Late Modernization And The Chinese Example

For decades, the emulation of western modernity has been held up as the exclusive path to modernization. That is, until China embarked on reforms and turned the tide of history by presenting a path to modernity that eschews the western experience altogether.

Late Modernization And The Chinese Example

Modernist projects in the Muslim World that started around the middle of the 20th century in the post-colonial period were utter failures. Modernizing regimes in Iran, Turkey and Pakistan, all of whom were greatly influenced by western political and social philosophies of the Industrial era, failed in their objectives of transforming Muslim societies into modern societies capable of abjuring long held traditional ways of life. 

In all these three societies, modernist projects were politically oriented towards authoritarian forms of governments. The repression of political dissent became a norm in these societies. It was not that these societies didn’t learn from western modernity. Modern western education had been introduced in Muslim societies by the western colonial powers. Therefore, voices advocating for representative governments and liberal social and political values was commonplace. Historian have yet to reach a definite conclusion whether the failure of the modernizing project, rampant poverty, or the humiliating defeats in 1967 Arab-Israel war paved the way for the replacement of these modernist projects with fundamentalist projects—the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the 1977 military coup by a general deeply inclined towards a fundamental version of Islam in Pakistan. In Turkey, the specter of Islamist groups had started to raise its head by the early 1980s.

There is a very thin line dividing the fundamentalist version of Islam from Islamic modernity—both of these phenomena have their origins in Muslim societies’ encounters with western education that was introduced in Muslim Eastern societies by the colonial powers. In the Indian subcontinent, the Muslim modernists tried their level best to reinterpret Islam’s history, theology, politics, social norms and education systems in the light of western modernity that ostensibly was paving the way for the west’s overwhelming industrial, military and political dominance over Asian and African societies. 

With the fall of the last Mughal in India, the Muslims were deprived of political power and several reformist projects were undertaken. Though these reformist projects had not yet assumed a fundamentalist avatar, we could simply describe the Dar-ul-uloom Deoband and the Barelvi movement of Imam Ahmed Raza as revivalist projects of the first order. Both these revivalist movements were not completely devoid of western influence—both were using mass dissemination of their message through the new technologies of print and both were using the medium of mass education, something which had never existed in the Islamic world. 

In Egypt, it became clear that the thin line between Islamic modernity and religious fundamentalism could evaporate into thin air under modern social, educational and political conditions that originated under western colonial modernity when the Islamic modernism of Muhammad Abdu paved the way for Salafist fundamentalism of his disciple Rashid Rida. In any case, there is now a consensus among serious scholars of Islam that the religious fundamentalism in Muslim societies is primarily an outcome of the encounter between traditional Islam and western modernity under conditions of colonial subjugation.

Western European countries and societies truly modernized in the wake of the Industrial Revolution in England, where the rationalization of state functions, the western model of democracy and rapid industrialization and the capitalist system of economic development became the hallmark of modernization. 

These Muslim societies have remained mired in an intense ideological debate in the post-colonial period and intensity of this ideological conflict was so severe, it sapped the creative energies of these societies. Muslim intellectuals were either busy copying western modernity in totality or never went beyond observance of a model of religion which spawned an invented tradition of religiosity—that is fundamentalism—under the influence of western modernity. The result was a dreadful form of religiosity that produced forms and techniques of violence which was a product of industrial civilization. 

Consider this: the mass slaughter that Islamic terrorist groups now engage in cannot be traced back to medieval Islamic societies—it is another matter that these Islamic groups consider the medieval Islamic societies or the initial first 30 years after the demise of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as the historical ideal. The Islamic terror groups’ mass slaughter can neither be traced back to Quran or Hadith—as at the time of advent of Islam there didn’t exist any of the methods and technologies that made mass slaughter a possibility. All of it came with modernity. Science and technology, that paved the way for mass slaughter, and not science and technology that could ensure economic development and economic affluence.

For centuries, only one model of modernization was available to the developing countries—a model where modernization was equated with westernization. Western European countries and societies truly modernized in the wake of the Industrial Revolution in England, where the rationalization of state functions, the western model of democracy and rapid industrialization and the capitalist system of economic development became the hallmark of modernization. 

China’s breathtaking economic development, during the past three decades, has introduced a dramatic change in this situation as it has presented to the world a model of modernization where countries don’t necessarily have to follow the path of western nations in order to modernize.  One of the glaring flaws in the western model of modernization was the ever widening social and economic inequalities that were inherent in the western capitalist economic system. In February 2021 Chinese President, Xi Jinping declared complete victory over poverty in his country.

The Chinese model of modernization is not an accident of history—it is a deliberate policy of the Chinese government to provide society with a balanced model of economic growth and a political system that is based on the affluence of Chinese people and a social system which is balanced, orderly and just.

This was not a victory on papers—China is the largest country in the world in terms of population. Three decades ago, it was faced with extreme poverty, which has been eradicated. The Chinese government has provided economic affluence to all segments of society.  China is home to one fifth of the world population and its success in completely eradicating extreme poverty is a milestone in the history of China as well as in the history of mankind. This model of modernization, where the downtrodden are not left to fend for themselves, but are helped by the government—a government which is presiding over the highest growth rate in world history—to raise their standard of living above the internationally recognized poverty line. This makes the Chinese model of modernization distinct from western model of modernization. 

The Chinese model of modernization is not an accident of history—it is a deliberate policy of the Chinese government to provide society with a balanced model of economic growth and a political system that is based on the affluence of Chinese people and a social system which is balanced, orderly and just. Chinese modernization is a product of conscious efforts of Chinese leaders, who in their public assertions expound the basic features of this model of modernization and never miss an opportunity to point out how different their model is from western model, “As we have upheld and developed socialism with Chinese characteristics and driven coordinated progress in material, political, cultural-ethical, social and ecological terms, we have pioneered a new and uniquely Chinese path to modernization and created a new model for human civilization” said President Xi.

 The Chinese government has put forward five related features of the Chinese model of modernization, which are as follows, “modernization of a huge population, common prosperity for all, material, cultural-ethical advancement, harmony between human and nature, and peaceful development. The Chinese leadership rightfully thinks that the Chinese model of modernization has a lesson for each and every developing country in the world. Unlike the Western model of modernization and economic development where each stage of modernization and economic development and progress has winners and losers, Chinese modernization is aimed at prosperity for all the people of Chinese society. 

There had been times in western academic and intellectual circles history when societies which didn’t westernize were not recognized as modernized societies. The developing countries had to move in lockstep with western societies in social and cultural terms in order to be counted as modernized societies among the academic and intellectual circles of the western world. Chinese economic, technological, social and political growth and progress has transformed the definition of modernity at the world stage. And the Chinese government and its leaders are fully aware of their success in this field as they now rightly claim that there is no fixed model of modernization. There could be multiple paths to modernization as China has clearly demonstrated.

There is nothing inherently bad about western modernity—it is just that societies in Asia have different cultural, historical and political traditions to follow and any model of modernity that takes birth in our societies (Muslim or otherwise) must take into account our own cultural and civilization heritage.

It is not a surprise that now even Western political thinkers admit that during the last several decades all the new concepts and ideas about politics and governance have originated in Chinese society. In 2019, Chinese President Xi put forward the idea of “whole process people’s democracy.” Whereas in the west, the concept of democracy is commonly equated with elections, the concept put forward by the Chinese President goes beyond the simple electoral exercises. He told a gathering in Shanghai that the Chinese political system is a “whole process of people's democracy—in which elections are inbuilt but the concept goes beyond simple electoral exercises as it includes the elements of consultations, decision making, management and oversight through a series of laws and institutional arrangements. This is a form of political system where people directly discuss their problems, and in the process, accommodate the wishes and desires of the entire population.”

This means elections are not a point where democracy ends as in China political process goes on in the form of consultation with the people in order to accommodate their wishes in decision-making processes. Chinese President Xi once said that democracy is not an ornament to be put on display, but an instrument for addressing the issues that concern the people.

China has created a miracle—rather it has created multiple miracles of economic progress, development, and of social and political stability. Sharing economic affluence with the common people of China could be described as a greatest achievement of the Chinese political system and Chinese leadership. This aspect of the Chinese system leads Chinese society towards social and political stability—which in turn fuels its economic growth. The three decades of breathtaking economic growth and prosperity has created a huge market of consumers in China—a market which has the capacity to replace weakening global demand by boosting the aggregate global demand.” In China, there are now over 400 million people in the middle-income bracket and the number is expected to reach 800 million over a decade or so. This number can itself boost global demand in case of any recession in the international market.

China now is the leader as it provides the developing countries—rather the whole world—with a model political system, exemplary economic growth and progress and lessons for providing a stable social system to such a large population. Its economic prowess is the basis of its relations with the world at large and with the different regions of the world. It is not a security obsessed world power. It has already embarked on the path of sharing its economic goodies with the rest of the world through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It is presenting the world with its harmonious model of globalization in which sharing prosperity with every one is the first principle. Finally, it has shown the world a new and unique path to modernization and economic growth. And the world seems eager to learn from this model.

There is nothing inherently bad about western modernity—it is just that societies in Asia have different cultural, historical and political traditions to follow and any model of modernity that takes birth in our societies (Muslim or otherwise) must take into account our own cultural and civilization heritage. The Chinese have turned the tide of history by presenting to the world a new model of modernity which is completely distinct from Western model of modernity. 

On the other hand, Muslim societies’ failed model led to spread of violence, which they learned from western modernity, poverty and hunger and deep political instability. We just failed to develop economically, while aimlessly boasting about our glorious past. We must remember that Muslim history is only exceptional to the extent that Muslim societies created exceptional feats in history. Long ago, it ceased to be exceptional. It is as ordinary as the quality of education in our educational institutions and the level of technological advancement in our society.

The writer is a journalist based in Islamabad.