Samuel Huntington is well-known for his thesis about the “clash of civilizations”, by which he meant the clash among civilizations based on diverse cultures. However, to me, the real clash that we see today is the clash among different interest groups vying for power and resources. This clash has become increasingly dangerous, due to the rising dominance of the “for me and my kind” culture that has grown into what it is today thanks to the adversarial institutions that are now commonly taken as a Western value.

Thanks to the misconceived Article 21 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, many misguided minds believe that democracy can be realized only through the ballot box and universal suffrage.    

Article 21 states:

“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of (their) country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in (their) country.

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

The article looks innocuous and reasonable. However, it has ignored the reality of human nature.

For those who are puzzled by China’s ability to avoid a single year of negative growth since 1976 and by China’s ability to eradicate extreme poverty and build futuristic infrastructure in less than a decade, the answer is simple: We embrace the “for all of us” culture

Humans, both politicians and constituents who vote them into office, tend to look after their own interests and not the public interest, and their short-term interests rather than long-term interests. This is why America suffered so much damage and loss of life when Hurricane Katrina reached the shores of New Orleans in 2005. Writing in City Journal, Steven Malanga opined (Oct 17, 2005): “Today’s federal government isn’t smaller but ever-growing. In priorities, however, both parties have woefully distorted. Increasingly, Washington neglects key projects (like shoring up the New Orleans levees) in order to shower money on often-superfluous projects that local congressmen favor — ranging from wildlife refuges to tennis courts in rich communities to arts and folk festivals to a long list of other inessential initiatives. This pork-barrel waste, not smaller government, is what victimized New Orleans.”

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ report released in March, the Biden-era infusion of federal funding helped improve the condition of the country’s infrastructure, yet merely brought it up from a “C-” to a “C” grade. Two categories even recorded a decline. For energy and rail, downgrades were given due to concerns related to capacity, future needs and safety. Marc J Dunkelman in a recent article in The Atlantic, pointed out that “the Trump administration has frozen funding for two of the most important infrastructure projects in the country, both based in New York City: the construction of new tunnels to carry trains under the Hudson River, known as the Gateway project, and the extension of Manhattan’s Second Avenue Subway.” He suggested that the move may be “designed to put pressure on Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leaders in the Senate and House respectively, who both happen to represent New York State.”

Many people marvel at China’s infrastructure achievements, which are all-embracing — from transportation to energy, from communication to water supply, from digital infrastructure to seaports and dry ports. They wonder what causes such difference.

The answer is that China eschews the “for me and my kind” culture in favor of the “for all of us” culture. China’s political system is seriously misunderstood by many observers in the West, who think that as a single-party political system the Communist Party of China (CPC) is not accountable, and thus government powers are not subject to constraint. China is always ranked extremely low under “Constraint to Government Powers” and human rights.

But the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that people within the country should all be equal before the law and should have equal access to political participation. China subscribes to these values, but political participation implies possible access to public power. Since public power must be exercised for the public interest and not for private aggrandizement, applications to join the CPC are screened to ensure that the motive to serve the public interest is sufficiently evident. Moreover, to the CPC, the rights to adequate food, adequate clothing, education, basic medical care, and housing are important human rights and should be protected.

On the other hand, the CPC does not think that anyone can be elected to positions of power simply through the vote. Why is screening based on decades-long observations of one’s track record inferior to the ballot box? Can anyone provide evidence? If there is no evidence, why should China be poorly rated simply because it does not adopt the ballot box as the route to public power?

For those who are puzzled by China’s ability to avoid a single year of negative growth since 1976 and by China’s ability to eradicate extreme poverty and build futuristic infrastructure in less than a decade, the answer is simple: We embrace the “for all of us” culture. Because of this insistence, there is simply no oppression of any minorities in China, not in the Xizang and Xinjiang autonomous regions, not anywhere. If you embrace this culture, you can do the same. If we all do the same, there will be no clash of civilizations, and no more “forever wars”.

The author is an honorary research fellow at the Pan Sutong Shanghai-Hong Kong Economic Policy Research Institute, Lingnan University, and an adjunct professor at the Academy for Applied Policy Studies and Education Futures, the Education University of Hong Kong.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.