the context of the problem, the above-mentioned United Kingdom, Spain, and Canada empower their “ethnic areas” to sufficiently participate in political affairs rather than exchange these areas’ loyalty to the countries. Instead, due to the deep-rooted concept of “one nation, one country” and “democratic determinism,” especially with regards to the catalysis of nationalized or regionalized party systems, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Canada have long faced the challenge of regional separatism (Shaoqing 2017). Under the political conditions of government systems with political parties, an important force that maintains the unity of these countries or contains separatist force is the non-nationalist political parties of autonomous regions. Such parties obtain or influence the political direction of autonomous regions through free elections and party competition to ensure that such regions will not be separated.Footnote 24

France, Germany, and the United States, which adopted liberal homogenization, have not set up separate channels for political participation by ethnic minorities. In these countries, minority groups are either not recognized or are regarded as collections of individual citizens. Their political participation is generally achieved through individual citizens. Of course, systems and practices for the division of electoral districts in these countries have actually played a role in digesting the appeal of collective political participation by minority groups.

It should be pointed out that regarding ethnic minorities’ political participation, Western countries actually adopt a policy of strict discrimination (as opposed to the Chinese policy that all ethnicities are equal regardless of the size of their populations). The form of civil rights plus regional autonomy is generally taken in the treatment of the so-called “historical national minorities.” The political participation by the above minority groups probably belongs to this situation. For native peoples, whose presence precedes that of the majority ethnicity, they generally adopt a high degree of autonomy in reserved areas.Footnote 25As for new immigrant ethnic groups, equal emphasis has been placed on civicism and multiculturalism, to encourage them to be integrated and assimilated into mainstream society.

In short, when dealing with political participation by minority groups, there are roughly three types of model in Western countries: consociationalism, centripetalism, and liberal homogenization. Consociationalism emphasizes the unique existence of minority groups and strengthens such unique existence through a series of political arrangements including ethnic (regional) autonomy; centripetalism encourages political participation that crosses ethnic boundaries while recognizing the collective identity of minority groups and resolving their political participation by means of autonomy or otherwise; liberal homogenization does not recognize the existence of collective identity of minority groups. A country solves issues concerning the political participation by minority groups by means of civil rights and regional autonomy.

From the perspective of effect, although consociationalism maximizes the protection of the political participation rights of minority groups, the political process of demarcation by ethnic groups can greatly damage the unity of a country.Footnote 26Centripetalism overcomes the disadvantage of strengthening ethnic boundaries brought by consociationalism to a certain extent, and its idea of cross-ethnic political integration has also achieved some positive results.Footnote 27However, under the condition that the identity of ethnic groups and group autonomy are recognized, and especially that nationalist parties are recognized, in other words, that the nationalization of parties is lawful, the effect of its ethnic political integration is very limited.Footnote 28In contrast, liberal homogenization has achieved a certain balance in protecting minority groups’ rights and safeguarding national unity.

With regard to the ethnic minorities’ political participation, China, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China adheres to the Marxist idea that all ethnicities are equal, which not only overcomes the disadvantages of the solidification of ethnic boundaries and even the separatism brought about by the demarcation by ethnic groups under the models of consociationalism and centripetalism, but also avoids the problem of insufficient political participation caused by liberal homogenization that does not recognize the collective identity of minority groups (and autonomy based on such identity). China has not only realized the dual political participation engaged in by minority groups in Western countries at the national level and autonomous regional level, but also has fully and completely implemented the political participation of minority groups through supplementary legislation on the protection of the rights of dispersed minority groups.

It should be particularly pointed out that China neither engages in party competition nor allows party-oriented political participation by ethnic minorities in major political affairs including ethnic issues, as China has always adhered to the core leadership position of the Communist Party of China. In China, political participation by minority groups is an integral part of the country’s political process,Footnote 29and no ethnic autonomous areas at any level have their own independent political participation space. The design and practice of China’s system not only guarantee the political participation rights of minority groups, but also effectively avoid the dilemmas and odd circles that Western countries cannot escape in dealing with the political participation by ethnic minorities and the guaranteeing of national unity.