SUPERPOWERS AT THE CROSSROADS What lies ahead for the United States and China (and others)

PREAMBLE: The lead-up to the US presidential election filled the airwaves for months, with constant analysis and forecasting, until Barack Obama’s re-election victory over Republican Mitt Romney was firmly secured on November 9th with a comfortable and impressively pluralistic margin in the popular vote in favour of the Democrats and a very large margin in electoral college votes. As world citizens, people of many other lands felt part of the drama unfolding, glued to the TV in our living rooms, as votes were counted.

That same week, on November 8th, China's 18th Communist Party conference began a power shift to a new generation of leaders in a much more formal and tightly controlled process. This process, also subjected to global media scrutiny, will end today, Thursday, November 15, 2012.

Observing these two approaches to transition in national political leadership has been a study in contrasts: the high visibility and overall transparency of the US election, despite its many apparent flaws, in stark contrast to the opacity and lack of participation inherent in the Chinese process, carefully scripted as it was for domestic and international optics.

CHINA

The process in China began with the opening of the week-long 18th party congress by Hu Jintao, during which he gave up his role as party chief to Vice-President Xi Jinping. Seven of the country's nine top leaders will step down, including president Hu Jintao and prime minister Wen Jiabao. All but two of the Politburo standing committee, the country's top political body, will remain. About two-thirds of positions in the other key leadership domains and the Central Committee will change hands. For the 2,270 congress delegates, their elections surely merit the same media attention as their US counterparts did. Whatever one’s opinion on the legitimacy of this type of process, the handover’s results will reverberate eventually around the globe. Unlike the open campaigning of the of the US elections, and the universal adult right to vote (the one person, one vote system), Xi's ascendancy, and Li Keqiang's elevation to replace Premier Wen Jiabao, were determined at the last party congress in 2007, when jockeying for power started.

In China, where a consensus-driven authoritarian system stresses continuity, the general course of future policy will be outlined by the congress's political report, to be hammered out within the party over this year. In this superpower’s election process, even the 82 million Communist party members (less than 6 % of its 1.4 billion people) have no real role in choosing their leader. Females, in particular, are poorly represented in the highest level of Chinese politics: only one woman sits on the 25 member politburo (the party’s central decision-making body), while none sit on the 9-person committee (reduced today to 7) at its core.

Yet, in China citizens are becoming more vocal in expecting better governance and accountability from their officials; the internet has led to greater individual expression, and stories of malfeasance or incompetence spread quickly online. Authorities have stepped up investigations of corruption: 600,000 officials faced punishment for disciplinary violations over the last five years. In 2008, just under 40% of Chinese people deemed corrupt officials a very big problem. That has risen to 50%, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The Chinese leadership is aware of rising scrutiny and expectations by the population. How well it responds to the rising tide of domestic expectations over the coming years will be crucial to its internal stability and global predictability as a potentially great nation.

The UNITED STATES

The United States has perhaps the most complicated electoral system in the world. Admittedly, its electoral structure does provide the greatest opportunity for input on a wide range of issues for decision-making, but at a cost—by demanding so much of the public so frequently it means that many are overwhelmed by the complexity of the system and ultimately fail to vote.

In the United States the conduct of national elections is under state control. Federal elections are therefore taken by states as a convenient opportunity for people to vote as well on other issues, not simply to fill in a ballot to indicate preference for a candidate. This set-up favours persons motivated by interest in the particular state issues in play, and who can spare the time to engage in such a potentially lengthy procedure. Perhaps needless to say, such attributes will not be equitably distributed across all socio-demographic groups, and therefore has the potential to be manipulated so as to influence voter participation.

The President and the Vice President are elected together in a Presidential election indirectly, the winning team being determined by votes cast by an Electoral College whereby particular states have inherited various (differing) allocations of “Electoral College votes” that largely reflect historical influence, rather than contemporary realities. The official winner of the election is the candidate with at least 270 Electoral College votes (President Obama received 365 votes in 2008 or 68%, and 332 in 2012 out of 538 electoral college votes, or 62%). A candidate can win the electoral vote, and yet lose the (nationwide) popular vote. This has happened historically, but clearly did not occur in 2012.

Money plays a big role in US politics. For example, the cost of the 2012 election was enormous: over $6 billion – on advertisements, organizing, and canvassing (with a sizeable amount spent on attack ads). It is relevant to note that a majority of persons who succeed in this to become members of Congress or Senator, (with some exceptions) are themselves wealthy or have wealthy backers, when compared with the realities that apply to the population as a whole.

In the 2012 US election, the candidates laid out dramatically different programmes, critical to ensure their base support. “Getting out the vote” was crucial to both candidates, with an army of volunteers and big-dollar contributors working with precision to capture ”hearts and minds”. This, at least, is the “positive spin” in a country that still lacks uniform standards for federal elections, and where authority for organizing the process resides with state governments. Oddly, there is no independent election commission as exists in most other western democracies; this is sorely needed in the US given the wide range voting practices, and even breakdowns of antiquated counting machines in some states.

One must also take note of charges of voter suppression in some settings, and insufficient allocation of resources to facilitate voting in areas where the characteristics of the electorate and their political views may differ remarkably from the politics of the state government. Nonetheless, the principle of “getting the vote out” appeared to be clearly the stronger force. In some areas also, individuals stood in line for up to 5 hours to cast their vote: clearly a measure of how important people understood their vote to be in this crucial contest.

The spectacle of the presidential election provides reassurance to the American people that their country, their achievements and their values are extraordinary. Yet, on child poverty, they rank 34th of 35 economically advanced countries; and social mobility is measurably greater in Europe, Australia, and Canada.

Despite the negatives, significant gains were made in 2012: three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage, two others voted to legalize some recreational use of marijuana, and (in contrast with several misogynistic Republican males who lost their seats) more women were elected to the US Senate than ever before.

As far as the most central purpose is concerned: the Presidential election itself, women, minorities and young people made the difference – described (in conservative media) as a “coalition of the ascendant”, this might be more aptly viewed as a shout for values such as truth, tolerance and compassion?

WHAT LIES AHEAD?

China remains the largest holder of US securities; they are each other’s second-largest trading partners. The significant bilateral trade imbalance between them, although decreasing, is a source of tension, as demonstrated by the rhetoric during the US elections. Concerns are rising in the public and private sectors of the US of alleged hacking and espionage by Chinese groups, and the infringement of Intellectual property rights. Chinese investments in sensitive US industries continue to be of controlled (e.g. in oil and high technology).

The Obama administration has worked with China on a broad range of issues, engaging in numerous dialogues: the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, Asia-Pacific geopolitical issues, humanitarian assistance and disaster response. Given President Obama’s multilateral stance, his second term is likely to maintain the emphasis on engagement, ranging from collaboration in economics to the environment, as part of a broader Asia policy. However, more attention is expected regarding China’s participation in organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the G20, with efforts to cultivate their support for broad international norms on issues such as North Korea, Burma/Myanmar and Syria. The Obama team will likely continue encouraging other partners, particularly in Europe, to expand their perspectives on China, taking into account broader strategic and security issues rather than focusing almost exclusively on commercial engagement. Regarding cyber and space security, there is a push by the US in building an international code of conduct.

As these countries move forward from their very different election processes, there is profound uncertainty globally with challenges that impact prosperity and security. China’s trajectory and its international standing is significantly affected by its relationship with the United States: cooperation will lead to a more positive Chinese role, while competition would retard progress on global issues such as the environment, space and cyber security, issues arising in the UN Security Council, trade and development. Nations that are dependent on both countries for economic and/or security reasons would face a difficult position of trying to balance the two.

Envoi: Room for China’s growth and participation is vital, with an emphasis on developing open and transparent relationships. Ensuring clarity and deliberation could do much to maintain relations on a positive trajectory or, at a minimum, ensure that they do not spiral out of control. In this respect, the continuity and maturity of a second Obama administration is a positive outcome, particularly as China goes through its own political transition.

References

Dormandy X. Americas Programme Paper AMP PP 2012/01 US Election Note: China Policy after 2012
Chatham House, London, May 2012 http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Americas/0512usen_china.pdf

Barack Obama’s Election 2012 Win: the world reacts. The Guardian Wednesday 7 November 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/07/us-elections-2012-usa

Branigan T. China prepares for power handover but reverberations will be felt worldwide. The Guardian Thursday 1 November 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/01/china-prepares-power-handover

Elections in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States

Agrawal R. 2012 A year of elections (not just in the United States). In: Fareed Zakaria GPS (Global Public Square). http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/03/2012-the-year-of-electoral-pandering/