Introduction
The Chinese community has attracted a lot of attention from scholars especially from the western country. China as a country remains as one of the most observed nations in the world today. One possible explanation is the fact that it is regarded as an emerging and a significant economic power house.
Scholars have zeroed in on several attributes of this community. These range from the economy, as indicated above and social aspects of the society.
The polity is such one attribute of the society that is addressed by contemporary scholars. This is given the fact that China, according to political analysts in the western countries, is not exactly the epitome of democracy in the world. But despite this fact, the country has recorded improved economic performance, bringing to fore the question whether democracy is really inextricably tied to economic growth and stability.
Ogden Suzanne and Peerenboom Randall are among some of the scholars that have written extensively on China and her polity. One of Ogden’s writings in this topic is the book Inklings of Democracy in China, a book published in the year 2002 by Harvard University Press in Cambridge. On his part, Peerenboom has in his collection the book China’s Long March towards Rule of Law, published by Cambridge University Press.
This paper is going to critically compare the two writings above. The author will compare chapter 11 of Peerenboom’s book, the chapter titled “rule of law, democracy, and human rights” (pp. 513-547), and chapter 5 of Ogden’s book, the chapter titled “individual rights, democracy and a cohesive community”.
The author will compare, among others, the objectives of the two authors, the methods they use in delivering their message, their points of convergence and divergence in their arguments, and in conclusion, the article that this author considers more helpful and informative in this area.
Objectives of the Authors
There are some similarities and some differences in the objectives of the two authors as they write in the chapters analyzed here.
Similarities in Objectives
One major similarity is the fact that both of these authors have the objective of analyzing the Chinese society. In chapter 11, Peerenboom analyses the relationship between the rule of law, democracy and human rights within the Chinese context. He first gives a brief definition of each of the three key terms (rule of law, democracy and human rights) and then proceeds to locate them within the Chinese society.
Ogden similarly addresses the Chinese community. On her part, she analyses the relationship between individual rights, democracy and social stability within the Chinese community. Like Peerenboom, Ogden also provides an abstract definition of key terms such as rights (individual and human rights), democracy and community cohesiveness. She then proceeds to situate these aspects within the Chinese society.
Another similarity as far as objectives are concerned among these two writers has to do with the aspect of the society that they address. Both of them address the political sphere of the society. Like other societies, both primitive and civilized, China has several spheres. These, as alluded to before in this paper, include the social structure, the economy among others. But both Ogden and Peerenboom focus on the political sphere of the society. They both analyze democracy, human rights among other aspects of this country’s political sphere.
Both of these authors analyze the Chinese society from the perspective of other civilizations in the world. Specifically, they more or less compare the political situation of the country with that of other western countries. In fact, it can be argued that both Ogden and Peerenboom assume the “we” versus “them” stance when comparing China and the west.
This is vividly captured, for example, when Peerenboom writes that “……some liberals think that China is becoming like us……they firmly believe China should be becoming more like us” (Peerenboom 513). This is when Peerenboom is talking about political reform within the Chinese context.
Differences in Objectives between the Two Authors
Some differences, albeit subtle, are discernible between the objectives of the two authors in this text. For example, Ogden appears to be more sympathetic of the Chinese democratic and human rights record. In fact, she seems to justify the democratic status of the country. She argues that democracy in China cannot be defined using the west as the yardstick.
This is vividly captured on page 121, where she writes that “……to suggest that the Chinese necessarily think about freedom (read democracy) as it is thought about in the West is like suggesting that (a person hearing about Christianity for the first time would) want to adopt (it)……” (Ogden 121).
On his part, Peerenboom does not make an effort to justify or rationalize the democratic status in China. He admits that there has been steps made towards democratization, but he does not try to justify the limitations of the status.
Methods used by the Authors
Some critical comparison can also be made between the methods that the two authors use to deliver the message in their respective writings, as well as the language that they employ.
A similarity is discernible as far as the source of data that is presented by these two scholars is concerned. It is a fact beyond doubt that the two scholars do not make use of primary sources of data. This means that Ogden and Peerenboom are not reporting on findings of a study or research that they conducted on the Chinese society.
Rather, they are synthesizing information available from other sources, interpreting it in the context of Chinese society. Both of them make use of information or arguments from other scholars in the field. For example, on page 530, Peerenboom cites a scholar by the name of Daniel Lynch to support his argument on China and political reforms.
Ogden likewise integrates findings of other studies in her arguments. For example, on page 129, she cites a poll that was carried out in China in the 1990s to determine the rights that Chinese associate with freedom. She uses this information to support her assertion that Chinese perceive democracy and human rights differently from people in other countries (read people from the west).
However, there are differences, albeit subtle, that are apparent in the methods that are used by the two authors. For example, both of them use notes to explain further on points made in the text. However, while Ogden makes use of footnotes at the bottom of each page, Peerenboom makes use of endnotes.
This affects the ease with which readers maneuver through the two texts. For example, in the case of Ogden’s text, all the reader has to do is glance at the bottom of the page, while reading Peerenboom requires the reader to flip pages and consult the endnotes, which can be a bit disconcerting.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this author wishes to state that both of the two texts were found to be equally useful and informative in covering the topic. Despite their varying weaknesses and strengths, the two texts compete favorably as far as their usefulness is concerned. This is given the fact that both the authors use information from other sources to support their arguments, among other aspects. The two authors are insightful and provide a balanced coverage of the topic under consideration.