Why the Western Multiparty System Is a Trap for Developing Countries

Published in Beijing Daily
(China) on 22 May 2023
by Wang Mingye (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Andrew Engler. Edited by Patricia Simoni.
In the U.S.-led Western world, the constructed, contemporary political framework resolves the myriad problems facing modernizing, developing countries by turning to the principles known as human rights, freedom and democracy. In Western political ideology, the highest manifestation of these principles is represented by a multiparty system that upholds the principles of free and fair elections. In the eyes of the West, countries that implement multiparty systems are the sole embodiment of "freedom and democracy." Other nations are dismissed as human-rights-violating dictatorships, and the West mercilessly suppresses such countries, using various methods ranging from sanctions, isolation, blockades, isolation, fostering subversives, carrying out assassinations and even orchestrating armed regime change. Post-World War II history has revealed that, for underdeveloped countries, the arduous journey toward modernization is strewn with snares meticulously placed by the West.

In the post-colonial era following World War II, Western countries implemented neocolonialism via the powerful tool of the multiparty system. In the former era of old colonialism, Western powers exploited and plundered their colonies brazenly, while neocolonialism introduced more subtle tricks, including cultural exchanges, economic aid, and, above all, political infiltration. The primary strategy employed to enforce this process is the exertion of pressure on developing countries to adopt the multiparty system as a mandatory measure.

It is only after the establishment of a multiparty system that the West can leverage its tool kit to secure its interests. It is precisely for this reason that the West lavishes with praise those developing countries that have implemented the multiparty system, irrespective of the magnitude of persistent internal problems. Conversely, regardless of the quality of their governance, developing countries that choose to reject the multiparty system are met with Western smears and the propping up of internal opposition forces. Consequently, these nations find themselves entangled in internal conflicts, rendering it virtually impossible to dedicate attention to the task of modernization.

As the world's most advanced bloc, the West naturally considers its development model the universal yardstick. Developing nations have long been profoundly impacted by the pervasive influence of the model and have unwittingly adopted it. Upon the adoption of the Western model by a developing country, the West, as the established standard bearers, gain a certain jurisdiction to judge the country’s political, economic and social landscape. Thus, from the West emerged an authoritative caste that defines human rights and presides over a non-Western world that must accept its received wisdom. This caste perpetually decrees what is right and wrong, and the lower caste must comply unquestioningly. Therefore, for the vast number of developing countries, the setting of the general development direction and specific policies must all pass under the scrutinizing eyes of Western governments and media. The West can, with the snap of a finger, determine the level of domestic support for a developing nation’s government. Therefore, those who have accepted the multiparty system struggle independently to seek their own path of modernization.

The multiparty system inevitably turns developing nations into vassals. From the aforementioned points, it becomes glaringly evident that in this way the West exerts influence over politics, economy and culture, thereby shoring up its own interests. More importantly, developing countries subconsciously start to shape themselves according to the Western model, regardless of the appropriateness to their specific national conditions, most often resulting in political turmoil. With political turmoil comes Western intervention, and with intervention comes more turmoil. This is the same old story of the West pushing the developing countries into an inescapable and vicious cycle.

The author is a professor at The School of Marxism of China University of Petroleum and a researcher at Beijing branch of the Institute for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.


干预与动荡恶性循环——西方多党制为何成为后发国家现代化的陷阱


在当代以美国为首的西方世界所构建的政治话语体系中,第三世界国家在现代化的进程中出现的种种问题都与一个问题有关,那就是所谓“人权”和所谓“自由民主”。在政治制度和体制方面,所谓“人权”和所谓“自由民主”的最高体现就是多党制及其与之相配套的自由选举制度。在西方国家看来,只有坚持和实行多党制的国家才是“自由民主”的正确选择,否则就是独裁专制和侵犯“人权”。对于这类国家,西方国家毫不留情地予以打压,手段从制裁、孤立、暗杀、封锁、扶植代理人直到武装颠覆,不一而足。然而,二战后第三世界各国的曲折反复的现代化历史表明,西方的多党制给落后国家的现代化设下的是重重陷阱。

多党制是二战后的后殖民主义时代西方国家在第三世界实施新殖民主义的有力工具。在旧殖民主义时代,西方列强对殖民地实施的是赤裸裸的剥削和掠夺,新殖民主义则增添了更加隐晦的招数,如政治渗透、文化交流、经济援助等,其中尤以政治渗透为主,在此过程中向第三世界国家宣扬多党制便成为发挥影响的主要手段。只有建立了多党制,才能给西方国家影响第三世界国家提供可操作的工具,西方国家在第三世界国家的利益才能得到巩固。正因为如此,对于接受并实施了多党制的第三世界国家,西方国家百般吹捧,无论这类国家内部的问题多么严重。反之,对于拒绝接受多党制的第三世界国家,无论这类国家的治理水平多好,西方国家的反应都是指责抹黑,并采取各种手段扶植其内部的反对派力量,结果往往使这些国家陷入难以摆脱的内部冲突,根本无法集中力量进行现代化建设。

多党制使西方世界掌握了评判第三世界国家政治、经济、社会等方面发展状态的裁判权。由于西方世界构成了最发达的国家群体,它们便很自然地将自己的发展模式视为放之四海而皆准的所谓“普世标准”,而第三世界国家由于长期以来深受其影响而不自觉地成为西方模式的接受者。如此一来,就出现了以西方世界为中心的“人权教师爷”群体和非西方世界的接受者群体,前一个群体不断地以不容置疑的态度向后一个群体灌输什么是正确的、什么是错误的,后一个群体则一直处在被动的接受者地位。因此,对广大的第三世界国家来说,其国家的发展方向的设定,各项政策的出台,都要受到西方世界从政府到媒体的检视,他们的一言一行甚至可以决定第三世界国家政府在国内的支持率。因此,接受了多党制的第三世界国家很难独立自主地寻求本国的现代化发展道路。

多党制必然使第三世界国家成为西方国家的附庸。从前两点不难看出,多党制可以使西方国家更容易地在政治、经济、文化方面对第三世界国家施加影响,从而维护自己在第三世界国家的利益。更为重要的是,多党制会使第三世界国家在不顾本国国情的情况下不知不觉地按照西方国家的模式塑造自己,而这种做法多半会在本国引发难以解决的政治动荡。于是,随政治动荡而来的是西方的干预,随干预而发生的是更多的动荡。如此陈陈相因,恶性循环,成为西方国家套在第三世界国家脖子上的无法摆脱的枷锁。

[作者为中国石油大学(北京)马克思主义学院教授,北京市习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想研究中心研究员]

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Canada: The Walls Are Closing in on Donald Trump’s Ramblings

   

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Topics

Canada: The Walls Are Closing in on Donald Trump’s Ramblings

   

Austria: Trump’s Film Tariffs Hurt Hollywood

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Mexico: EU: Concern for the Press

Austria: Musk, the Man of Scorched Earth

Germany: Cynicism, Incompetence and Megalomania

Switzerland: Donald Trump: 100 Days Already, but How Many Years?

     

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Related Articles

Japan: Trump’s 100 Days: A Future with No Visible Change So Far

Austria: Donald Trump Revives the Liberals in Canada

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

Venezuela: Vietnam: An Outlet for China