OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Thematic dossier
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024
87
TOTALITARIANIZATION AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN
CHINA AND THEIR IMPLICATION FOR THE NATION’S POLITICAL
DEVELOPMENT
ZHIDONG HAO
zdhao@emeritus.um.edu.mo
Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Macau (China). He obtained his PhD in
sociology from the City University of New York in 1995 and taught at both U.S. and Chinese
universities. He has researched in political sociology, historical sociology, sociology of religion,
sociology of higher education, and sociology of intellectuals, and published in journals such as
Higher Education, The China Quarterly, Pacific Affairs, Issues and Studies, Journal of
Contemporary China, Chinese Sociological Review, China: An International Journal, Review of
Religion and Chinese Society, etc. His most recent books include 《生死存亡十二年：平定縣的抗戰、
內戰與土改》(2021) (Twelve years of life and death in Pingding, Shanxi: The war of resistance
against Japan, civil war, and land reform); Academic Freedom under Siege: Higher Education in
East Asia, the U.S., and Australia (eds., 2020), Macau History and Society (2nd edition, 2020);
and 《十字路口的知識分子：中國知識工作者的政治變遷》(2019), a Chinese translation of his 2003
book on Intellectuals at a Crossroads: The Changing Politics of China’s Knowledge Workers.
Abstract
The argument of my paper is that higher education in China is going through a process of
totalitarianization and democratization at the same time. On the one hand there are
organizational controls and ideological indoctrination of students and cooptation of the faculty
by the Party-state. On the other hand, there are democratic breakthroughs on the part of
both students and professors. Whatever happens in the ivory tower inevitably affects what
happens outside of it. Whether the Party-state is going in the direction of totalitarianism or
democracy depends on the result of the tug-of-war between the forces of totalitarianization
and democratization in both state and society. My analysis is based on an examination of the
available data in research from a perspective of the sociology of higher education. I hope that
a better understanding of what happens at the university and the role of higher education in
China’s development will help all the stakeholders of higher education in making wiser policies
and practical decisions.
Keywords
China, Higher Education, Democratization, Totalitarianization, Intellectuals.
Resumo
O argumento do meu artigo é que o ensino superior na China atravessa um processo de
totalitarização e democratização ao mesmo tempo. Por um lado, existem controlos
organizacionais e doutrinação ideológica dos estudantes e cooptação do corpo docente pelo
Partido-Estado. Por outro lado, há avanços democráticos por parte de estudantes e
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
88
professores. O que quer que aconteça na torre de marfim afeta inevitavelmente o que
acontece fora dela. Se o Partido-Estado está a caminhar na direcção do totalitarismo ou da
democracia depende do resultado da disputa entre as forças da totalitarização e da
democratização, tanto no Estado como na sociedade. A minha análise baseia-se na análise
dos dados disponíveis em pesquisas sob uma perspectiva da sociologia do ensino superior.
Espero que uma melhor compreensão do que acontece na universidade e do papel do ensino
superior no desenvolvimento da China ajude todos os intervenientes no ensino superior a
tomarem medidas e decisões práticas mais sábias.
Palavras-chave
China, Ensino superior, Democratização, Totalitarização, Intelectuais.
How to cite this editorial
Hao, Zhidong (2024). Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China
and Their Implication for the Nation’s Political Development. Janus.net, e-journal of international
relations, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia, VOL 14, N 2 , TD1, pp. 89-112,
consulted [online] on date of the last view. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT24.6
Article received on May 12, 2023 and accepted on July 18, 2023
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
89
TOTALITARIANIZATION AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN HIGHER
EDUCATION IN CHINA AND THEIR IMPLICATION FOR THE
NATION’S POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
ZHIDONG HAO
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s own experience tells us that whoever controls the
intellectuals and university students will control the future of the country. Thus,
totalitarianization or democratization in higher education is of paramount importance for
the ruling CCP’s goal to keep power in its own hands. Success in control of the university
is an indication of success in other fields of life.
My argument in this paper is that totalitarianization and democratization in higher
education in China happen at the same time, although the former is the dominant mode
under the current CCP rule. The two are at a stalemate. But political repression and
economic growth are not enough to legitimize the CCP control, and in the long run, the
Party will have to democratize if it wants to stay in power. An analysis and understanding
of how totalitarianization and democratization work in higher education is important for
us to understand in which direction China may go in the future since colleges and
universities play an important role in the political development of the entire nation.
It is true that what we discuss in this paper cannot represent all of higher education in
China since most of our data is based on studies of only a few higher education
institutions in China. Statistics for 2017 show that China had 2,913 colleges and
universities with a student number of close to 38 million (Ministry of Education, 2018a).
But they should still give us a fairly good idea of what is happening in higher education
since the political nature of the Chinese state makes it probable that what happens in
one university will happen in other universities as well.
In the following pages, I first explain the nature of the Chinese state in terms of
authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Then I examine the historical role of higher
education from a sociological point of view. Thirdly and fourthly, I illustrate the
totalitarianization and democratization of college students and professors respectively.
This will be followed by a conclusion.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
90
The Nature of the Chinese State: From Authoritarianism to
Totalitarianism
It seems that China is entering a new era. It may be entering a revolutionary period
following Deng Xiaoping’s reform and Jiang Zemin’s and Hu Jintao’s rejuvenation (see
Cheek, 2015, on the three recurring periods in China’s modern history and Zhidong Hao
2020a for an explanation). If many scholars believe that the eras of Deng, Jiang, and Hu
were characterized by resilient authoritarianism (Nathan, 2003; Minxin Pei, 2003), the
Xi Jinping era may be moving towards totalitarianism, or in Fukuyama’s (2020) term,
“aspiring” totalitarianism, or what Ringen (2016) calls “perfect dictatorship”. I call this a
totalitarianization process.
What is the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism? Huntington
(1991:12) defines a traditional authoritarian regime as one that “is characterized by a
single leader or a small group of leaders, no party or a weak party, no mass mobilization,
possibly a ‘mentality’ but no ideology, limited government, ‘limited, not responsible,
political pluralism,’ and no effort to remake society and human nature.” This might be
true under Deng, Jiang, and Hu when collective leadership by the standing committee
members of the Politburo was emphasized, the CCP occasionally tried to place more
responsibility on the administrative leaders rather than the Party leaders, and limited
civil society organizations were encouraged. To be sure, there was still a one-Party
dictatorship, and the Marxist ideology was strongly adhered to, at least verbally. But the
society by and large was more open than under Mao. So it makes sense for scholars like
Andrew Nathan and Minxin Pei to debate a resilient authoritarianism.
But things have changed since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012. Although Xi has
inherited many control mechanisms from the previous eras, as we will discuss later, he
has consolidated them in various ways so that the system now more resembles
totalitarianism. Hannah Arendt’s (1958) seminal work on the origins of totalitarianism
discussed “the Leader’s absolute monopoly of power and authority” or the regime’s
“unlimited power” (pp. 405 and 456), absolute control (p. 341), ideological indoctrination
(pp. 6, 341), terror (p. 341), organization (p. 364), and concentration and extermination
camps (p. 437). Huntington (1992:12) further defines a totalitarian regime as one that
is characterized by “a single party, usually led by one man; a pervasive and powerful
secret police; a higher developed ideology setting forth the ideal society, which the
totalitarian movement is committed to realizing; and government penetration and control
of mass communications and all or most social and economic organizations” (see also
Fukuyama, 2020)
The reeducation camps in Xinjiang are not concentration camps but they do bear many
similarities. China under Xi also embodies other characteristics of totalitarianism. Every
corner of the country is under the Party’s control (dong xi nan bei zhong, dang shi lingdao
yiqie de東西南北中，黨是領導一切的), and all in China will have to submit to one ruler
(dingyu yizun定於一尊). Nobody can “issue groundless criticism of the CCP decisions and
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
91
policies” (wang yi zhongyang 妄議中央), meaning that no-one can criticize the Party-state
and its paramount leader for whatever they do. The dominant ideology will be the “China
dream” (zhongguo meng中國夢), or the revival of the Chinese nation, an ideal society
everybody is supposed to be committed to realizing. The CCP branches have to be
established in civil society organizations (if there are still any left) and even in private
enterprises. The traditional mass media has to follow the Party line closely, and social
media is closely watched so that anything that might deviate from the Party line will be
quickly deleted. So almost all the indicators of totalitarianism are there. It then makes
sense to talk about totalitarianism and totalitarianization at this stage of China’s
development with the understanding that it is built on the authoritarian mechanisms
created by Xi’s predecessors, and in many senses, it is reverting to Mao, or in Fukuyama’s
(2020) terms, reviving “parts of the old Maoist model.”
But at the same time, there are also forces of democratization. After all, Chinese
intellectuals and political elites have strived for more than a century for the
democratization of China. As Cheek (2015) points out, democracy is an enduring idea
throughout the past 100 years and more (see also Zhidong Hao, 2020a). Even in earlier
eras, there was a tradition of literati activism critical of the royal court (Elman, 1989).
The Chinese democracy movement later has gone through many forms in many
generations including Liang Qichao’s democracy for the elites, Sun Yat-sen’s Three
People’s Principles, Chiang Kai-shek’s stages from military rule to provisional
constitutional rule and then to constitutional rule, and Mao Zedong’s democratic
centralism and people’s democratic dictatorship, etc. Mao won the support of many
intellectuals in his revolution because he claimed to build a democratic state. Many
believed him first and then were disappointed. But that has not stopped intellectuals from
continuing to strive for the democratization of China, for example, in the 1950s by the
so-called “rightists”, and in the 1980s by student movements and open-minded Party
leaders like Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang. Even when Xi Jinping is moving toward
totalitarianism, some human rights lawyers, university professors, and other intellectuals
have continued to challenge Xi’s policies on the suppression of the freedom of speech,
on the Party’s ethnic policies, the Belt and Road Initiative, etc. although such efforts have
become increasingly difficult inside China.
In a nutshell, totalitarianization and democratization coexist even though the former
dominates China now. How does higher education fare in this tug-of-war between the
two, then? That is what this paper wants to explore. But first I will examine the historical
role of higher education in China’s political development from a sociological point of view
before we come to the politics of higher education in contemporary times.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
92
The Historical Role of Higher Education in China’s Political
Development
igher education, public or private, plays at least three roles: to serve the interests of the
state, to produce professional and independent new knowledge, and to produce
democratic citizens. Kant thought that the mission of the university “was to serve two
primary functions: first, to provide educated bureaucrats for the state, and second, to
conduct research whose goal was the production of new knowledge” (cited in Taylor,
2010: 18). This covers at least the first two roles. Weber (1973: 20) says that the state
may require those in the university to sing the tune of him whose bread they eat. So, if
the state provides for the university, higher education serves the interests of the state.
Consequently, universities do serve the state, even if it is totalitarian or authoritarian.
This is also the first role discussed above.
But Weber apparently thinks that there is a problem here. He says that “such a castration
of the freedom and disinterestedness of university education, which prevents the
development of persons of genuine character, cannot be compensated by the finest
institutes, the largest lecture halls, or by ever so many dissertations, prize-winning works
and examination successes” (Weber, 1973: 20). He seems to say that higher education
should not be influenced by the state or other particular interests and should remain free
and disinterested from partisan politics in teaching and research. This appears to speak
to the second role of professional and independent knowledge production. So, he
apparently acknowledges the first role but believes that it should not go too far.
The third role of the university being a gadfly, or conscience of society, or a critic of
unjustness and unfairness in society, i.e., a democratic role, does not seem to get much
attention. Even Marx, who was so concerned about social justice, alienation, class
struggles, etc., did not dwell on the role of higher education in social development. But
we can see this from a Marxian point of view in Gramsci, for example, when he talks
about ideological or cultural hegemony of the ruling class, or in Louis Althusser when he
talks about the subjugated groups’ “submission to the rules of the established order”
(cited in Yan Xiaojun, 2014:495). Gramsci also discussed organic intellectuals who serve
the interest of the bourgeois state (see Zhidong Hao, 2015:105). Such hegemony can
only be countered by a critical stance developed by intellectuals. Hence the third role of
higher education, a critical role, a challenge to an unjust system, and a call for a more
democratic system. In Henry Giroux’s (2018:157) words, higher education has a
potential role as a public sphere capable of educating students as informed, critical
thinkers capable of not only holding power accountable but also fulfilling the role of critical
agents who can act against injustice and resist diverse forms of oppression. Qian Liqun
(2012) calls this a reflexive, inquisitive, critical, creative (in thought, culture, and
scholarship) role, or in a word, a revolutionary role of the university. So, when Durkheim
talks about higher education “as a means of cultural transmission, socialization, social
control, or social processes” (Clark, 2007: 5), it can go all the three ways. Students can
be socialized into or influenced by knowledge of totalitarian ideologies, or democratic
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
93
understandings, or disinterested professionalism. Social control and processes can exist
in any of these directions. Higher education is the foremost battleground for these
political struggles, and does play important roles in all the three ways.
Let us now take a look at how such socialization, social control, and social processes
happened in Chinese history, especially before Deng’s opening and reform era in the late
1970s. We will see especially how higher education produced both intellectuals who
sustained autocratic and dictatorial rule, whom we may also call “organic intellectuals,”
and rivals who challenged the incumbent government (Perry, 2015: 1-2, on the
distinction; Perry, 2020).
In imperial China, as Perry (2015: 2-4) points out, the Confucian examination system
served “as a mechanism to attract, evaluate, and enlist intellectual talent for government
service” who helped sustain the system for centuries. They helped unify the written
language, homogenize political culture, standardize academic curricula, and coopt the
intelligentsia. The literati entered into alliance with the monarchy and “provided the
knowledge of precedent and statecraft that could legitimize power and make the state
work” (Perry, 2015: 4-5, citing Arthur Wright).
But higher learning in imperial China also produced opposition leaders (Zhidong Hao,
2003: 26-29). These include Kong Fu, the eighth-generation grandson of Confucius, who
participated in the peasant uprising led by Chen Sheng and Wu Guang against the Qin
dynasty; the leading scholars and university students in Eastern Han (25-220), “who
launched a critical movement against the current politics, government policies, and the
conduct of members of the imperial household as well as the eunuchs and the emperor”;
Pi Rixiu (ca. 833-883), a famous poet and thinker, who joined the Huang Chao uprising
against the Tang dynasty (618-907); the Donglin Academy scholars led by Gu Xiancheng
in the beginning years of 1700s, who “spoke out against exploitation by government
officials” and “demanded open criticism and reform” (see also Elman, 1989); and Hong
Xiuquan (1814-1864), who started the Taiping Rebellion. This tradition was inherited by
later revolutionaries like Sun Yat-sen, Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao, and of course Mao Zedong.
It is true that this critical and revolutionary role was not the dominant role played by
higher education in imperial China as compared to its supportive and organic role, but
there is also no doubt that higher learning did produce not only opposition thoughts, but
opposition leaders as well.
This is also true in the revolutionary era of Mao Zedong. To serve the interests of the
CCP state, the new government in 1949 “abolished all private colleges and universities
(religious and secular alike) and implemented a Soviet-style system of specialized
academies and institutes under tight communist Party control” (Perry, 2015: 8). The goal
was to transform higher education into a place to train the Party’s own supportive and
organic or establishment intellectuals, i.e., to be both “red” and “expert.” It succeeded
to a great extent, but it did not prevent elite intellectuals and college students from
criticizing the Party-state for its dictatorial power and advocating for democratization in
the so-called Hundred Flower Movement in 1957 (Zhidong Hao, 2003: 73-86).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
94
Similar events happened after Deng Xiaoping came to power in late 1970s. He reopened
the universities and again wanted to train students to serve the Party-state. But many
students immediately started the Democracy Wall Movement in 1978-79 to challenge the
Party’s rule and wanted more democratization (Perry, 2015: 10-12; Zhidong Hao, 2013:
96-103). The student protests in 1986-87 and then again in 1989 did the same. Again,
we see the tug-of-war between totalitarian control and democratic challenge.
We will now examine the totalitarianization and democratization in higher education and
the roles they are playing in China’s political development after the suppression of the
democracy movement in 1989, but especially under Xi Jinping. As I discussed at the
beginning of the paper, if we can term the ‘Deng, Jiang, and Hu era’ as a period of mostly
authoritarianization, we will see how higher education has gradually evolved in the
direction of totalitarianization, along with democratization. And this has played a big role
in the Party’s goal of stability maintenance.
The Totalitarianization and Democratization of Students under Xi
As I said earlier, many totalitarian controls were already in place before Xi. By totalitarian
controls, I mean tight organizational and ideological controls. I will first discuss these two
political controls of students and then move onto how these controls leave many cracks
in the system which make students’ democratic resistance possible. This section
discusses students and the next section discusses the research and teaching of
professors, but in the same spirit of controls and breakthroughs.
Organizational Controls of Students
Organizational controls that have been in place since the Jiang Zemin era are now
strengthened. Organization and propaganda are the key to totalitarianism, as I quoted
Arendt earlier. In fact, it has been true ever since Mao, and they are exemplified in
colleges and universities. For example, there are four kinds of student organizations. At
the highest level are Student Party Branches (SPB) composed of all the Party members
in a student unit, like a class (班級), or a year cohort (年級), or a department, depending
on the number of students involved. At Tsinghua University’s Department of Mechanical
Engineering, for example, 17% of undergraduate students and 63% of graduate students
were Party members in 2018 (Ministry of Education, 2018b). A Party branch can be
formed as long as there are at least three members. The SPB “is in charge of recruiting
new Party members, conducting regular political reviews of ordinary students,
recommending candidates for student cadre appointments, collecting information on
students’ ‘trends of thoughts’ (sixiang dongtai 思想動態), and making decisions on
important matters related to the interests of the entire unit” (Yan Xiaojun, 2014: 500).
Perry (2015: 18-19) also discusses peer surveillance and pressure, which we will further
discuss below.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
95
The second important level of student organization is the Communist Youth League (CYL)
“staffed by full-time Communist Party cadres with the assistance of part-time student
cadres” (Yan Xiaojun, 2014: 504). The role of the CYL is to advise the student union
[the next level organization], manage student groups/societies [the fourth level
organization], and oversee all student activities held on campus…to educate and guide
the youth…in the direction set by the Communist Party. (Ibidem)
The SPB is more or less behind the scene, which is why the Party secretary of Tsinghua
University’s Department of Mechanical Engineering mentioned that they were working on
“identifying Party members” (黨員亮身份) so that everybody would know who is a Party
member, and non-members can easily connect with the Party (Ministry of Education,
2018b). In this case, the CYL and the SPB are interconnected, but it is the CYL that is
doing the day to day ideological and political work with the next two levels of student
organizations.
The student unions and other groups of recreational activities (like a climbing club) or of
academic nature (like a reading club) are the third and fourth levels of student
organization. These student groups are under the CYL’s systematic and thorough political
control. Their formation has to be approved by the faculty-level Party committee and the
university-level CYL. The CYL also controls their activities by controlling their use of
classrooms, meeting spaces, bulletin boards, and funding. The CYL also performs an
annual review of these groups, and any group deemed politically sensitive will not be
renewed. This way none of these student groups will be able to engage in any activity
whose contents, format, or audience may be of a problematic nature in their eyes. No
matter what, they are also banned from inter-university collaboration for student group
activities (Yan Xiaojun, 2014: 504-505).
In addition to those four kinds of organizations, there are also student informants who
report on student problems and professorial deviations from the Party line. They are
directly controlled by university-level political cadres and will “monitor their classmates
and report any ‘radical remarks’” to political officials (Yan Xiaojun, 2014:509). The details
of their reports can include whether particular students have difficulties in their studies,
or mental irregularities, or online postings and chat-room contents that may be too
radical or provocative. Mental illnesses can be “broadly construed to include ideas and
inclinations that the state deems politically dangerous” (Perry, 2015:19). In the case of
problematic online postings, student informants are supposed to write rebuttals to
counter more “outrageous” remarks. More serious cases will be investigated. Informants
do these things round-the-clock, and it is a 24-hour monitoring project (Yan Xiaojun,
2014:509).
Ideological Control of Students
By ideological control, I mean their educational contents. The Party-state makes sure
that more students major in science and engineering than in humanities and social
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
96
sciences. This is important not only in that vocational training provides better job
opportunities but in that fewer students in humanities and social sciences may mean
fewer possible rebels that the Party-state has to deal with. For example, out of the more
than 5.7 million university graduates in 2010, 71% majored in science, engineering,
agriculture, medicine or managerial science (Yan Xiaojun, 2014: 505).
But the most important measure is ideological indoctrination. After the suppression of
the democratic movement in 1989, Deng Xiaoping placed the blame on China’s
universities for their lack of Chinese Marxist education. Jiang Zemin, the then CCP general
secretary, required that China’s revolutionary history be taught from elementary school
to university. Beginning in the late 1990s, university students in the arts and social
sciences were required to complete 315 academic hours of political education courses
and students in the physical sciences and engineering disciplines, 210 academic hours.
The contents of that education included Marxism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping
Theory, patriotism, collectivism, and socialism with Chinese characteristics. And they
keep adding more contents as new theories are developed like Jiang Zemin’s “three
represents” (i.e., the CCP represents China’s advanced productive forces, advanced
culture, and people’s basic interests) in the late 1990s, and Hu Jintao’s “scientific
development” in the early 2000s. (For the above discussion, see Yan Xiaojun, 2014:501).
After Xi Jinping came to power, his “China dream” and a series of his important talks
(xilie zhongyao jianghua 系列重要講話) are now a must, along with the so-called core
values of socialism.
Such ideological indoctrination has to be couched in terms of the Chinese culture. So the
Party-state also emphasizes “instruction in ‘cultural proficiency’ (wenhua suzhi 文化素質)
and ‘national character’ (guoqing 國情), which presents Chinese history, art, philosophy
and literature in ways that postulate an organic connection and essential compatibility
between the splendors of China’s ancient ‘tradition’ and its contemporary ‘socialist’
system” (Perry, 2015: 20). Classroom teaching is often supplemented by “theaters,
museums, field trips to ancient and revolutionary historical sites, invited lectures by
distinguished scholars and public intellectuals, research projects by renowned teams of
social scientists and humanists, and so forth” (Perry, 2015:20). The CCP’s legitimacy can
thus be rationalized.
Some students find political education necessary for setting up their basic values and
world outlook, and accept it as is as they have done since elementary school (Du Xiaoxin,
2018: 1002). They may have reservations about its quality and may not be interested in
it, but they accept it.
Such ideological indoctrination is based on the prohibition of counter arguments in class
or in research. The most famous prohibition, called the “Seven No’s” that was
promulgated in 2013, includes the following: civil society, civil rights, universal values,
legal independence, press freedom, the bourgeois class with money and power, and the
historical wrongs of the Party (Zhidong Hao, 2015: 116-117). Yuan Guiren, the Minister
of Education (2009-2016), made several infamous requirements of colleges and
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
97
universities in China in 2015, including the one that no textbooks on Western values
should be allowed. Among the speeches to be absolutely prohibited (juebu yunxu決不允
許) in class are speech that attacks the Party’s leadership and smears socialism, opinion
that is against the constitution and the law, and complaints about one’s own misfortunes
(Ministry of Education, 2015).
The above organizational and ideological measures seem to make the CCP’s political
control quite total, hence totalitarianization. And surveys of university students found
that they score fairly high on indicators of patriotism and national identity, and only 43%
of them answered “yes” to the question “Is democracy good?” (Perry, 2015: 21).
However, 43% represents a lot of people. So, the control is apparently not total. In the
following pages, I will discuss democratic breakthroughs.
Democratic Breakthroughs among Students
As I discussed earlier, totalitarianization and democratization are two sides of the same
coin. Democracy as an idea has never died in China since it was introduced more than a
century ago, and democratization as a movement has persisted. As we will see below,
despite the totalitarianization efforts in higher education we discussed above, efforts at
democratization have also endured.
In the examples I give below, I view any dissent against the Party-state ideology as a
democratic breakthrough. After all democracy is built on incremental steps that include
freedom of speech, civil society, and democratic movements of all kinds. “A survey of
university students conducted in 2003 found that 76% of these surveyed disagreed either
generally or completely with the ‘socialist principle of collectivism’ as taught in political
education classes” (Yan Xiaojun, 2014: 502). Another survey in 2009 found that “only
12.92% of student applicants for Party membership claim they actually ‘believe in
Communism,’ while the rest all cite materialistic purposes” (Yan Xiaojun, 2014: 506).
Such survey results call into question whether those CCP and CYL members, as well as
their followers in universities, are actually as loyal to the Party-state and its political
ideology as they appear to be, and whether the sophisticated and thorough schemes of
political organization and indoctrination are really all that successful.
It is true that these survey results may be interpreted as some kind of “’fatiguing,
depoliticizing, cynicism-producing effects’ of the official political discourse”, and such
political indoctrination may actually “create a prevailing atmosphere of detachment from
any form of political life on PRC university campuses” and a resultant docile student body
(Yan Xiaojun, 2014: 503). But we can still view this as a silent defiance, or at least a lack
of interest, and such a politically alienated or nonchalant student body as fertile ground
for democratic consciousness raising. After all, if the regime is on constant watch for
defiant and radical sociopolitical thoughts and behavior, as we discussed above, that
means such thoughts and behavior exist, and they may very well be the democratic
thoughts and behavior that existed in the 1980s.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
98
Some students do criticize political education courses as being boring and not including
critical thinking. They believe that “the training in critical thinking and freedom in
expression through discussion should have been the major educational function of
universities” (Du Xiaoxin, 2018: 1003). In the same research, more than half of the
students the researcher interviewed reported they had little interest in political education
courses, saying that they were dull and dry, boring, and uninteresting. They would ditch
such classes, or just do their own stuff in class, or just take a nap in class. In one class
the researcher observed, a course on Marxism, almost no students were listening. They
were either sleeping or browsing web pages on their own computers (Ibidem, p. 1003).
These students might be crying out for more critical and enlightened content.
Such silent defiance culminated in a protest gathering at this university on December 18,
2019. Several hundred students gathered at a dining hall in Fudan University singing
their university anthem which contained words like “academic independence,” “freedom
of thought” and “freedom from political and religious controls” (xueshu duli, sixiang ziyou,
zheng luo jiao wang wu jiban學術獨立、思想自由、政羅教網無羈絆). They were protesting a
recent charter revision which deleted words such as shared governance between
professors and students and democratic management (shisheng zhixue, minzhu guanli師
生治學、民主管理). Most of the 43 changes in the charter dictate that the university
adheres to the leadership of the CCP in every aspect of university life, follows the Party
lines, and serves the CCP and socialism with Chinese characteristics. Similar revisions
have been made in the charters of other universities, such as Nanjing University and
Shaanxi Normal University (Redden, 2019; Wang Qi, 2019; Zhen Shuji, 2019).
A more recent protest movement is probably the most striking. In late November 2022,
students over 100 university campuses took to the streets in many major cities in China
to protest the overly strict COVID rules, like sealing off buildings and apartments, that
had probably contributed to a deadly fire in an apartment building in Urumqi in Xinjiang.
Protests continued into early December 2022 though on fewer campuses. In addition to
the abolishment of the harsh COVID measures, they wanted democracy, the rule of law,
and freedom of expression (Leung & Sharma 2022; Mimi Leung 2022). As a result, at
least partly, the harsh measures were abolished but the democratic demands are again
unfulfilled. Still the latter are apparently alive and well in university students’ minds.
Such protests are rare indeed, but they nonetheless indicate that students have
underlying feelings towards high-handed political suppression. It is probably not wrong
to assume that more such breakthroughs may lead to real social and political change.
They have the potential to become an organized threat to the Party’s authoritarian and
totalitarian rule.
The Totalitarianization and Democratization of the Faculty Under Xi
The totalitarianization and democratization of the faculty happen at the same time as
students are put under all kinds of organizational and ideological controls while making
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
99
occasional democratic breakthroughs. Indeed, the control measures and oppositional
breakthroughs of the faculty may be different, but they are similar in nature.
The Cooptation of Professors in Research and Teaching
We discussed earlier how imperial China and Mao coopted intellectuals to serve the state
interests and make them organic to the state. The same has continued in the post-
Tiananmen era since 1989 onwards to bring them under control by various means. One
of the means is to make them into bourgeoisified and professionalized intellectuals so
that they will, hopefully, disengage themselves from politics, and the other is to make
them into organic intellectuals so that they will be part of the establishment in protecting
the status quo (see Zhidong Hao, 2003, chapters 4 and 5). In the Hu and Xi eras, such
measures to bring intellectuals under control have become more sophisticated, and
authoritarianism has been moving toward totalitarianism. Acquiescent intellectuals play
a pivotal role in sustaining autocratic rule, and the state seems to have won the allegiance
of the intelligentsia and been able to prolong its reign (Perry, 2015: 2) to some extent.
Measures to coopt the intellectuals are many. “Among the most powerful instruments in
the PRC’s toolkit for taming the universities is the package of assessment measures”
(Perry, 2015:26). Professors have to do research in certain topics and teach in certain
ways in order to be rewarded with increased salaries and professional promotion or they
will be punished, and even lose their jobs. It is also true that they have to fulfill
productivity targets in order to be rewarded. And they have to publish in international
venues to help their university to reach world-class university status. These are ways to
take their time away so that they will be less engaged in politically subversive criticisms
and activities, as Perry (2015: 26-27) observes.
As for what topics professors can and cannot research, an analysis of the state and
provincial grant structures in 2014 finds that the kind of research professors could do
concentrate on the study of the Sinicization of Marxism – that is, socialism with Chinese
characteristics, the China dream, the study of Xi Jinping’s talks (especially in provincial
grant topics); historical, cultural, and environmental studies; and various political, social
and economic policy studies (Hao and Guo, 2016: 1049).
None of the grant topics dealt with civil society, controversial CCP history, contemporary
ethnic relations in Tibet and Xinjiang, or constitutionalism. The Seven No’s are indeed
untouchable. As one professor comments, “If you don’t work for the government, your
research won’t be recognized” (Hao and Guo, 2016: 1049). Our analysis of professors’
research topics in history, economics and business administration, philosophy and
sociology, politics and public administration, and law, finds that 90% of them are organic
and professional, i.e., supportive of the Party-state and non-sensitive (Hao & Guo, 2016:
1053).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
100
Furthermore, all the academic lecture topics at seminars and symposiums have to be
censored, and international scholars’ topics have to be approved by the university level
authorities based on regulations issued by the Ministry of Education (Du Xiaoxin, 2018:
1001). Social science scholars receive special attention.
Scholars based in the West who do academic investigations in China are also subject to
various restrictions. One survey found that “Roughly 9% of China scholars report having
been ‘taken for tea’ (to be interrogated and admonished) by authorities within the past
ten years; 26% of scholars who conduct archival research report being denied access;
and 5% of researchers report some difficulty obtaining a visa” (Greitens and Truex, 2018;
Redden, 2018a). In addition, about two dozen of the 500 scholars who responded either
had their computer or other materials confiscated, or experienced temporary detention
by police or physical intimidation during field research, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang
(see Zhidong Hao, 2020b). In other words, even foreign scholars have to cooperate or
they cannot do research in China.
In teaching, professors are supposed to serve the key function to train students to be
firm believers in and successors of socialism, and most of them do try to do just that
(Hao and Guo, 2016:1048). Sun Yat-sen University (2017) in Guangzhou issued a notice
to faculty members about ten things they cannot do in class. The top three are criticism
of the Chinese Constitution, of the CCP’s leadership in China, and spreading religious
superstition (meaning any religion).
As one professor comments:
We live in a real society, which is ruled by the CCP. They have an ideology backed up by
political power and a political structure. This is the foundation of the [socialist] identity. If
we sabotage this identity, there may be more serious social problems. As university
professors, we should respect this reality (Hao & Guo, 2016:1048).
This professor believes that one role of education is to foster the Party-state ideology
and propagate what he believes to be “positive energy” (正能量).
While this professor wants to play an active role in supporting the Party, other professors
simply find that there is just no alternative. A social science professor observes that they
must be the spokespersons of the dominant ideology. They cannot touch on sensitive
issues such as civil society; otherwise, they would be punished (Hao and Guo, 2016:
1048-1049).
The situation is exacerbated when other control measures are put into place. It is
reported that almost all the classrooms in colleges and universities throughout China
have surveillance cameras installed (Huang Yuxin, 2018). National security agencies are
directly involved in policing professors’ classroom behavior and discourse, in addition to
student informants we mentioned above, and they are also monitoring what is posted on
the university’s LAN (local area network) regarding their teaching materials. The violators
of Party ideology would be invited to “have tea” or “coffee” with state security agents,
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
101
and required to write confession papers, if not directly fired (Du Xiaoxin, 2018:1001; for
more violations of academic freedom in China, see also Zhidong Hao 2020b). Academics
are “caught between serving governmental agendas and pursuing their own goals as an
academic community” (Qiang Zha & Hayhoe, 2014: 42). And most of the time they have
to do the former. University administrations are in full cooperation with the national
security agencies in enforcing such kind of political controls.
Democratic Breakthroughs among Professors in Research and Teaching
Again, I am considering all dissent against the Party-state indoctrination and all advocacy
for freedom of thought, speech and press as democratic breakthroughs. To be sure, there
are no sustained organized democratic movements among professors. But their
resistance to the Party-state suppression of academic freedom is also obvious. The
Liaoning Daily (Liaoning ribao遼寧日報), a provincial newspaper, called people’s attention
to such resistance when it published an open letter to university professors of philosophy
and social sciences on November 13, 2014. According to the newspaper report, some
professors were not identifying with the CCP’s theories on socialism and socialist politics.
They lacked feeling for the Party-state. They compared Mao Zedong to ancient emperors,
“cast doubt on important policies of the Party-state, and want China to follow the Western
road of political development” (Hao & Guo, 2016: 1039).
In terms of research, just as students were alienated by political indoctrination,
professors were also alienated by being required to do research that they do not want to
do but they have to do, for purposes of salary increase and professional promotion. One
professor comments that this way they were creating a lot of academic garbage (Hao &
Guo, 2016: 1050). As we mentioned above, such an arrangement is intended to keep
academics busy so that they will not be able to play more professional and critical roles
(see also Hao & Guo, 2016: 1050, citing Robert Merton). One professor comments that
the purpose of this is to give you some money so that you will shut up (Ibid.). Professors
follow the Party line and do what they are told to do so as to maintain a good living. But
that is politically alienating since they are becoming cogs in the machine with no free
spirit, no creativity, no new thinking, and no respect for themselves.
To break out of this alienation, some professors try to compromise. One professor, for
example, wrote on social media advocating the Party control of NGOs but still
emphasizing the importance of them (Hao & Guo, 2016: 1050). Other professors try to
do research on critical and politically sensitive topics although they are few, just 11%
according to our tally of professors’ actual research from five faculties and departments
in one university (Hao & Guo, 2016: 1053). And they usually do it in a roundabout way.
They approach problems like democratization, or the lives of children of peasant workers
left behind with their grandparents, in such a way that they are helping the Party-state
to solve practical problems by offering alternative solutions (Ibidem, p. 1054).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
102
Still other professors are more direct, yet still roundabout in the criticism in their
research. One professor in a provincial university
promotes the use of “citizen” when the term of “civil society” becomes sensitive. He claims
that to deny universal values, as the dominant ideology does, is to deny Marxism. He calls
on the Party-state to practice constitutionalism, saying that the constitution does not give
state power to the governing party (Hao and Guo, 2016:1054).
He has published over 100 articles advocating democracy in his own blogs and used his
own money to publish a book on democratization. But this somewhat “deviant” behavior
has become increasingly impossible.
In teaching, professors in natural sciences know that they need to teach students how to
discover problems and to have a sense of the problem (問題意識) (Hao and Guo, 2016:
1052). That is being critical and democratic. This training of critical thinking must have
been correlated with the emergence of natural scientists becoming democracy advocates,
as in the case of Fang Lizhi in the 1980s. As Foucault (1980: 132) points out, a “specific”
intellectual can also be a “universal” intellectual concerned about truth and justice
possibly because of the nature of his or her scientific work (see also Zhidong Hao, 2003:
322-323).
Even though politically correct uniform textbooks are required, professors may use them
only as references. They may use materials they themselves choose, or ask students to
look for different information from the textbook on a topic, for example, the Boxers
Rebellion, so that they will be aware of different viewpoints. They may introduce different
points of view and let students judge for themselves. On sensitive topics, they do not
challenge the official line but rather they put them on the table, like civil rights and
equality issues, and ask students themselves to think how the Party-state should deal
with them (Hao & Guo, 2016: 1052; Du Xiaoxin, 2018: 1007-1008). They think that the
textbooks are doing too much preaching, always emphasizing the legitimacy and
greatness of the Party, without talking about its mistakes in the past. They are too
doctrinal and one-sided, lacking historical accuracy. They want to teach the students real
history (Du Xiaoxin, 2018: 1007). Or they analyze the CCP cadre system and the
relationship between the Party and the state from a totally academic point of view,
without providing any value judgement (Du Xiaoxin, 2018: 1005).
Professors can also avoid direct mention of sensitive words but still get the meaning
across by other means. For example, when teaching about nation-state building and
democracy, one professor discussed the situation of a minority group. He did not name
it but drew a map on the board and students immediately knew that he was referring to
the Uygur in Xinjiang. And he spoke as if he was talking about Ukraine. Or they fake their
point of view and let students know they do not really mean it by using facial expressions,
etc. (Du Xiaoxin, 2018: 1004-1005).
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
103
Other professors, however, take a more direct and critical stance in teaching. One
professor made a point of teaching students to think logically and scientifically. He
explored topics such as land reform in the late-1940s and early 1950s, spoke on the
media about the relationship between the government and the masses from the
perspective of the latter, and wrote on social media about his critical ideas. Another
professor directly challenged the Party jargon and advocated truth and sincerity (Hao &
Guo, 2016: 1054). They discussed Western values in class in defiance of the Minister of
Education warning that they were not allowed to do so. They discussed the advantages
of Western political systems, introduced contents that challenged the legitimacy of the
CCP, criticized CCP censorship, and pointed out the wrongs of the Party in the past like
the Great Leap Forward and the three years of famine in the late-1950s and early 1960s.
In interviews, some told the researcher that the country was built on lies and violence,
and they were trying to tell the truth. And they also invited students to challenge the
professors themselves (Du Xiaoxin, 2018: 1006-1008). But again, this is increasingly
impossible now.
The fact that quite a number of professors got into trouble for their speech in class or on
social media is an indication of how widespread the democratic breakthroughs were, even
if they are less so now. Iliham Tohti of the Central Minzu (Ethnicities and Nationalities)
University has been sentenced to life in prison for advocating in the classroom, and on
social media, for the rights of the Uyghur minority. The following professors were fired
because of their online and/or in-class speech, criticizing the CCP and its state:
Tan Song of Chongqing Normal University (Luo Siling, 2017);
Deng Xiangchao of Shangdong Jianzhu University (Lin Ping, 2017);
Shi Jiepeng of Beijing Normal University (Shi Tao, 2017);
Yang Shaozheng of Guizhou University (Ling Yun, 2018);
Wang Gang of Hebei Engineering University (Mingpo, 2018);
You Shengdong of Xiamen University (Mingpo, 2018);
Zhou Peiyi of the University of the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences (Alice Su, 2020);
Liang Yanping of Hubei University (Alice Su, 2020);
Xu Zhangrun of Tsinghua University (Buckley, 2020; Alice Su,
2020);
More examples of faculty revolts and punishments are given in the Scholars at Risk’s
yearly report (e.g., in 2019), and the list keeps growing.
If they are not sacked, they receive warnings from their respective universities.
Yu Jianrong, a researcher and professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was
called into the Party secretary’s office and warned about his online and offline social
activism (Hao & Guo, 2016:1045). Sun Peidong quit her job at Fudan University and left
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
104
China because she could not bear the sever restrictions on her teaching and speech (Alice
Su, 2020).
Some who are retired keep speaking up, like Zhang Ming (a historian) of Renmin
University in Beijing. But there can be consequences: Cai Xia of the Central Party School
was expelled from the Party and lost her pension and other retirement benefits (Buckley
2020). Others have moved to foreign countries and escalated their criticism of the Party-
state, like Zhou Xiaozheng (a sociologist).
Still others who currently work at universities try in various ways to have their voices
heard, like He Weifang and Zhang Qianfan of Peking University, although they are often
silenced. In March 2022, five prominent history professors from top Chinese universities
signed a letter condemning the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and 121 alumni from
several of China’s top universities in and outside China signed a petition calling on “the
Chinese government to honor commitments made to Ukraine under UN Security Council
Resolution 984, which provides security assurances to countries without nuclear
weapons” (Sharma, 2022). They were quickly censored.
Although it is a rare situation, some administrators do support critical thinking. Yang
Yuliang, president of Fudan University (2009-2015), encouraged students to become
critical thinkers in his commencement speeches and gave faculty space for unhindered
academic research. He said that teachers should not be afraid of authority, or political
leaders (Du Xiaoxin, 2018:1002). Two other famous examples of such administrators are
Jiang Ping, former president of China University of Political Science and Law (1988-1990),
and Liu Daoyu, former president of Wuhan University (1981-1988).
All of the above professors serve as a democratic counter force against the established
intellectuals we discussed earlier. It is democratization against totalitarianization.
Conclusions
In this paper, I have analyzed the nature of the Chinese state from authoritarianism to
totalitarianism, the role of higher education either in supporting the state as an organic
and professional part of the establishment, or in revolting against the state as a
democratic or revolutionary force. Mostly, I have discussed the totalitarianization and
democratization of students, and co-optation or control of faculty and their democratic
breakthroughs. I would like to draw several conclusions.
First, the organizational control and ideological indoctrination of students on the one hand
and the co-optation of professors in research and teaching on the other seem to be fairly
successful. After all large-scale student protest movements are very rare and they would
be quickly put down. In a 2011 survey, when asked whether democracy is a good thing,
53.6% of those who had an undergraduate education and 45.0% of those who had a
graduate education said that it all depends on whether it fits into the Chinese situation
(Zhang Mingshu, 2013:16). That is precisely the Party line. Different countries follow
different lines of development, and the CCP is leading the people of China in a democracy
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
105
with Chinese characteristics (Ibidem, 15-16). So, about a half of those with a college
education support the Party line. We cannot be sure, however, that the respondents in
such surveys will always tell the truth of what they really think especially in an
authoritarian or dictatorial state where it is risky to tell the truth. The fact that many
ardent patriots who were against Western values end up studying, living and/or working
in the West may be a good indication of just that.
Another more recent survey is equally interesting (Chen Xinyu, 2020). A professor
surveyed his class of 109 students, 25.69% of whom were from humanities, 19.27%
from sciences, and 55.05% from engineering. This distribution of disciplines is close to
the real distribution we discussed earlier. Students were asked how they viewed the diary
of Fang Fang, which reflected what happened when the entire city of Wuhan was closed
down during the coronavirus epidemic in February and March 2020. The diary is viewed
as being fairly critical of the way the government handled the crisis.
This survey found that about 51% of the class were against the diary, and only 22%
supported it. The remaining 27% did not have an opinion. Many of those who were
against it thought that the diary helped overseas hostile forces attack China, and 60% of
them thought that whatever one says, one should put the nation’s interest in first place,
or guquan daju (顧全大局, think about the big picture). Similar to the first survey we
discussed above, the numbers indicate some success for the Party’s organizational
control and ideological indoctrination.
Second, at the same time, 79% of those surveyed also believe that everybody has the
freedom to describe whatever they see, and express their viewpoints at any time. And
there were still 22% who supported the diary. In terms of the first survey, 43.3% of the
undergraduates and 50% of the graduate students surveyed thought that democracy
was a good thing (Zhang Mingshu, 2012: 16). One can say that there still exists a tug-
of-war between totalitarianization and democratization. The organizational control and
ideological indoctrination of students are only partly successful, and one can still see
many democratic breakthroughs.
Third, if the Party wants to go along the route towards totalitarianism, what we have
discussed in this paper will continue in the future. Totalitarianization may not bring Mao-
style totalitarianism, as in the past, although we cannot be totally sure. But if the Party
wants to go in the direction of democracy, it would not be very difficult either, since it
has the organizational capacity to do so. The only thing it needs is ideological
transformation, and most of its fellow travelers will continue to follow the Party.
Furthermore, democracy remains an enduring idea, as we discussed in the paper, and
many students and professors are already its strong supporters. According to the 2011
survey, 58.5% of those who had a middle school education or lower, and 53.7% of those
who had a high school or vocational school education thought that democracy is a good
thing (Zhang Mingshu, 2013: 16). As I mentioned above, lower percentages of people
among those who have a post-secondary education (43.3%) and those who have a post-
graduate education (50%) thought the same, but they are still decent numbers.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
106
Fourth, higher education played a key role in the political development of the country.
The totalitarianization and democratization of students and faculty will spill over to the
world outside the ivory tower. What happens in higher education happens outside it as
well. The role of colleges and universities, and whatever happens there, will have serious
implications for the whole country.
Fifth, a study of academic freedom, totalitarianization, and democratization of higher
education is crucially important because of its importance in the political development of
the county. More studies should be done on what happens there, the role of the educated
elites in all walks of life, and how higher education should be improved as a result.
Certainly, more studies should also be done on the social requisites for democracy, such
as economic development, education, political culture, religion, political leaders, political
legitimacy, urbanization, civil society, and how these factors function individually or
interdependently, and effect democratization, etc. (Huntington, 1991: 37-38, 107;
Lipset, 1993, 1994).
Perry (2015: 33) acknowledges that Western social scientists like John Dewey, Seymour
Martin Lipset, and Edward Shils all believed in a direct relationship between higher
education and democratization, i.e., the former has a positive influence on the latter. She
says then that these days, however, “the most ‘enlightened’ autocrats are betting billions
of dollars otherwise. The Chinese example suggests that their wager might not be
misplaced.”
But just as Hannah Arendt (1958: 489) commented, “enlightened totalitarianism” may
be wishful thinking. The “enlightened” autocrats may find that their totalitarianization
project is riddled with pitfalls, and their fortune can be reversed at an unexpected time.
After all, education does have an important impact on democratization although, of
course, it is not the only factor.
Minxin Pei (2013: 2020) points out that political suppression is not a sustainable measure
for stability maintenance. The regime cannot rely on this and its economic performance
for its legitimacy. Economic growth may be a recipe for autocratic success in the short
term (Bueno de Mesquita and Downs 2005), but in the long run, the regime has to find
its legitimacy in democratization (see Zhidong Hao, 2017). Higher education does
facilitate “the creation of a large pool of potential opposition leaders, thereby increasing
the supply of rivals to the incumbent government” (Bueno de Mesquita and Downs,
2005:83; Perry, 2015: 33).
Like it or not, higher education will continue to supply not only the personnel but also the
oppositional thoughts against totalitarianization and for democratization. Setting the
rules of the game and rigging them to suit their interests, “autocratic states are not
passive observers of political change” (Bueno de Mesquita and Downs, 2005: 80). But
neither are democratization pursuers. At the very least, totalitarianization and
democratization will continue to be engaged in a tug-of-war. Who eventually wins will
depend on the political, social, and economic circumstances at the time. But the role of
higher education can never be underestimated.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
107
References
Arendt, H. (1958). The Origins of Totalitarianism. The World Publishing Company.
Buckley, C. (2020). She Was a Communist Party Insider in China. Then She Denounced
Xi. The New York Times, October 14.
Bueno de Mesqita, B. & George, W. D. (2005). Development and Democracy. Foreign
Affairs, Vol 84, No. 5 (Sept. – Oct.).
Cheek, T. (2015). The Intellectual in Modern Chinese History. Cambridge University
Press.
Chen Xinyu, Zhuo Zenghua, Xu Yichen & Wu Zhihang (2020). “’Fang Fang riji’ wenjuan
diaocha yanjiu baogao” (《方方日記》問卷調查研究報告，a report on a questionnaire study
of Fang Fang Diary). Zhongguo Falu Pinglun 《中國法律評論》
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jdF-3og5wi2nTovbGZ3v_w,
Clark, B. R. (2007). Development of the Sociology of Higher Education. In Patricia J.
Gumport (ed.), Sociology of Higher Education: Contributions and Their Contexts. The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Du, X. (2018). Role Split Phenomenon of Academic Staff in Chinse Higher Education: A
Case Study of Fudan University. Higher Education, Vol 75.
Elman, B. A. (1989). Imperial Politics and Confucian Societies in Late Imperial China:
The Hanlin and Donglin Academies. Modern China, Vol 15, No. 4.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-
1977. Pantheon Books.
Fukuyama, F. (2020). What Kind of Regime Does China Have?. The American Interest,
May 15.
Giroux, H. A. (2018). Higher Education and the Plague of Authoritarianism. Symploke,
Vol. 26, No. 1-2.
Greitens, S. C. & Truex, R. (2018). Repressive Experiences among China Scholars: New
Evidence from Survey Data. Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association
in Boston.
Hao, Z. (2020a). The Long Read: Book Review of ‘The Intellectual in Modern Chinese
History’. The Asia Dialogue, April 1.
Hao, Z. (2020b). Academic Freedom under Siege: What, Why, and What Is to Be done.
In Zhidong Hao and Peter Zabielskis (eds.), Academic Freedom under Siege: Higher
Education in East Asia, the U.S. and Australia. Springer.
Hao, Z. (ed.) (2017). 《遙望星空：中國政治體制改革的困境與出路》(Stargazing: The
dilemma of and prospects for China's political reform). Think and Executive Culture
Communication Company.
Hao, Z. (2015). Commercialization and Corporatization versus Professorial Roles and
Academic Freedom in the United States and Greater China. Chinese Sociological Review,
Vol 47, No. 2.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
108
Hao, Z. (2003). Intellectuals at a Crossroads: The Changing Politics of China’s Knowledge
Workers. State of University of New York Press.
Hao, Z. and Zhengyang, G. (2016). Professors as Intellectuals in China: Political
Identities and Roles in a Provincial University. The China Quarterly. Vol 228, December.
Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth
Century. University of Oklahoma Press.
Leung, M. (2022). Student Anger over Lockdowns still Fuels Sporadic Protests. University
World News, December 9.
Leung, M. & Yojana, S. (2022). Fears Rise for Safety of Student Protesters amid Arrests.
University World News, November 29.
Lin, P. (2017). Deng Xiangchao zai wangshang zhuanfa fengci Mao Zedong de wenzhang
hou zaodao mao fen weigong bing bei xiaofang qiangzhi tuixiu (鄧相超在網上轉發諷刺毛澤
東的文章後遭到毛粉圍攻並被校方強制退休 After forwarding articles criticizing Mao Zedong
satirically, Deng Xiangchao was attacked by Mao fans and was forced to retire by the
university). Radio Free Asia. https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/zhengzhi/yl-
01102017101853.html
Ling, Y. (2018). “Guizhou daxue jiaoshou Yang Shaozheng bei kaichu” (貴州大學教授楊紹
正被開除Guizhou University fired Professor Yang Shaozheng). Epoch Times.
http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/18/8/16/ n10644441.htm
Lipset, S. M. (1993). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and
Political Legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, Vol 53, No. 1.
Lipset, S. M. (1994). The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited. American Sociological
Review, Vol 59, No. 1.
Luo, S. (2017). Chongqing jiaoshi duo nian diaocha tugai zhenxiang, shijiu da qian tu
zao kaichu (重慶教師多年調查土改真相，十九大前突遭開除Chongqing teacher investigated on
the truth of land reform and was sacked just before the CCP’s 19th national congress).
The New York Times (Chinese edition). https://cn.nytimes.com/china/20170929/cc29-
tansong/
Jian weiquan weixin qun Hebei jiaoshou bei chao (建維權微信群，河北教授被炒Starting a
WeChat group for rights protection, and a professor from Hebei is fired) (2018). Mingpo
Canada. http://www.mingpaocanada.com/van/htm/News/20180709/tcad1_r.htm
Ministry of Education (2015). Jiaoyu Bu: Jue bu neng rang chuanbo xifang jiazhi guannian
jiaocai jin ketang (教育部：絕不能讓傳播西方價值觀教材進課堂Absolutely prohibit textbooks
that advocate Western values from coming into the college classrooms). People’s Net.
http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2015/0130/c70731-26480304.html
Ministry of Education (2018a). Zhongguo jiaoyu gaikuan: 2017 nian quanguo jiaoyu shiye
fazhan qingkuang (中國教育概況：2017年全國教育事業發展情況Education in China: The
development of education in 2017). Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic in
China. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/s5990/201810/t20181018_352057.html
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
109
Ministry of Education (2018b). Jieshao gaoxiao Dang jian zhiliang tisheng gongjian
xingdong youguan qingkuang (介紹高校黨建質量提升攻堅行動有關情況An introduction to the
quality of construction, enhancement, and consolidation of Party organizations in colleges
and universities). Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic in China.
http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/xw_fbh/moe_2069/xwfbh_2018n/xwfb_20180528/2
01805/t20180528_337321.html
Nathan, A. (2013). Authoritarian Resilience. In Andrew J. Nathan, Larry Diamond, and
Marc F. Plattner (eds.), Will China Democratize?. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pei, M. (2013). Is CCP Rule Fragile or Resilient?. In Andrew J. Nathan, Larry Diamond,
and Marc F. Plattner (eds.), Will China Democratize?. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pei, M. (2020). China’s Coming Upheaval: Competition, the Coronavirus, and the
Weakness of Xi Jinping. Foreign Affairs, May/June.
Perry, E. J. (2015). Higher Education and Authoritarian Resilience: The Case of China,
Past and Present. Harvard-Yenching Institute Working Paper Series.
Perry, E. J. (2020). Educated Acquiescence: How Academia Sustains Authoritarianism in
China. Theory and Society, 49, pp. 1-22.
Qian, L. (2012). Daxue ying chengwei jingshen baolei” (大學應成為精神堡壘 Universities
should be a spiritual castle). Sixiang Chao.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/5NuaCWkwCGrCrf8rIPlWWA
Redden, E. (2019). Chinese University Drops ‘Freedom of Thought’ from Charter. Inside
Higher Ed., December 19.
Ringen, S. (2016). The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century. Hong Kong
University Press.
Scholars at Risk (2019). Obstacles to Excellence: Academic Freedom & China’s Quest for
World-Class Universities. Scholars at Risk.
Sharma, Y. (2022). Academic Dissent Emerges on War in Ukraine But Is Censored.
University World News, March 9.
Shi, T. (2017). Wangluo yanlun ‘yuyue hongxian,’ Bei Shida jiepin jiaoshi (網絡言論“逾越
紅線”，北師大解聘教師 Online speech crossed a red line, Beijing Normal University fired a
professor). Deutsche Welle (Chinese edition). https://www.dw.com/
Su, A. (2020). Spied on. Fired. Publicly Shamed. China’s Crackdown on Professors
Reminds Many of Mao Era. Los Angeles Times, June 27.
Sun Yat-sen University (2017). Guanyu yinfa ‘daxue ketang jiaoxue shi bu zhun’ de
tongzhi (關於印發‘大學課堂教學十不准’的通知About the notice on ‘ten things not to do or talk
about in the classroom). China Digital Times.
https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/2017/02/
Taylor, M. C. (2010). Crisis on Campus: A Bold Plan for Reforming Our Colleges and
Universities. Alfred A. Knopf.
Wang, Q. (2019). Mou dan zhangcheng gai le sha, yimu liaoran (某旦章程改了啥，一目了
然 How some university has changed its charter: Revisions at a glance. Changjiang
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL14 N2 TD1
Title Thematic dossier - Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on East Asia
January 2024, pp. 87-110
Totalitarianization and Democratization in Higher Education in China and Their Implication for
the Nation’s Political Development
Zhidong Hao
110
Zhengquan (長江證券).
https://wanquan.belightinnovation.com/front/choicest/articleh5show?choicest_id=
ac2e4dd0354f410bb95ae4f6453159a9, accessed May 14, 2020.
Weber, M. (1973). Max Weber on Universities: The Power of the State and the Dignity of
the Academic Calling in Imperial Germany. The University of Chicago Press.
Yan, X. (2014). Engineering Stability: Authoritarian Political Control over University
Students in Post-Deng China. Vol 218, June.
Zha, Q. & Ruth, H. (2014). The ‘Beijing Consensus’ and the Chinese Model of University
Autonomy. Frontiers of Education in China 9(1), pp. 24-62.
Zhang, M. (2013). Zhongguo ren xiang yao shenme yang de minzhu 中國人想要什麼樣的
民主 (What kind of democracy do the Chinese want). Social Sciences Academic Press.
Zhen, S. (2019). Fudan, Nanjing, Shaanxi deng yuanxiao zhangcheng charu ‘jianchi
gongdang lingdao’ shandiao ‘sixiang ziyou’ (復旦南京陝西等院校章程插入“堅持共黨領導”刪掉
“思想自由”Fudan University and other universities in Nanjing and Shaanxi inserted
“adhering to the Party’s leadership” and deleted “freedom of thought”). Boxun.
https://www.boxun.com/news/gb/china/2019/12/201912191927.shtml
