A Humbling Exploration

“Universal Values” in China? October 10, 2010

This post might offend some people…

A lot of debate has been generated over the latest Nobel Peace prize recipient Liu XiaoBo.  Clearly it is the latest message that the West wants to send to the Chinese government, that it should adopt the concept of “Universal Values”.  The previous one was granting the peace prize to Dalai Lama.  Other than some publicity, can this award actually do anything tangible in influencing the Chinese communist party?  I doubt it.

I think that while the phrase “Universal Values” is a “universal” idea, how these ideas are expressed and actualized differ from culture to culture.  A close analogy is that while the concept of “beauty” is universal, the expression of this “value” is different from culture to culture.  For example, the western concept of female beauty could be a skinny Victoria secret model, while in some African countries the concept of female beauty is some one with an elongated neck that’s forced by metal rings.  And interestingly, westerners accept this particular “interpretation” of beauty as “cultural difference”, and not bodily mutilation.  How ironic.

I think the underlying debate here is how a country should be governed, and the answer invariably depends on what the “strategic objective” of that country is.  In the case of China, it clearly has the potential and wants to become the world’s number 1 superpower, and the government will most likely do whatever it takes to achieve this goal.  The key of achieving this goal is unity of its people, voluntary or forced.  I have to say that sometimes an authoritative approach is needed, because it enables decisions being made and consensus achieved.  Critics can simply look to the European Union as a counter example of the socialist governing approach: while being a good idea, satisfying and uniting the large number of cultures in Europe is simply impossible.  Or, the economic downfall is another great example of where the democratic governing approach can falter: In the US the government arguably reacted too late because Congress and the Administration can’t reach a consensus.  However, China was able to respond much more swiftly because the communist government was able to make decisions and respond swiftly.  It was the decision maker.  It didn’t need to consult anyone.  I’d say that’s pretty effective.

In personal management, a popular thought is that you should work on yourself, and not apply value judgment upon others.  Why couldn’t that concept be applied to governing a country?