I have been wondering about this for a while, there is not much result coming up from internet search, all I get is some soundbites such as.
1. The politburo controls everything, they determine the nation's ultimate decision.
2. Everything else are just rubber stamps for example the congress etc... have no power.
3. The party chief of local province controls it is region.
I know it is far more complex than this, so would anyone give a more detailed explanation?
Also there are few questions I would like to know.
1. What is the relationships between the central government and local government , I have been hearing there is this divide that a lot of people do not like their local government, but have high approval of the central government , so just what is the relations of them and who holds more power?
2. I have this impression that the local government self have a lot control over the economic policies than the central governments, for example Bo Xili had a very different philosophy then the leadership and he was able to get away with it for a long time.
3. What is the influence of military in Chinese politics? Do they get a say in policy matters? Are their loyalty more to the title or persons.
4. Is the politics now more institutionalize by title or does it still go by personal influence?
5. What is the general outlook of political struggle within the leadership, does it often get resolved with everyone satisfied or will it lead to gridlock or even chance of violence?
6. Any information about how the 9 man politburo make their decisions.
Anyone with any insight they can provide would be greatly appreciated.
First I'd like to recommend the book Lieberthal & Oksenberg (1988):
Policy Making in China - Leaders, Structures and Processes, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
This is -THE- book every student of Chinese politics will quote. It's a great rundown of the inner workings of Chinese government (and the party leadership). Though perhaps slightly outdated. It deals with Deng's China, and not Hu's. The basic principles I think are still there though.
First to your basic three points:
1. Politburo decides everything
Yes and no. Actually, it's the Politburo Standing Committee that has the last word (9 people today, out of a Politburo of ~30). These guys have the last say indeed if there is dispute as to what action China should take in any given case. However, in the past thirty years, it has become more usual that lower-level units take the relevant decisions. It all depends on how many different actors are involved and how sensitive the issue is. Actors on the same level tend to avoid cooperating or communicating, so a decision to coordinate must be made above them. Although the major political issues are in the end debated in the Politburo, most of the day-to-day politics are treated by the leadership small groups, which are chaired by one PSC member and gather leaders from government, party and the military to make more consensual decisions.
2. The rubber stamps of other organs
Yes and no again. The fact that Chinese politics is becoming so complex and the number of issues so diverse, the few men at the top have no possible chance to have a good overview, even of their own field. This means that consultative mechanisms are alpha and omega. This allows academics and experts, retired officials etc to have a big influence on decisions, even though these are made by the Politburo. This applies to the People's Congress and Party Congress as well. Even though the final decisions are made in the Politburo, the Politburo must report its work to these and it is important to get these bodies on board and consult with them prior to the decision. This is done to make policy as efficient and "rational" as possible.
3. The party chief heads everything
Yes. The Chinese system of governance has party organs and state organs duplicated on every level, from ministries in Beijing to local
danweis (单位) in the city. The principle dictated in the consitution is that the party organ (headed by the party chief) deals with policy, while the state organ deals with implementation and the actual running of governance. This principle is somewhat scrambled though. In many cases, officials will have posts both in party organs and state organs. There are many other factors influencing this relationship as well. But in the end, the party chief is on top, yes. That is not to say he governs as he pleases. As the state organs and the consultation mechanisms mentioned above are still important because they know better how things are running. Major new decisions are usually made in deliberation and agreement with these other organs.
Local - center
There was an article where provinces were said could be either agents, partners or troublemakers for the central government in implementing policy. The trend the last decade has been a great strengthening of the provinces (i.e. the local) over the center. This includes so-called fiscal decentralization, and provinces are today to a great degree responsible for their own taxes, foreign income, trade income, budgets etc. On the other hand, the province leadership is decided by central party organs, and as such Beijng still has some influence over local policies. It has been said, though, that local actors will often push the envelope when it comes to avoiding implementing policies they disagree with. Usually one will act first and ask permission later, according to one scholar. There is also the expression 跑部钱进, which says that try to avoid red tape and central ministries, and money will flow in (very loosely translated) (it is a pun on the expression 跑步前进, 'storm forward'). The fact that they have budget (fiscal) independence means as you say that they have a large degree of freedom to experiement with economic models. Such local initative is advocated by the central government to ensure the best possible policy to make the best possible economic results.
PLA - gov
This is hotly debated. In general terms, the trend the last couple of decades has been that the PLA has had less and less formal influence on the government. This is because of professionalization, and also a conscious effort by party leaders to distinguish the military from civilian affairs. Since 1997 (I think) there has been no military officials in the Politburo. However, the PLA has some structural influence yet, through research institutions and military intelligence. If some foreign policy decision is to be made by the party leadership and the PLA sits on all the information of the issue at hand, the PLA will of course have some influence on how that matter is handled.
Personal views - institutionalized
This is where Lieberthal and Oksenberg comes into play. They stipulated that the reforms of Deng, and the rush for "rationalizing" policy had resulted already in the 80s in a growing political culture where each actor would staunchly defend his own interests, based on his (or hers) standing in the government (which field, which organ). They say this results in a situation where most policy decisions are mady by bargaining among actors. This echoes the so-called "bureaucratic politics" model of Graham T Allison, which I think will be well known to anyone who has studied international relations. There are of course those that disagree. Some Western sinologists and Chinese scholars emphasize the different culture in China, and rather say
guanxi is central to ones stance vis-à-vis other actors.
Central leadership stability
Here we come to the sad truth - we don't know. All top deliberations and meetings are secret. We simply have no idea how the inner workings are, and how severe conflict is. The only times we ever hear anything is when things are severe, like the Bo Xilai scandal. The massive rumor-mill that goes into play every time a leader has a spot of dust on his suit is testament to this fact. That being said, the reforms in the 1980s regarding succession and maximum age have been reaffirmed and pretty much institutionalized today. Party members -must- retire when they are 70 (thogh they are kept in the loop, Jiang Zemin still has access to top secret communication). Unless something really really really bad happens, I don't see this system falling apart anytime soon. The party seems quite content with it.
Politburo:
Again. Bargaining most likely. One other fun fact is Hu Jintao's position in the PSC. Whereas Deng and Jiang were related to as the "cores" of their leaderhsip generations (领导集体核心), Hu is rather referred to as the "general secretary" (领导集体总书记). This implies he relies more on deliberation and consensus than his predecessors, who after all took many decisions on their own.
Hope this is illuminating
(PS: I just wrote a comprehensive article about this, I don't just walk around knowing all this stuff)
