On China's Reflexive Colonialism and the Third Road for China's Future
Author: S. K. LLM
Reflexive Colonialism: Taking the Unified Chinese Empire as an Example
The centralized Chinese empire has political structural similarities with typical colonial empires, which is thought-provoking. Colonial empires usually center around the mother country, exploiting resources, assimilating culture, and concentrating power in the colonies, while China’s central government throughout history has exhibited similar traits.
During the Ming and Qing dynasties, the central government concentrated local resources through corvée labor systems to sustain the empire and consolidate imperial power. This extraction of resources from local areas is similar to the colonial empires’ practice of exploiting resources from their colonies. For example, the British Empire imposed heavy taxes and monopolized trade profits in India, while the Ming and Qing governments economically exploited local populations through agricultural taxes and corvée labor. At the same time, the central government promoted Confucian culture to achieve ideological unity, similar to colonial empires’ cultural assimilation through the spread of religion and culture.
In modern times, China’s political structure continues this pattern to some extent. The centralization of power in the People's Republic of China reflects a similar "mother country-colony" logic. The central government, through planned economies and resource allocation, views frontier regions and rural areas as supply sources for national industrialization and urban development. For instance, during the large-scale industrialization of the 1950s and 60s, large agricultural surpluses were forcibly transferred to cities to support the development of heavy industry. This resource extraction model is almost identical to how colonial empires utilized resources from their colonies to fuel the industrialization of the mother country.
Notably, China’s system of official appointments often follows a principle of “distant appointments,” wherein officials are assigned to positions far from their hometowns. The primary purpose of this arrangement is to prevent the concentration of local power and reduce the threat of localism to central authority. However, this policy also exacerbates the alienation between officials and local populations, making local governance more akin to "colonizers" managing "colonized regions."
Additionally, the governance of China’s minority regions demonstrates colonial characteristics. During the Qing Dynasty, regions like Xinjiang and Tibet were governed through military control and cultural assimilation, while modern China continues to strengthen its central authority through economic development and migration policies. This development model for frontier regions aligns closely with how colonial empires exploited and assimilated remote territories.
However, unlike traditional colonial empires, China’s unified structure emphasizes political and cultural identity unity, rather than acknowledging local diversity. This makes the colonial relationships within China more implicit, yet the exploitation of local resources and suppression of local cultures remains profound. From this perspective, China’s self-reflective colonialism is not only a historical legacy but also an ongoing logic embedded in modern power structures.
"Pseudo-Ethnic Group": The Ruling Class as Colonialists
In the unified structure, the ruling class is not a traditional ethnic or cultural group, but a pseudo-ethnic group (pseudo-族群) formed based on power relations. The existence of this pseudo-ethnic group decouples the distribution of power from actual ethnic or cultural backgrounds, instead focusing on the monopoly of political and economic resources.
The Qin and Han dynasties marked the beginning of the pseudo-ethnic group. Take the Qin Dynasty as an example: the Ying family and the noble bureaucratic group supporting it formed a pseudo-ethnic group monopolizing power. Through the county system and harsh legal systems, they completely centralized local resources under the control of the empire, with local populations becoming objects of exploitation.
This characteristic of pseudo-ethnic groups reached another peak during the Qing Dynasty. The Manchu nobility, through the Eight Banners system and the policy of Manchu-Han separation, firmly held power, while also integrating some Han elites into the bureaucracy to consolidate their rule. However, regardless of the ethnic backgrounds of these elites, once they entered the ruling class, they became part of the pseudo-ethnic group, forming a deep divide between themselves and the local population.
In modern China, the pseudo-ethnic group characteristic has not disappeared, but has transformed into new forms. During the Republic of China period, power was mainly concentrated in the political and military groups led by the Kuomintang and warlords. These ruling groups ostensibly promoted national independence and modernization, but in reality, they consolidated their own interests through monopolizing land, taxes, and military resources. Whether it was the Kuomintang government or local warlords, their governing methods were similar to traditional pseudo-ethnic groups, extracting resources from local areas to serve their political goals.
After the founding of New China, the form of the pseudo-ethnic group transformed further. The People's Republic of China established a centralized power structure led by the Communist Party, absorbing representatives from intellectuals and the working-class into the power system. However, this system still exhibited highly centralized power features. During major policies such as land reform, collective farming, and the Great Leap Forward, the interests of local populations were often sacrificed to serve national construction and the ruling group’s objectives. After the economic reforms of the 1980s, the ruling class underwent another transformation, with a new pseudo-ethnic group emerging, consisting of technocrats and economic elites, maintaining power through monopolizing market and policy resources.
The existence of pseudo-ethnic groups throughout history is based on the fact that their power is not dependent on ethnic or cultural identity, but on monopolizing resources, controlling ideology, and maintaining strict hierarchical systems. The emergence and continuation of pseudo-ethnic groups show that China's power structure is far more complex than traditional ethnic divisions. When discussing decolonization, it is necessary to address this phenomenon to understand how power is consolidated and perpetuated through pseudo-ethnic groups in both history and the present.
"The Third Road": The Actual Death of "Democratic Transition" and the Overlooked Decolonization Perspective
In recent years, many scholars have proposed different visions for China's future transition, with theories of democratic transition once occupying the mainstream. However, in practice, the road to democratic transition has encountered many obstacles, from conservative resistance by the elite class to the deep-rooted social inequalities, making this goal increasingly seem out of reach.
The dream of democratic transition began to take root in Chinese society in the late 1980s, especially after the 1989 Tiananmen Incident, when calls for democratization reached a peak. However, despite nearly 40 years of continued calls for democratic reforms at all levels of Chinese society, this movement has never achieved substantial progress. China's political system remains highly centralized, with democratization almost completely obstructed by resistance from political elites, the powerful state machinery, and entrenched social inequality.
Although many movements and theorists advocating for democratic reforms, such as civil society and rule of law proponents, emerged during this period, their voices could never break through the constraints of the system, failing to trigger fundamental changes. The profound inequality in social structures, particularly the economic disparities between cities and rural areas, and between coastal and inland regions, meant that political demands from the public were often ignored or suppressed, making democratization seem increasingly unattainable.
In this context, a decolonization perspective provides an overlooked possibility. Rather than limiting the focus to Western-style political models, it might be more productive to focus on how to deconstruct the existing power relations, especially the colonial-like relationship between the ruling class and the governed. Decolonization is not just about political system changes; it also involves reshaping historical narratives and cultural understandings. It requires returning power from the pseudo-ethnic ruling class to the local people and recognizing the legitimacy of diversity.
In China, the long-standing centralized system has often suppressed local and ethnic diversity, deeply embedding the central government's power structure and logic in both ideology and culture. Therefore, true decolonization is not merely about institutional reforms, but rather a process of fundamentally challenging the nation-state structure and ethnic identity. In this process, political system reform may not be the only way forward; true decolonization demands a multidimensional examination of social and historical relationships, seeking new methods and ideas to deconstruct the current power structure and find governance models that are more aligned with local and ethnic diversity.
This is why the decolonization perspective is so critical to China’s future development. It offers China a third road, distinct from both historical power concentration and the constraints of Western democratic models. This road can transcend the historical constraints of power concentration and ethnic homogenization, exploring a path of pluralistic coexistence. This path requires starting from deconstructing the rule of the pseudo-ethnic group, valuing local and ethnic cultural diversity, and fundamentally reflecting on past oppression and inequality, ultimately achieving a more just, inclusive, and harmonious society.
Methods of Decolonization: Ethnic Construction, Reinterpretation of Historical Facts, and Balkanization
To achieve true decolonization, various methods need to be implemented on political, cultural, and historical levels.
Ethnic Construction and Local Autonomy
The core of ethnic construction is to acknowledge diversity and respect local cultures and traditions. China’s classification of “56 ethnic groups,” while seemingly reflecting the diversity of its society, is actually a top-down political designation by the central government. Many ethnic groups in various regions have been forcibly categorized as part of one of these "56 groups," often with overly simplistic classifications that ignore local historical, cultural, and social differences. The so-called “56 ethnic groups” do not represent actual group identities, but rather political divisions, and some classifications may be erroneous or inaccurate. Local cultures and ethnic histories are thus often marginalized or erased, failing to reflect the true diversity and complexity of Chinese society.
Particularly with the concept of “Han ethnicity,” which is not a unified ethnic group, but rather originated from the Han dynasty’s household registration system, initially distinguishing non-Han ethnic groups. It does not refer to a culturally or ethnically homogeneous group, but rather a historical social construct. The practice of grouping various “Han” communities under a single ethnic identity obscures the vast regional and cultural differences among them. This practice hides the profound regional and cultural diversity in Chinese society.
The primary task of decolonization is to rebuild the relationship between the local and the central government, granting more autonomy to local regions to break the central control over local areas. However, this proposal would undoubtedly face strong opposition from mainstream society and elite groups. Opponents often challenge decolonization calls by invoking the “orthodox history” narrative, using the maintenance of a “canonical narrative” to uphold the current power structure. In this process, the logical fallacy of “appealing to the canon” often arises. According to this fallacy, the mainstream historical narrative is seen as the only truth, and any questioning of it is perceived as a threat to national unity and historical continuity.
The "canonical narrative" is often carefully constructed and widely disseminated by the government or dominant power groups. This narrative emphasizes the unity of the nation and the importance of centralized authority, while ignoring the historical diversity and cultural differences of local regions. By constructing a seemingly unified historical framework, it conceals regional differences and the independence of minority histories. Therefore, any attempt to reassess history and reveal the diversity of local cultures and histories is often labeled as “rebellion” or “secession.”
Through decolonization, it is essential to break the framework of this “canonical narrative,” valuing and respecting the cultural diversity of local areas and acknowledging the historical and cultural differences of various ethnicities and regions. Reassessing ethnic identity and granting more autonomy and space for cultural expression to local areas is the key step to achieving true decolonization.
Reinterpretation of Historical Facts
Reinterpreting historical facts is a crucial part of decolonization. China’s official historical narrative often revolves around the “grand unification,” simplifying diverse local histories into a process of submission to unity. This narrative strengthens the legitimacy of centralized power, while ignoring the richness and complexity of local histories. By diversifying historical research, previously ignored voices can be uncovered, and China's historical identity can be redefined.
However, this process inevitably encounters strong opposition to the "canonical historical narrative." As mentioned earlier, history is often portrayed as a unified, centralized structure, and any challenges to this structure are easily seen as threats to national integrity. Many people view the "canonical narrative" as the cornerstone of national identity, believing that reinterpreting history would shake this foundation. This "appeal to canon" opposition treats history as an absolute, unchangeable truth, thereby ignoring the inherent multiplicity and changeability of history.
This mindset constitutes a significant obstacle to decolonization. Many people are unwilling to accept a multifaceted narrative of history, fearing that acknowledging local differences and diversity would lead to national division and ethnic fragmentation. In fact, it is precisely this singular "canonical history" narrative that has caused profound internal divisions and long-standing oppression within the nation, preventing true social harmony and justice.
Balkanization and Decentralization
Balkanization, as an embodiment of decolonization, is actually a common phenomenon in the history of many national liberation and state-building processes, particularly evident in the independence movements of former colonies. After shedding foreign rule, many former colonies face the challenges of internal diversity and fragmentation, a phenomenon historically referred to as "Balkanization." This process is often accompanied by the intensification of ethnic, cultural, linguistic, or religious differences, leading to conflicts and divisions within the region.
Decolonization is not just a change in political systems; it is also a reconstruction of national identity and power structures. In this process, many countries' original unified systems are challenged, and the independent demands of local regions and ethnicities gradually emerge. This trend can be observed in the waves of independence in Latin America, as well as in the independence movements in Africa and Asia. Many former colonies, although attempting to maintain unity after gaining independence, often experience internal divisions and ethnic conflicts as a norm.
Balkanization is not a simple process of division but an inevitable outcome of decolonization. Forced unification under colonial systems often erases the diversity and uniqueness between regions, while decolonization means the historical multiplicities of these regions will be re-released and recognized. This fragmentation is not only geographical but also manifests as deep divisions in culture, language, belief, and even political structures. For China, the discussion of Balkanization does not point to an idealized state of division but represents a deeper acknowledgment of diversity and local autonomy.
Within the framework of decolonization, Balkanization is not only a historical lesson but also a potential path for China's future transformation. While valuing local cultures and histories, decolonization also calls for a rethinking of national unity. China’s current system, particularly in its control over border regions, often overlooks the independence of local histories and the diversity of cultures. How to balance centralization with local autonomy, and how to acknowledge and respect the demands of local ethnic groups, has become a key issue for China’s future development.
Future Outlook
Decolonization is not only a theoretical attempt but also a profound reflection on China's future development model. Against the backdrop of deepening globalization and multipolarity, China needs to break free from the constraints of the "grand unification" and "democratic transition" binary framework and find a third path. This path not only needs to acknowledge historical oppression and inequality, respect locality and diversity, and deconstruct the power structure of pseudo-ethnic groups but also needs to create new social governance models that promote local autonomy and national-level symbiosis.
China’s future transformation should focus on how to break the long-standing centralization system and gradually achieve the decentralization of power and autonomous governance at the local level. This transformation should not be limited to political system reform but should include profound changes in economic, cultural, and social dimensions. By strengthening local autonomy and promoting cultural diversity, the current power structure can be truly deconstructed, allowing people in different regions to exercise greater self-governance based on their historical, cultural, and economic characteristics.
The road to decolonization is not smooth, but it may be the only path for China to overcome its internal contradictions and move toward a fair, just, and harmonious society. In this process, historical reflection and cultural reconstruction will be key. Only through decolonization can China find a path that truly suits its independent development. This exploration not only holds significant meaning for China itself but also provides a new development paradigm and intellectual resources for countries in the Global South, promoting political and social change globally.
2024.12.28