The current Chinese regime contrasts the concept of democracy originating from the West with that of the Harmonious Society (in Chinese pinyin: héxié shèhuì). The concept was already approved during the 2005 National People's Congress. It is proposed as a socio-economic conception that should be the ultimate goal for China. First and foremost, it aims to build the “Xiaokang,” a state of widespread economic well-being throughout the country. However, it is not limited to the economic sphere but aims to extend to every aspect of social reality and establish a society where all groups and individuals cooperate for the common good. It is a sort of “utopia” that replaces the Marxist vision of a classless society where, free from the chains of selfishness, everyone collaborates freely: the Marxist vision was based on class struggle, which in Maoism translated into class hatred taken to extreme paroxysmal levels. But then Deng Xiaoping said: “If the goal is to bring everyone to well-being, there is nothing wrong if some reach it before others and help the others achieve it”: hence the practical conclusion was “get rich, all of you, as best you can.” However, in today’s China, economic and social disparities are deepening more and more: China has become the world’s largest market for luxury goods for a minority of the privileged.

The concept of the Harmonious Society also differs from the Western concept of the liberal-democratic society, which is based on competition, albeit within established limits and rules: the cardinal principle of the modern West is that all ideologies compete, as do economic interests, and that only through their selection does civil and economic progress arise. In China, however, the concept of the Harmonious Society has been mainly used for censorship because some ideas are “bad and harmful,” and the state has the duty to intervene: from an economic point of view, economic progress is good, and anything that opposes it is bad. As a practical consequence, the shanties of the poor are demolished to build skyscrapers for the rich.

The Harmonious Society is seen by many as a return to Confucius, whose figure in China, after Maoist demonization, is experiencing a resurgence of revaluation and exaltation: a sort of neo-Confucianism. However, one must understand this correctly. Confucianism is based on the fundamental idea that a society is prosperous and happy if everyone performs their role well: the ruler governs, the soldier fights, the farmer cultivates, parents take care of their children, and children respect their parents. An orderly world, therefore, neither conflictual nor egalitarian, based on the ethics of duty. Confucius referred to everyone’s tasks according to the spirit and customs of the times. Now, one should not think that we want to return to the tasks as outlined over two thousand years ago, but only that everyone must perform their role according to the modern world. For example, the emancipation of women, one of the few historical merits of Chinese communism, is not questioned, and no one proposes the extremely subordinate and unhappy role of women in agricultural Chinese society. Therefore, Chinese traditionalism is very different from Islamic traditionalism, which instead wants to return to a society where duties, rights, and functions are the same as those of a thousand years ago, as established forever by God.

Therefore, the Chinese Harmonious Society is different from Marxism, liberalism, and traditionalist Islamism. It is the idea that the state must establish and maintain harmony within the state and combat everything that internally and externally could disrupt that harmony: this has always traditionally been the task of the Chinese state, of the emperor, who risked being overwhelmed if he failed to fulfill this task. Communism has definitively collapsed everywhere, fundamentalist Islamism seems without prospects, and according to some, Western liberalism is in crisis: could it be that the future of the world will be characterized by the Harmonious Society? No one can know, but as a Westerner, I hope not.