Political Landscapes: A Comparative Analysis of China and Japan in Global Politics

Introduction:

Global comparative politics refer to the field that compares the political system of different countries with discussing the differences as well as similarities in their political system, political behaviour, political institution and global political conflict. This study is going to discuss the comparative politics of two selected country such as China and Japan. Along with discussing the similarities as well as differences of the political system, political infrastructure and political behaviour of these two countries this study is going to discuss the impact of this political structure on the overall social, structural and economic framework of these two countries. Finally, the study will discuss how the comparative political system in these two countries can have a potential impact on global politics.

Differences between the political system of China and Japan:

Japan and China are the two worlds' strongest economies that have a stable and systematic political system. Although both the countries have an imperial dynasty, has authoritarian communist regime, that makes this country to have a one-party political system. Unlike China, Japan has a democratic political system which consists of bicameral multi-party parliamentary constitutional monarchy. According to Andonova et al. (2019), while comparing the political system of two counties, it is important to analyses the how strong are the political system to each other in term of comparing their impact on the global political context. In this context, China's political system is led by only a political party, the National People's Congress (NPC). The NPC is constituted through the democratic elections and is responsible to take any country related decision in favour of the citizen (Bell, 2016). The NPC is consisting of deputies who are elected from the autonomous regions, provinces, central government led municipalities, armed forces and special administrative regions. There are some political instructions or origination that work at the subordinate level of the NPC, such as state council, Central Military Commission, supreme Central Procuratorate. The NPC is composed of six different political bodies such as President of the People’s Republic of China, The State council, The Supreme People Procuratorate, Supreme People Court and The Central Military Commission (Joseph, 2019). In China, the National People's Congress is the supreme political power who is associated with deciding all kind of decision-related to the country. In this context, Caramani (2017) argued that, although the one-party of government is the stable and strong political structure in a country, it can reduce the transparency of the political decision as there are no opposition political parties to criticize or analyses the decision of the major party. As compared to Japan, China has a more stable political system, which although is effective in improving the overall economic condition of the entire country, is unable to improve the individual income of the community people (Bell, 2016). As there is only one party in China, there is a lack of equal distribution of the wealth which makes the rich people richer ad the poor people poorer.

Unlike China’s one-party led political system, Japan has multi-party led democratic parliamentary monarchy, in which the emperor is the head of the states. In this political system, the prime minister is the supreme power of the governmental system and is the head of the cabinet. In addition to the legislative responsibilities are vested in the National Diet that contains the House of Councilors and the House of Representatives (Neary, 2019). On the other hand, judicial responsibilities are vested in the Supreme country. As compared to China the overall political and legislative system in Japan in most systematic and transparent with the perfect division of power to the different political institution. Sovereignty in Japan is vested on the Japanese people by the Constitutional regulations (Hirosawa, 2018). Japan is considered as the system od civil law in which citizen play important roles in selecting that preferable candidate through using the voting system. In this context, Clark et al. (2017) mentioned that as a democratic country provides high power to its countrymen in term of deciding eligible candidate for the designation of Prime minister of their country. As compared to China, in which the NPC is the sole decider of all political and legislative decisions that can be sometimes unethical and irrelevant with the overall political situation, in Japan, the political and legislative system in systematically vested on the eligible constitutional bodies that use transparent work to lead highly organized governmental system.

The similarity of the political system in China and Japan:

While discussing the similarities of the political system of china and japan, it needs to be stated that the two systems are very different from each other so it is difficult to determine the similarities between them. Based on the overall political structure and political behaviour of the China and Japan, it can be stated that although there are structural and functional differences between the political system of these two countries both systems represent the stable and well-organized political structure of the two countries. According to Dietz et al. (2018), comparative politics is not only associated with discussing the structural and functional differences between the international political system, rather it is associated with depicting the similarities in political behaviour, political benefits and how the political system impact on the overall economic condition of the country. In this context, it can be stated that the political system of both and China and Japan are intended to improve the overall economy standard of these countries.

Through developing a strong political system in China, the National People’s Congress focus on reforming laws, strategies and politics to support the development of small and medium-sized business in this country. According to Giraudy et al. (2019), China has one of the strongest economic structure in the world, that can be attributed to the systematic work process of political bodies. Which supports the growth of factories, manufacturing and hospitality industries and electronic sectors in this country. Similarly, the Japan government has played important roles in using political power to provide sufficient financial support to business operation in this country in term of improving the economic status of this country. In addition to this, the political bodies of these two countries focus on setting such a governmental structure which will be effective in developing cultural, economic and social values in the entire community.

Political relation between China and Japan with global countries:

In term of comparing the political context of the two countries, it is important to highlight the overall political relation of selected countries with other international countries. China government focus on making healthy political relation with international countries such as Iran, the US, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan and South Africa. According to Green and Luehrmann (2017), the political relationship between two countries is not only associated with building strong political interaction with them rater it is associated with building proper economic and social relationships between them. While discussing the political relationship between China and the US, it needs to be stated that China had only 1% of the entire import of the US since 1990. In recent years, China government focus on strengthening its political relation n with the US in terms of improving the overall trade relationship between these two countries ((Bell, 2016). In addition to this, through improving the political relationship with the US, China has signed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US which makes the free entry and exit of US-based organization which not only helps improve the overall economic condition of this country but also improved the overall employment structure in the china. On the contrary Kesselman et al. (2018) argued that political relation of international countries is not only associated with the economic, social and economic interaction between these countries but also is associated with human welfare through globalization. The political relationship between China and Iran had been made at 200 BC, which leads to economic, political and cultural exchanges between these two countries through the Silk road. These two countries have a friendly strategic partnership which assists the political leader of both the country to gain advise regarding any legislative and judicial matter and to discuss the political strategies in terms of conducting systematic political system in the states as well as in the country (Joseph, 2019). China also has the economic and political relationship with the Philippines, which pose a positive impact on marketing ad trade decisions of this country.

As compared to China the political relationship of Japan with international countries is not only associated with trade, politics and social exchanges, rather it promotes the perception global peace and social corporate responsibility in terms of upholding the community welfare. In this context, Landman and Carvalho (2016) argued that sometimes the corporate social responsibility that is conducted through the political relation between the international counties are mere eyewash which associated with grabbing the attraction of the international potential investors as well as customers. Unlike China, the Government of Japan focuses on the economic, social and cultural values of the countries to which this country is going to operate its political relation. For example, through conducting Japan-EU summit, the government of Japan promotes the exchanges of social, cultural and legislative values between these two countries which will not only assist both governments to maintain the political peace in these two countries but also assists them to promote human wellbeing and community welfare (Neary, 2019). Although this summit is conducted for gaining more advantages in operating trade process between these counties, it is also associated with improving the education, infrastructure and livelihood of deprived community in EU as well as in Japan. Japan also has a strong political relation with magnolia, Netherlands and France, in terms of discussing t political matter and conducting the social, economic and cultural aspects.

Based on the above-mentioned political relation of the china and japan with other international countries it can be the bed that although these two countries have more or fewer differences between their intention of building the political relation, the main objectives behind this political relation is to strengthen the overall economic, political and social framework of these own countries. The major differences between China and Japan in terms of conducting the political relationship with other countries is that, in case of the major factor in gaining high profits and economic stability, whereas in case of Japan the major factor is gaining community welfare through the political and economic strengthening of the country.

Comparative discussion on the impact of the political system of China and Japan on their economic, social and cultural framework:

While discussing the global comparative politics, it is important to discuss the impact of the political system of the international countries in their own social, economic and cultural framework.

Impact on the economic framework:

Both the china and Japan are considered as the world's strongest economy which is possible for their stable political structure, relevant legislature ad judiciary system and supportive government. Although both governments are intended for optimal economic growth in these countries, the impact on the political system of these two counties on their economic framework is different. As China is one-party led country in which entre political, economic, legislative and judicial decision is taken by the NPC, the overall wealth distribution system is less transparent than that of Japan. According to Nikolaeva et al. (2017), in case of the one-party led country, the sole political decisions are taken by the political party which can be effective for some of the countrymen and not effective for the rest. Unlike Japan, China contains the huge economic gaps between the countrymen in which poor people get poorer day-by days due to the unequal distribution of the wealth, in addition to this, the political decision that is taken by the NPC sometimes are in the favour of overall untry but not for the individual community people. For example, due to strengthening the political relationship with the US, China has made free entry and exit or the marketers from the US, which makes the local small business to face huge economic difficulties as they do not have proper marketing infrastructure and resources to cope with the increasing rivalries of potential foreign marketers that operated business in china. On the contrary, Öniş and Kutlay (2019) argued that political relations between the two counties intend to develop the overall economic condition of the entire country which assist the country to access the political, economic and legal advantages in the other countries to operate their trade process. As compared to China, the Japan government in multi-party government which needs to get the consent of all the judicial bodies in terms of setting and implement any political strategy (Neary, 2019). The overall democratic monarchy system of Japan is associated with transparent and justified decisions that are taken by the government while operating the political relationship with other counties, for example, while building the relationship with South Asian countries and Africa countries, Japan government intends to focus not only promote the trade and business process in these countries but also invest money in developing employment in these countries to develop the economic stability of the deprived community. According to Roger et al. (2017), the multi-party-political system provides sole power to the citizen to vote their preferable candidates for the designation of prime minister. Although the political system of Japan is more effective in reducing the economic gap between countrymen than that of China, in Japan, the decision taken by government for the welfare of their community of the entire country can be opposed by the opposition party which cannot be possible in China, In this context, it can be stated that one-party government is effective for a country to take an effective decision for the economic and social welfare of the country (Staudt, 2017). Therefore, China government is able o take any bold step without needing to take consent from another political party to implement them effectively to promote the economic growth of the entire country which is not possible in Japan. This is the reason, that although in China there is a huge economic gap between the poor and rich people due to p unequal distribution of wealth, China government can maintain sustainable economic devolvement year on year by taking the bold economic decision that can be strictly related to the welfare of the entire country rather than for the individual community.

Impact on social and cultural aspects:

The political system of China and japan pose an important impact on their cultural and social framework. Internal political changes in China leads to changing social and cultural values in the community. With the development of one-party led political system, China government has taken important regulation that is strongly related to the social and cultural welfare of the entire community such as the development of education, technical training to the young generation, housing facilities to the deprived community and affordable healthcare facilities. On the contrary, Twiss (2018) argued that in most of the times the one-party led governmental system is unable to improve the social standard of people, as in this type of political system the main focus is on the overall social improvement of the entire community rather than individual benefits of the community. On the contrary in Japan, the multi-government political system is a well-organized framework which focuses on individual social needs of the community people, which assists all types of people o get the attention of the government. On the other hand, in Japan, the government can promote peace, moral values and ethics in the community as compared to the Chin in which discrimination a bias can be seen in the deprived community to protect their rights. On the other hand, in case of China, the government can easily take the bold decision for the welfare of the entire society, which assists this government to solve social and cultural issues in the systematic matter in less time. On the contrary in case of Japan, the government is obliged to take consent from opposition parties in term of implementing any decision regarding the welfare of the entire society which sometimes makes the government unable to take the desired steps.

Conclusion:

From the overall discussion, it can be stated that China has one-party led political system which is controlled and regulated by the National People’s Congress (NPC. On the other hand, Japan is multi-party led democratic parliamentary political system. Although the two governmental systems are different, the main intention behind the political system is economic, social and cultural welfare of the country. In this context, through developing political relation with the other countries these two countries are associated with the development of the economic standard society. In addition to this comparative politics of these two countries also have analyzed the overall impact of the political system on the social and cultural aspects of these countries.

Reference list:

Andonova, L.B., Hale, T.N. and Roger, C.B. eds., 2019. The comparative politics of transnational climate governance. Routledge.

Bell, D.A., 2016. The China model: political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton University Press.

Caramani, D. Ed., 2017. Comparative politics. Oxford University Press.

Clark, W.R., Golder, M. And Golder, S.N., 2017. Principles of comparative politics. CQ Press.

Dietz, T., Börner, J., Förster, J.J. and Von Braun, J., 2018. Governance of the bioeconomy: A global comparative study of national bioeconomy strategies. Sustainability, 10(9), p.3190. Giraudy, A., Moncada, E. And Snyder, R., 2019. Empirical and Theoretical Frontiers of Subnational Research in Comparative Politics. Inside Countries: Subnational Research in Comparative Politics, p.353.

Green, D. And Luehrmann, L., 2017. Comparative Politics of the Global South: Linking Concepts and Cases. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Incorporated.

Hirosawa, T., 2018. Reform of the electoral system and reorganization of the party system, Attempted coalition of political parties in Japan in the 1990s. 福岡大學法學論叢= Fukuoka University review of law, 63(3), pp.689-704.

Joseph, W.A. ed., 2019. Politics in China: an introduction. Oxford University Press, USA.

Kesselman, M., Krieger, J. And Joseph, W.A., 2018. Introduction to comparative politics: political challenges and changing agendas. Cengage Learning.

Lampton, D.M., 2019. The politics of medicine in China: the policy process 1949-1977. Routledge.

Landman, T. And Carvalho, E., 2016. Issues and methods in comparative politics: an introduction. Taylor & Francis.

Neary, I., 2019. The state and politics in Japan. John Wiley & Sons.

Nikolaeva, A., Adey, P., Cresswell, T., Lee, J.Y., Novoa, A. And Temenos, C., 2017. A new politics of mobility: Commoning movement, meaning and practice in Amsterdam and Santiago. CUS Working Paper Series, (26).

Öniş, Z. And Kutlay, M., 2019. Global shifts and the limits of the EU’s transformative power in the European periphery: Comparative perspectives from Hungary and Turkey. Government and Opposition, 54(2), pp.226-253.

Pierce, J.C., Lovrich, N.P., Tsurutani, T. And Abe, T., 2019. Public knowledge and environmental politics in Japan and the United States. Routledge.

Roger, C., Hale, T. And Andonova, L., 2017. The comparative politics of transnational climate governance. International Interactions, 43(1), pp.1-25.

Staudt, K., 2017. Border politics in a global era: comparative perspectives. Rowman & Littlefield.

Teiwes, F.C., 2017. Leadership, legitimacy, and conflict in China: From a charismatic Mao to the politics of succession. Routledge.

Twiss, S.B., 2018. Explorations in global ethics: Comparative religious ethics and interreligious dialogue. Routledge.

Wiarda, H., 2019. New directions in comparative politics. Routledge.

Wong, M.Y., 2017. Comparative Politics: An Introduction. In Comparative Hong Kong Politics (pp. 3-13). Palgrave, Singapore.

Take a deeper dive into Political Landscape for Effective Governance with our additional resources.