What is a "democratic dictatorship", and how is it not a a contradiction in terms?

Question

I recently read that China's constitution refers to it as "a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants." It seems to me that a democracy and a dictatorship are polar opposites, the very first paragraph on Wikipedia's article on dictatorships explicitly says 'dictatorships are "not democracies"'.

Given that dictatorship is practically defined as not being a democracy how can a country be a democratic dictatorship? What does such a phrase mean and how does it work in practice?

Answer 1

The term 'democratic' literally means 'rule by the people'. In the West we normally associate that with a particular set of institutions — capitalist property rights, free and fair elections, open press, etc — but those are not the only form of rule that can be attributed to the people. Nations that derive from socialist principles are often predicated on the idea that state has taken control of productive forces as a proxy for the working class, uprooting the class-based oligarchy of entrenched capitalist systems. So long as power is ultimately vested in the citizenry as a whole, this is a valid claim, so a dictatorship of the proletariate could ideally be considered properly democratic.

Of course, it's easy to find examples of socialist states that do not live up to this democratic ideal (just as it's easy to find examples of capitalist republics that fail to live up to the ideal: Hussein's Iraq, Assad's Syria, Putin's Russia, etc). Finding valid institutions by which the citizenry can properly control the political apparatus is extremely difficult. But in the abstract philosophical sense, there's no real problem here.

Answer 2

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

A dictatorship can always manipulate terminology towards whatever they say it is. It's not like democracies can't manipulate opinion, as pointed out in Manufacturing Consent. It's just that a dictatorship can legislate it and punish dissent.

And in the case of China, it can pretend to be a "democracy", because it has a list of approved opposition parties.

In reality, the other parties of the United Front are satellites of the CCP with no autonomy of their own.

"democratic dictatorship led by the working class"

That is rich, when applied to a country with as many avoidable mining accidents as China has.

Or to take another example of doublespeak:

Asked to comment on The Post’s findings, specifically allegations of extralegal detention and torture, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a short statement.

“I only want to emphasize that at the moment, the overall situation of Xinjiang society is stable, the momentum of its economic development is good and ethnic groups live in harmony,” the statement read.

In contrast to Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping has deliberately tied his image and achievements to Mao, something rather unsettling considering the millions of deaths that can be directly attributed to Mao's leadership.

Definition of democracy (from Webster's)

1a: government by the people especially : rule of the majority

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

So a democracy presupposes that the people can change governments via electoral choice. Without that the government is not running a democracy. A democracy does not need to mean nice and fluffy and likes kittens. It only means that the people get to choose their government.

Things that are not guaranteed in a democracy:

• equal rights for everyone. For example, it took the US Supreme Court to override the majority's view and rule that separate but equal was in fact not equal.

• guaranteed voting rights for everyone. The good citizens of Appenzell Innerhoden, in the poster child for democracy had to forced to grant women the right to vote, in 1991.

• Good behavior. Many will agree that neither Modi in India, nor Duterte in the Philippines, are running particularly nice governments, with one inciting ethnic hatred and the other approving of summary executions by the police. Both are still, unless an election is rigged, robust democracies.

• Any guarantee that your views and preferences will be put in place.

China does not practice democracy:

Let's see who the "democracy" applies to:

• Total population: 1398M. Did they vote for Xi? No.

• Membership CCP: 91M. Did they vote for Xi? No.

• National People's Congress. 3000. Did they vote for Xi. Yes, Xi was re-elected by them in March 2018. Let's look at election stats:

On March 11, 2018, the National People's Congress, by a vote of 2,958 in favor, two opposed and three abstaining, passed a constitutional amendment that allowed the President to serve an unlimited number of five-year terms. This was widely interpreted as part of an expansion of Xi's power, effectively making him paramount leader and president for life.8 Xi explained the decision in terms of needing to align the presidency with his more powerful posts of General Secretary of the Party and CMC Chairman, which do not have term limits.

2958 Yays vs 5 Nays, for something as contentious as removing constitutional term limits???

That look like any kind of "democracy", at any level, to you?

Even Iran or Russia, which have run somewhat flawed elections, at least pretend to give the people choices.

Could a Communist government be democratic?

Yes, in theory, there is nothing that says it can't. After all, if Marxism-Leninism is correct and its scientific approach economics can better the mass's well-being, then people should gladly choose to be governed under its premises.

So claims that "democracy means capitalism" are specious. There are sufficient shortcomings in most free market/capitalistic systems that a genuinely superior way to run a country, such as that claimed by Communism, ought to be able to compete for votes if they were so inclined.

Answer 3

I don't know anything about the Chinese constitution, but the original meaning of the word dictator came from the Roman republic. The idea was that the democratic assembly was good for peacetime leadership, but in states of emergency where decisive action was needed, there would be no time for debate, compromise and consensus, and so the assembly should appoint a dictator.

This person would seize full executive power within a given sphere of of authority, and would in principle give up their powers once the emergency had passed, or whatever task they were supposed to do was completed. Famously, when Julius Caesar refused to give up his position as dictator, the democratic assembly expressed their opinion on the matter through a large number of stab wounds.

In that sense, a democratic dictatorship could be said to be a system where the democratic assembly has willingly empowered a dictator "temporarily" to guide the country through turbulent times. Of course, as with Caesar, this idea hinges on who decides what is "temporary", i.e. when the "turbulent times" are over. The concept has been popular in communist regimes, where the story typically is that a dictator is needed to guide the country from the revolution and into the new world of fully implemented socialism, which somehow takes a very long time.

The concept also persists in the "West" in modern times. An example is the political thinker (and actual nazi) Carl Schmitt, who criticized the liberal democracy as a flawed concept without possibility of appointing a dictator to handle crises. Indeed, many liberal democracies have systems similar to the Roman dictator system, including the United States, where the President is granted immense power in times of emergency.

Famous cases of this system being abused include the rise of Hitler in Germany, and of course the rise of Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars.

Answer 4

This is possibly a vestige of the term "dictatorship of proletariat", re-assessed.

The Marxist-Leninists believe that any form of state (government) is the dictatorship of the ruling class. Thus, any capitalist regime is the dictatorship of bourgeoisie, any feudal regime is the dictatorship of the nobility, any slave-owning society is the dictatorship of slave-owners, etc.

Thus, they famously declare the aim to build a socialist society - the dictatorship of proletariat, which they declare the highest form of democracy (proletariat constituted the majority at the beginning of 20th century, so that it would be rule by the majority for the majority).

The formula possibly was adopted in this form by the Chinese communists from Russian sources.

The Soviet constitution declared the USSR "dictatorship of proletariat" till 1977. Thereafter the formula was removed and replaced with something that claimed the USSR had succeeded to build a classless society, and now on it was "all-people's state".

So, the Chinese formula seems similar, but instead of "dictatorship of proletariat" they proclaim "dictatorship led by proletariat".

Answer 5

I'm really surprised with so many answers (many of which that have no source whatsoever or simply irrelevant sources) no one has even asked what Chinese government actually claims it to mean, and only one had even mentioned the Marxist concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Mao Zedong first published the article On the People's Democratic Dictatorship in 1949 (there's even an English Wikipedia page!).

To cite

"You are dictatorial." My dear sirs, you are right, that is just what we are. All the experience the Chinese people have accumulated through several decades teaches us to enforce the people's democratic dictatorship, that is, to deprive the reactionaries of the right to speak and let the people alone have that right.

[...]

Who are the people? At the present stage in China, they are the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. These classes, led by the working class and the Communist Party, unite to form their own state and elect their own government; they enforce their dictatorship over the running dogs of imperialism -- the landlord class and bureaucrat-bourgeoisie, as well as the representatives of those classes, the Kuomintang reactionaries and their accomplices -- suppress them, allow them only to behave themselves and not to be unruly in word or deed. If they speak or act in an unruly way, they will be promptly stopped and punished.

Democracy is practiced within the ranks of the people, who enjoy the rights of freedom of speech, assembly, association and so on. The right to vote belongs only to the people, not to the reactionaries. The combination of these two aspects, democracy for the people and dictatorship over the reactionaries, is the people's democratic dictatorship.

[...]

As for the members of the reactionary classes and individual reactionaries, so long as they do not rebel, sabotage or create trouble after their political power has been overthrown, land and work will be given to them as well in order to allow them to live and remould themselves through labour into new people. If they are not willing to work, the people's state will compel them to work. Propaganda and educational work will be done among them too and will be done, moreover, with as much care and thoroughness as among the captured army officers in the past. This, too, may be called a "policy of benevolence" if you like, but it is imposed by us on the members of the enemy classes and cannot be mentioned in the same breath with the work of self-education which we carry on within the ranks of the revolutionary people.

As is the case in the dictatorship of the proletariat, the word dictatorship does not imply a single or small group of leaders. It means political monopoly that can be held either by a person or group of persons, or as is the case here, a class.

Dictatorship of the proletariat thus means a way to organize the society where the proletariat as a whole holds the sole political power. How the proletariat organizes this political power is out of scope for this concept.

In Chinese political theory, once the working class had achieved its liberation (through the Communist party), they would not longer be proletariat because they would be owning the means of production. So they are called people instead, the Chinese term 人民 for which has strong political connotations (it is not usually used to mean any group of humans). In the particular Chinese context, for United Front reasons, certain bourgeoisie classes are also included in the people (small businesses and businesses in favour of revolution and nationalism).

The question of how the political power of the working class is organized is described by democratic, that is, the individuals belonging to the people will democratically decide the laws of the new Communist state (PRC); but the franchise is limited to people and people alone. The reactionaries, as the capitalists/landlords/etc. and other opponents are called, are not part of the people.

Mao recognized that the classes still existed in China and the proletariat cannot be the only class from day one. He also answered in the same paragraph to the apparent contradiction between the establishment of a state and the stateless ideal central to communism.

"Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now; we cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus -- mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts -- in order to consolidate national defence and protect the people's interests. Given this condition, China can develop steadily, under the leadership of the working class and the Communist Party, from an agricultural into an industrial country and from a new-democratic into a socialist and communist society, can abolish classes and realize the Great Harmony. The state apparatus, including the army, the police and the courts, is the instrument by which one class oppresses another. It is an instrument for the oppression of antagonistic classes, it is violence and not "benevolence". "You are not benevolent!" Quite so. We definitely do not apply a policy of benevolence to the reactionaries and towards the reactionary activities of the reactionary classes. Our policy of benevolence is applied only within the ranks of the people, not beyond them to the reactionaries or to the reactionary activities of reactionary classes.

Now whether the ideal has been practiced as described is certainly answered in the negative. But here there is no contradiction on its face with the term as they are used in Chinese political theory.

Answer 6

Here is the best example I can think of: The Vatican elect a dictator for life.

Once the pope is elected there is nothing that can remove him again unless he choose it himself or dies.

I don't know if I would call it a democratic dictatorship though. Demos means the people, and only cardinals can vote.

Answer 7

In the West, the term dictatorship is pejorative for very good reasons. Nevertheless, it is the case that a government, even in a democratic country, is a kind of dictatorship - not in the sense of a tyrannical and violent rule by one man, which the term conventionally means; but simply that all parties that contest against each other in a democracy accept the larger governing framework. We don't obviously call it a dictatorship since the terms are accepted by the people at large and by parties contesting the governance of the country. We call it good governance instead.

Nevertheless, the good governance rules are a ruling ideology and hence, in the abstract, can be thought of as a 'dictatorship'. I put this in quotes as it should be distinguished from the conventional use of the term.

Not all parties do this. For example, during the last USA presidential election we saw Trump's Republican party contest the validity of the electoral framework alleging widespread fraud without any evidence

• completely contrary to normal procedure in the democratic West. It's for this reason that some alleged that the Republican party was turning into a proto-fascist party, harking back to the fascist parties of Italy & Germany.

Given that you're quoting China's constitution, obviously in translation, and without attribution, it's important to clarify how terms ate translated. For example, is 'dictatorship' the correct translation of the Chinese term, especially given the pejorative terms in English of the word 'dictatorship'. It might be the case that a better term is governance.

For ecample, Britain's government, no matter which hovernment is installed - be it labour, conserbative or liberal democratic - is called Her Majesty's Government. This suggests that Britain is not actually a democratic state but a Monarchy, and since dictatorships are rule by one man, we could feasibly think of this as a government under the dictatorship of of the Royal Family. But of course for anyone who knows the British constitution this is not feasible at all. Britain is a constitutional monarchy, and here whilst the Queen is the head of state, she wields no official political power. In essemce, it was a face-saving device to protect the prestige of the former ruling class, the feudal aristocrats after a long running bourgeois revolution, dating back from the Magna Carta and the gradual but inevitable assertion of the sovereignty of parliament - the voice of the people. It's no coincidence that parliament comes from the French word parler, to speak, because is the people speaking.

Answer 8

Democracy is about how you distribute power.

Being a Democracy means that the power is originally distributed evenly among the people. But afterwards, the people can decide to delegate this power to fewer people.
Of course, the more you delegate, the less democratic a system is... but it remains a Democracy.

Dictatorship is about who you can distribute the power to.

A dictatorship is a system where the separation of the powers is not respected : meaning that Justice, Legislative Power and Executive Power are not all independent from each other. (Press is also often considered the fourth Power that must remain independent).

Democratic Dictatorship

So a country that would, let's say, run elections every 5 years to elect a small oligarchy that will concentrate at least 2 of the 3 powers, would be a democratic dictatorship:
Yes, the people still have the power to decide who to distribute the power to. But only every 5 years and this is an absolute power over the country with little to no counter-power. (as owning at least 2 of the 3 main powers means you have indirect control over all 3).

This kind of system is a lot more insidious than pure authoritarian dictatorships, since it is undeniable that people do still have some power. It is just so ridiculously small compared to the one obtained by the dictator that they only have the illusion of choice.

Answer 9

Julius Ceaser had himself named Dictator for Life, even though Rome was supposedly a Republic. Andrew Jackson was considered an elected dictator by his detractors. Much of the constitution written down in 1787 was directed towards preventing a democracy from deteriorating into a dictatorship.

Answer 10

I would guess "dictatorship" in this case means totalitarianism, i.e. there are no individual rights that the state must respect. Such a totalitarian state could be democratic in the sense that the voters decide whether Socrates should be put to death, but totalitarian in that it doesn't recognize any rights of Socrates that are binding upon the voters.