Contrary to popular opinion, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is quite adaptable, asserted Professor David Shambaugh at a March 12 Wilson Center book event. Having spent approximately 15 years studying the reasons why the communist parties of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union failed, the CCP has embarked on a detailed reform program aimed at reinvigorating the party and ensuring its continuing place as the ruling power in China.

Shambaugh, who began research for his recent book, China's Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation, as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow in 2002-3, opened his remarks at the March 12 event by noting that his book uses China as a case study, but its intention is to understand the CCP in the context of Leninist party-states. He was intrigued by the causes of the collapse of the eastern European and Soviet Union party states from 1989 to 1991, and wondered why the CCP did not collapse.

Shambaugh remarked that over the last decade, U.S.-based Sinologists have come to know "more and more about less and less," claiming there are a lot of books about "micro-topics." He wanted to step back and look at the bigger picture. He discovered that after the shock and hand-wringing over the fall of the communist parties of eastern European and the Soviet Union, the Chinese engaged in a thoughtful and deeply analytical discourse, which continues to the present, although official conclusions were rendered in 2004.

He found that the Chinese analyses of the reasons behind the fall of the Soviet Union were much more historical, holistic and systemic than Western analyses, which tended to see Gorbachev as the root cause for the fall. Chinese analyses concluded that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) had been in a state of atrophy since the time of Stalin. By the time Gorbachev came to power, it was too late. Gorbachev was tactically wrong, according to the Chinese, in that he tried to reform politically at the same time as economically, but he was strategically correct in recognizing the need for reform.

The CCP, Shambaugh discovered in his research for his book, has based its current reforms on lessons learned from the collapse of the CPSU, but it did not limit its scope to just the study of the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. In addition, the Chinese drew conclusions from their studies of East Asian authoritarian states, the color revolutions in Central Asia, the corporatist systems of Latin American states, and some authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. There has been much borrowing, noted Shambaugh, and the CCP is now an eclectic, hybrid party, taking pieces from all over, and grafting them on to its Leninist roots. The CCP is thus becoming a new type of political system, one that is dynamic and evolving, rather than one that is stagnant.

The CCP, elaborated Shambaugh, is not sitting on its hands waiting for its own collapse. "They know the party is in trouble." He admitted that the party as an institution has been in a state of decline in terms of its control over the Chinese people, but this was a conscious decision to decentralize control as China moved from a totalitarian to an authoritarian state.The CCP is trying to build, in Shambaugh's words, "a ‘meritocratic' party state." There are 2800 party schools throughout the country, he noted, focused mainly on mid-career training for party officials. While ideological training is one component, the schools offer courses primarily on improving the tools of governance.

The key to whether the CCP will be successful, in Shambaugh's opinion, lies in its ability to deliver public goods and services. Like all countries transitioning from a developing to a newly industrialized country (NIC), China is facing the same generic problems as those of other NICs. These problems include disparity of income, abuse of power at the local level, and corruption. Now that the Chinese people have attained a certain standard of living, they desire a qualitative improvement in their lives, in areas such as health, education, welfare and good governance.

The question is whether the CCP can deliver. In some ways, observes Shambaugh, Leninist parties have certain advantages over democracies. For example, "they have a centralized capacity that democracies don't have." Selectively, when the State decides to put its mind to accomplishing a certain goal, it can mobilize forces to accomplish that goal. On the other hand, Leninist states are poor at responding to bottom-up demands. They see civil society as a threat, as a locus of power independent from the party. This is where, Shambaugh asserts, the CCP should undergo an attitude change and be "more relaxed." It needs to be aware that empowering civil society can be a real advantage, by taking pressure off the central government, and doesn't have to be a threat. Unfortunately, observes Shambaugh, the CCP currently views power as a zero-sum game.

On the ultimate question of whether the CCP will be able to survive, Shambaugh asserted that "my bottom line is yes." He cited as the basis for this his observation, returning to his central theme, that the party "has, can and is adapting." He noted there is disagreement among Sinologists on this point, but he puts himself in the more optimistic camp. He is not blind to the many problems the party is facing, but feels that on balance it is taking the right steps in its attempts to reform. Shambaugh later qualified this conclusion by pointing out that although rhetorically "they're there," unless CCP leaders do a better job of delivering public goods to the Chinese people, the CCP's reforms will not be sufficient to sustain the party indefinitely.






Drafted by Mark Mohr, Asia Program Associate
Robert M. Hathaway, Director, Asia Program. Ph: (202) 691-4020