ABSTRACT

This chapter utilizes the example of elections and parliaments to illustrate a critical dilemma of Leninist state power and, in particular, to examine reasons why Leninist states have collapsed—and why China might also follow that path. It is obvious that neither Chinese people's congresses nor other Leninist states' parliamentary institutions are significant sites for making important decisions. The continuing divergence between what people's congresses are supposed to represent and the way this representation is produced remains a fundamental contradiction in Chinese politics. To illuminate the contextual power of Leninism, the chapter reviews Jurgen Habermas' discussion of the rise of an autonomous sphere of public discourse in Europe, as well as Michel Foucault's discussion of the "capillary" form of modern power, and James Scott's discussion of "public" and "hidden" transcripts. Mikhail Gorbachev and his East European colleagues discovered to their dismay that the Leninist state could not survive losing control of the public sphere.