The Undemocratic Process to Democratization

Benjamin Philip George

(V00767906)
Research Paper

Political Science 318:

Government and Politics in East Asia
Wu Guoguang

1. Introduction
The rapid change, in general, of Japan and China has become models for other
nations facing similar circumstances. On the surface, Japan and China looks like two
opposite polarizations. However, my research shows that both countries were faced
with similar histories within society as a whole. The ruling elites managed to control
society at the expense of the public. I will provide a detailed account the processes in
which the country has taken as a result of its past. I will focus on an analytical
assessment of the socio-economical and political reforms that took place between the
totalitarian governments of Japan and China, under Emperor Showa and Mao Zedong,
and the Occupational rule under General MacArthur and authoritarian rule of Deng
Xiaoping, as I see it the as critical junctures in the countries own past. Therefore, the
period of comparison for China and Japan respectively is between Maoist rule and the
period of transition in China under Deng Xiaoping from 1976-1989, and the regime of
Emperor Showa, the last de facto Emperor of Japan, and the period of Occupation
under General MacArthur from 1945-52. As I will demonstrate later, the nature of the
leadership under the latter leaders has permanently changes the future of Japan and
China, trickling down to almost every aspect of a state. To fully understand the
impacts of these leaders, we must examine the pre-transition status of the country and
compare it with the results achieved latter leaders. I argue that both Japan and China
had similar historical past and are heading towards similar directions socioeconomically. I acknowledge that both countries fall short of political reforms that
brands a democracy by Western philosophy such as the Washington Consensus;
moreso in China than Japan. Nonetheless, by examining the transformations in China
and Japan by the process of liberalization or democratization, I argue that both
countries are democratic in principle and in their own unique manner. I will begin the

paper by briefly describing the previous leaderships and their impacts on society as a
whole. I accept that the historical impacts and social conditions imposed on these
countries affected the transformational process, and will provide an account of these
impacts. Using my research on the impacts of the preceding regimes on society; using
a retrospective analysis, I will outline the social, economical, and political conditions
remaining in the respective states as a result of the prior regimes to establish as a
baseline for comparison for the future administrations. In accordance with the
objective of my research paper, I will mark the four key characteristics of change in
context role of the new leadership, opposition, citizenry, and military. I argue that the
new de facto leaders were particularly successful because of their personal
motivations and personality, which was charismatic and influential. Another
mechanism that led to its success was the in the capacity of the leadership to control
or greatly influence the three strategic segments of society: the military, the ruling
elites or aristocracies, and most importantly, the public specifically the working
urban and rural classes. Albeit, I admit that the policies that preserved the notion of
absolute power, in addition, to the personal qualities and influence of the leaders to
garner support, drastically empowered their ability to force policy changes that
complied with their objectives. Their ability to influence the legislative process and
decision-making procedures was a vital component to the success of the Occupation
and the Dengs regime. Therefore, although my focus is largely based upon the effects
and outcome of the latter regimes, I will use examples of their influence in the
legislative process to demonstrate the interdependence of the three perspectives.
Fortunately, both MacArthur and Xiaoping had high levels of personal motivation to
achieve their objective; therefore, by fully understanding the characteristics and
impacts of key political actors such as MacArthur, Xiaoping, politicians, CCP, etc. I

explain the condition in which they accomplished their goals and the outcome of their
actions. I conclude that the road to democratization, or in Chinas case liberalization,
for countries with history totalitarian or dictatorship regimes, is most likely be
successful if the new ruling individuals succeeded in coopting the army, the public,
and the aristocrats. The process of democratization or liberation, as with Japan or
China, requires power and influence to acts as a catalyst to direct progress.

2. Literary Review
I examined over 8 articles pertaining to the state of Japan and China prior to
reformation, during the reformation and the outcomes of the reformations. I noticed
that the all these articles generate similar conclusion, but were subjected to the
authors perspective on the topics. The authors describe the previous regimes as
totalitarianistic and the controlling interests lied in the hands of a few. The state of
both countries socio-economic status was neglected and disregard for personal
agendas. As a result of the reforms, both these states transform dramatically; although,
Japans transformation was more direct and efficient. Under the new regime and
leadership, the fundamentals of both Japanese and Chinese socio-political status
changed forever. Consequently, trickling down into economic reforms as well. I will
continue my literary review and my analysis of the author contribution along the
process of the discussion because I have too many sources to individually define.
3 The Discourse of Perspectives
3.1 The Importance of Historical Perspective
The timeline of change in Japan and China differ over a period of 30 years.
However, both countries faced similar past and are working towards a slightly similar
future. By analyzing the historical context, it allows us to explore the details regarding

the conditions of the socio-economic, psychological, and political status of the

country prior to the reforms. Up to 1945 and 1979, even though they are ideologically
polarized, similar types of leaders governed Japan and China. Analogous to the idea
of the Big Brother in George Orwells 1984, under Mao, the entire population was
scrutinized and consistently monitored by the nomenklatura personal, which was the
Maos politicized armed force that monitored and maintain status quo ante of his
polices; they also had the power to appoint and promote top official in any department,
thus providing them with significant powers. Mao was a firm believer of Marxist and
Leninist ideologies and tried to implement them following the USSR communist
model. According to Shambaugh (2000), the Communist Party of China, CCP,
managed to form an interlocking directorate between the armed forces, the Peoples
Liberation Army (PLA), through a long historical past and used the PLA as a tool of
coercive force to obtain their objectives (P. 167). During Maos regime, there was
rampant corruption shared within the Party, such as cronyism and nepotism, masked
by unrealistic goals to falsify records; furthermore, high levels of censorship were
placed to restrict the freedoms of the citizens and to further curb public discourse and
criticism of the regime; only those who followed him and the CCP enjoyed a degree
of freedom that was subject to removal at any time. He governed Chinese politics
with an iron fist, willing to punish anyone that opposed his instructions with coercive
forces (Li, 2008: P. 79). He completely restricted individual political rights and
promoted the state-first mentality, in which individuality was punishable. In addition,
the CCP allowed the formation of the National Peoples Congress (NPC) as the
legislative law-making body; in reality, the NPC had no real autonomy and was a
puppet of the Party (Shambaugh, 2000: P. 177). He used the state to control the
economy and directed the allocation of resources to benefit only certain industries at

the expense of others industries, or even, the livelihood of his citizens. Essentially,
Mao had absolute authority over every aspect of Chinese life but neglected nearly
every aspect of it (Keping, 2011: P. 3). Towards the ends of his reign, as a result of
the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, the state of general China was
disastrous; the rural people had no voice and were being greatly marginalized in
comparison with their urban counterpart under policies like the Household
Responsibility System or Hukou, which restriction citizens from migrating from rural
areas to urban areas (Shambaugh, 2000: P. 182). These policies adopted relied heavily
on public funding as it lacked the right motivation to drive the public to extract more
resources.
In comparison to Maos China, Emperor Showa and key Japanese political
actors managed to govern under similar circumstances although being ideologically
opposites. Both the countries were experiencing long lasting periods of war and were
beginning to feel the economic strains resulting from the cost of war. In China, the
government preferred a method of coercion and torment, to generate surplus
extraction. In contrast, as a result of corruptive activities, Japanese politicians and the
Zaibatsu -family conglomerates in Japan were responsible for creating shortages by
withholding supply of food to spark price increases for personal profits (Louk, 2012:
P.19). In doing so, they made great profits at the expense of the society; the common
citizenry of Japan was greatly marginalized, especially women, and were forced to
live in poverty. Many of the rules adopted by the Japanese government and of the
Emperor mimicked the policies adopted by Mao, such as the use of censorship of
freedoms by punishment to quell oppositions and critiques thereby restricting the
influence of potential oppositions. As Louk demonstrates, they used wartime
propaganda to sway the public discourse in their favor and to generate anti-American

sentiments. Instead of working for the betterment of society, the politicians were more
focused on the selfish desired to garner as much political power because the influence
allowed them to increase their personal wealth and status; corruption was seen as a
part of politics. On the other hand, due to the increasing cost of war and growing
ultranationalist sentiments of military rule, Japan was faced with a period of great
economic constraint, but only the public suffered. Its military leaders were more focus
on waging war with several of its neighbor to expand its reach, than to promoted
domestic growth and prosperity. They neglected their duties to govern Japan and its
people.

3.2 Social and Psychological Reforms

In this section I begin my discourse on the issues pertaining to changes in
Japan and Change during period of Occupation by the Allied Forces, under General
MacArthur and the post-Mao period, under Deng Xiaoping. As I mentioned above,
the public was the target of the economic constraints stemmed from various factors.
They lived in constant fear of their lives and did not enjoy the security we are
accustomed to, the right to liberty, life, and property. Instead, their liberties were
severely threatened by the lack of basic survival need, in addition, to the risk of losing
ones assets in a moments notice (Louk, 2012: P 11). Thus, the new leaders and
governments were tasked with the great duty of rebuilding or continuing the political
structure and organization of the state. For Deng Xiaoping, the main objective was to
promote his system of directional liberalization of the economy and society (Huang,
2008: P.51). However, he still firmly believed in the socialist policies adopted by Mao
in areas such as National Defense. Nonetheless, he disbanded the secret police,
nomenklatura from monitored the majority of the public but rather had a form of

sectional discrimination to only to those classes opposed him. Deng understood the
potential of the rural Chinese population and sought to nurture their entrepreneurship
skills. According to Huang (2008), Deng shifted the economic focus toward rural
entrepreneurship, allowing them to further extend their operations. During the 1980s,
it was more socially acceptable to work in factories than it was to be an entrepreneur
as it represented the lowest class of people, but ironically proved to be the most
successful sector of household income growth (pp. 51-53). This shift in policy
allowed the rural farmers to generate large masses of wealth and influence that
continues to excel in China, and is arguably the reason why the reforms generated
such remarkable economic results (Huang, 2008, P.56). Likewise, the role of the
Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers or SCAP, led by MacArthur, was to
completely reform the fundamentals of Japanese political structures, institutions,
process, etc.; therefore, in addition to his socio-economic contributions, MacArthur
changed the rudiments of the Japanese polity. For example, Louk established that
SCAP and the public citizenry had more than a harmonious relationship; in fact, many
preferred the Occupation rule as opposed to the previous military rule because it
restored and introduce many new, radical reforms adopted from the West. These
reforms include the universal adult suffrage, freedom of speech and assembly,
established a new constitution with a Westminster democracy, formation of
independent judiciary, land reforms for agriculture, abolishment of de facto Emperor
and most importantly the creating of the Diet, the legislative branch of government
(Kingston, 2011: P. 11). His objective under the Occupation was to democratize and
modernized Japan to become a success story for the US and to ensure the
demilitarization the Japanese armed forces as a condition of surrender under Article 9;

thus making Japan a pacifist state and in turning him into a symbol of liberation for
the Japanese polity.
As a result of increase social freedoms and rights, in cohort with, the
expansion of the Capitalist mantra of free market and privatization overwhelmed
Japan and China but proved to be very successful in the long run. By altering the
social and economic norms of society, it led to indirect political relaxations, or in the
case of Japan, outright political reforms. The social and psychological reforms proved
to be very successful. This can be attributed to key factors that correlate the different
perspectives. Their method of ruling was preferred because Deng and MacArthur
were both actors of consensus, they relied on advise of their trusted colleague or the
voices of the public expressed by letters before the enacted policy reforms (Louk,
2008: P.4). They managed to successfully gain public support and favour through
their economic and social reforms, namely the increasing and relaxing on social rights
and freedoms generating large amounts of public discourse (Goodman, 1968: pp.3-4).
Their liberal tendencies and democratic reforms demonstrate their dedication to the
enhancement of the welfare and stability of the state; they both managed to eliminate
the lack of basic necessity by solving the issue of poverty and starvation, through
foreign aid from allied power or economic successes as a result of the free market
reform. This translated into an increased feeling of security, especially in terms
private property rights acting as the incentive to produce goods for a profit. This sense
of confidence swelled into the societal sphere and caused the people to realize the true
nature of their power. Ultimately, the people preferred the relaxed and freer living
conditions under the rule the Dengs regime and MacArthurs Occupational rule.
Through systematically setting the foundation for future, they managed to further

democratization by increasing the living standard and quality of life of the society as a
whole (Li, 2008: P.85).

3.3 Political and Economical Reforms

I will begin this section of the discussion by outlining and specifying the
importance of the economic reforms to further explain how it was the driving
component of the new order. The remaining of the reforms will also include social
and psychological aspect, but I will omit those views in this section as I have already
provided an account above. I note that the origins of the reform had different primary
functions: for China, the reform was designed to largely to liberalize the economy,
albeit, it did include social and political reforms. Deng preached at the Third Plenum
that China would be liberalized through four steps of modernization: agriculture,
science and technology, industries, and defense (Huang, 2008). I believe Deng
understood that his mission required large amounts of funding and set out to generate
it. He comprehension of rural entrepreneur potential and his ability to pick the right
incentive to motivate the working class to increase production proved to be successful.
During the 1980s, rural entrepreneur managed to match to income levels of urban
workers; this was only possible because of Dengs reforms on migration and property
ownership and security. He enhanced private access to financing, which in part
improved for the welfare of the citizens and expanded their rights (Huang, 2008:
P.67). This gave the rural population ground to compete against the previously-Mao
backed urban working class. Fortunately, his dual track economy, which incorporates
a planned economy and a free market economy, paid off and the strategy allowed the
rural people to catch up, economically and socially. However, Dengs economic
reforms would not have been plausible had he not introduce political reforms such as

the increased decentralization of power to local government (. This reform

fundamentally changed the structure of influence Maos CCP had oppressed by
unintentionally lessening the Partys political influence over the military and public.
Dengs political and economic achievements can be summed down to his policy of
directional liberalism that focused towards a more liberal market economy, structural
land and agricultural reforms transferring land to farmers, reform in migration
policies, he sought truths by practice of policy instead of unquestioning obedience,
decision through consensus, improved quality of life and right and freedoms.
On the other side, General MacArthurs successes were a result of a more
direct form of reform. I note that these leaders both had great influence, in their own
right, to spearhead their reform policies; but MacArthur had the additional powers of
the Emperor and the powers obtain by SCAP. His policies generated similar social
and economical reforms but to a greater extent that Deng achieved. He greatly
improved the social welfare of the people of Japan through economic reforms and the
sense of peace and security. As Kingston (2008) demonstrates in his article, he rarely
faced any political opposition because the Japanese politicians were demotivated and
focused on self-interest. Equally, Dengs faced little or no opposition as he managed
to reduced factionalism substantially and employed only like-minded and trusted
individuals into his committee. They managed to nurture the populace into a
democratic mindset that has permanently changes its histories. MacArthur managed to
reforms Japans economic system and structure and political institutions, structure,
practice, and culture of Japan. Deng focused on economic liberalization, but
unintentionally caused political and social reforms.

4. Conclusion

I demonstrate throughout the essay that the reforms implemented by Deng and
MacArthur occurred in three folds; economically, socially, and politically. I outlined
results of their reformist politics to demonstrate the changes they achieved. In doing
so, I determined that without the political influence over the three caveats of society,
the army, the public, and the elites or aristocracy, and the real de facto power to bring
about actual change, their efforts would have been minimal (Li, 2008: P.78). Because
of their charisma and driven personality to achieve their objectives in addition to their
influence gained, they managed to bring about an uninterrupted period of democratic
reforms otherwise impossible under the prior regimes. Although this is considered to
be undemocratic by western conceptions and the Washington Consensus, but if
compared to the previous dictatorship and totalitarian government, these reforms
permanently transformed the social, economical, and political foundations of Japan
and Chinese structures and institutions; thereby laying the foundations for future
democratic reforms. Ultimately Deng transformed China into a socialist state with a
capitalist market economy, while MacArthur guided Japan into becoming a
democratic state.

Bibliography
Bronfenbenner, M. (1968). American Occupation of Japan: Economical Retrospect
(Goodman, G.K., ed.), 2nd Ed. Center for East Asian Studies. University of
Kansas: Paragon Book Gallery LTD. pp. 11-25.
Huang, Y. (2008). Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the
State. Cambridge University Press: New York. pp. 51-98.
Keping, Y. (2011). Democracy in China: Challenge or Opportunity. China Center for
Comparative Politics and Economics. Wu Jing. pp 1-11.
Kingston, J. (2011). The US Occupation of Japan, 1945-52. Japan in Transformation,
1945-2010, 2nd ed. Pearson Publications. pp. 8-15.
Li, M. (December 27, 2008). Social, Capitalism, and Class Struggle: The Political
Economy of Modern China. Economic and Political Weekly. pp. 77-85.
Louk, T. (2012). American Shogun: Reason Why the Japanese were Fascinated with
General MacArthur. Senior Honor Theses, 15. University of New Orleans. pp.
1-31.
Shambaugh, D. (2000). The Modern Chinese State: Post Mao Era. University of
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 161-187.
Ward, R. E. (1968). American Occupation of Japan: Political Retrospect (Goodman,
G.K., ed.), 2nd Ed. Center for East Asian Studies. University of Kansas:
Paragon Book Gallery LTD. pp. 1-9.