Regional ethnic autonomy is the fundamental political system for addressing domestic ethnic issues in contemporary China. How does China's system of regional ethnic autonomy differ from Europe's "autonomy of nationality"? Where does the innovation lie within China's system? And how does it align with the history and reality of the community of Chinese nation? This article is to explore these questions.

Historical background of Europe's "Autonomy of Nationality"

The development of "autonomy of nationality" in Europe is intricately tied to specific historical conditions, arising as a consequence of the dynamic interplay between the quest for national independence and the dominance of imperial rule.

In the later stages of the Enlightenment, to avoid ethnic conflicts, a proposal was made to define a "nation-state" based on the historically formed linguistic and cultural homogeneity of a "people". The doctrine of "one people, one nation, one state" was considered by some Europeans as a classic theory of nationalism.

In Europe, since the Roman Empire, different linguistic and cultural groups have been classified using the term "people". In the 10th century, the term "nation" emerged in Latin-speaking areas, exclusively used to refer to people born in different places. After the 15th century, the term "nation" gradually evolved into a concept with exclusive political implications, associated with independent countries, to the extent that the aforementioned nationalism gradually formed in European intellectual circles from the 18th century onwards.

However, this theory faced practical challenges. The establishment of some countries and empires in Europe generally became dominated by ruling classes of powerful ethnic groups, while relatively weaker ethnic groups were in subordinate positions. In this context, seeking internal autonomy became a fallback choice for the ruling classes of some disadvantaged ethnic groups.

In the 19th century, nationalist political ideas and movements spread from Western Europe to Central and Eastern Europe. This shift prompted nations such as Hungary to launch three consecutive wars of independence (in 1848, 1859 and 1866), driven by a desire to liberate themselves from the rule of the Austrian Habsburg.

The challenge was how to reconcile the contradiction between imperial rule and national independence. Drawing on nationalist theory, which posits that a nation develops from its people and manifests as an independent country, European intellectuals in the 1860s began using "nationality" to refer to people who had not established independent countries. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was the first to officially adopt this concept.

In 1867, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austrian Habsburg monarchy signed the Ausgleich (Compromise), forming the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Austrian emperor also assumed the title of King of Hungary, but Austria and Hungary were not subordinate to each other, and each maintained power over their own respective peoples. This arrangement extended to the dozen or so other ethnic groups within the empire, marking the origin of "autonomy of nationality" in Europe. From the practice of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it can be seen that allocating a certain degree of political power to ruling groups of various ethnicities was carried out in exchange for their acceptance of the imperial order. This was the political backdrop of "autonomy of nationality".

However, some ruling groups or dominant forces of certain ethnicities were dissatisfied with the designation and status of "nationality" and constantly sought to mobilize their own people in the name of "nation" to establish an independent sovereign state, or to become a "nation" by establishing an independent country. This gave rise to the issue of ethnic separatism in Europe. Therefore, as a typical case, after the First World War, national independence movements within the Austro-Hungarian Empire resurged, leading to the dissolution of the empire(s).

As a political compromise, around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, European colonial powers also employed "autonomy" to ease conflicts with their colonies. Countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand all experienced a period of "autonomy" before gaining independence.

It is because of a certain orientation against imperialism and colonialism during a specific historical period that "autonomy of nationality" was endowed with a positive significance in European political culture, and later proponents have argued for it as "national political rights" based on positive aspirations.

Notably, the Social Democratic Party in Austria at the end of the 19th century and Russian socialist revolutionaries at the beginning of the 20th century played significant roles in the aforementioned regard. However, they both transformed the theory of autonomy of nationality. The former sought to replace "territorial national political autonomy" with "associational national cultural autonomy", aiming to transform the Austro-Hungarian Empire into a "democratic multi-ethnic federation". The latter proposed "national self-determination", urging ethnic groups to overthrow the rule of the Russian Empire and establish the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on this basis.

The "national kingdom autonomy" within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the self-governance among colonial peoples after the decline of European colonial powers, and ethnic governance practices like those seen in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia all relied on the notion of "historical nations" with distinct geographical boundaries as their units. They championed the idea of self-governance for each ethnic group. This approach to governance and its underlying ideology emerged under specific temporal and spatial conditions. It often manifested a tendency to absolutize ethnic identity, ethnic differences and ethnic interests, consequently leading to the persistence of ethnic war and conflict in Europe.

These historical lessons have driven many countries nowadays to ground themselves in reality and distance themselves from the discourse of "autonomy of nationality". While various countries around the world adopt different approaches to solving ethnic issues, the prevalent trend is the avoidance of "autonomy of nationality" through territorial delineation. The same holds true for China's establishment of "regional ethnic autonomy"， which differs not only in name but also in reality from the concept of "autonomy of nationality".

Regional ethnic autonomy: China's innovative approach

China's concept of "regional ethnic autonomy" stands in stark contrast to the European model of "autonomy of nationality".

The first distinction lies in the definitions of the entity practicing autonomy. China's regional ethnic autonomy does not categorize autonomous units based along ethnic lines. Instead, it integrates ethnic factors with natural and economic geography. With the aim of promoting national unity and the shared prosperity of all ethnic groups, it establishes autonomous regions (provincial level), autonomous prefectures and autonomous counties with different administrative levels. This includes five autonomous regions, 30 autonomous prefectures, and 120 autonomous counties or banners, collectively referred to as "ethnic autonomous areas".

All of China's ethnic autonomous areas are characterized by a diverse mix of ethnic groups. Even in relatively small autonomous counties, there may be as many as twenty or thirty different ethnic groups. Moreover, in all ethnic autonomous areas, the Han ethnic group accounts for a certain proportion of the population, and in many places, it even constitutes the majority. Therefore, the "autonomous" entities or governing bodies naturally comprise a social community formed by the local people of various ethnic groups, rather than being exclusive to any single ethnic group.

It is worth noting that in China, the majority of ethnic autonomous areas incorporate the names of one or more ethnic minority groups in their regional titles and administrative designations, such as Guangxi (locality) Zhuang (ethnicity) Autonomous Region, and Dehong (locality) Dai and Jingpo (ethnicities) Autonomous Prefecture in Yunnan province. This reflects the country's emphasis on safeguarding the rights and interests of local ethnic minorities. However, it does not imply that these "ethnic autonomous areas" belong exclusively to one or a few specific minority ethnic groups.

In 2008, the 14th Dalai Lama, imitating the "national kingdom autonomy" of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, proposed the establishment of the so-called "Great Tibet" under the pretext of "genuine autonomy" and "Tibetans governing Tibet". He also set up the so-called "Tibetan People's Congress" and advocated for the "complete management" of all affairs in the so-called "Great Tibet" by the "Tibetan government-in-exile", claiming that this "completely conforms to the spirit of regional ethnic autonomy". This is a typical deliberate distortion of "regional ethnic autonomy" as "autonomy of nationality".

The second difference lies in the definitions of "autonomy". In Europe, "autonomy of nationality" involves a negotiated "division of political power" between imperial dynasties and rulers of various ethnic groups, packaged as "ethnic political rights". In China's practice of regional ethnic autonomy, however, "autonomy" does not refer to the power of a particular ethnic ruling group or the political rights of a specific ethnic group. Instead, it refers to the "functions and powers" of the public authority in autonomous areas.

The Law of the People's Republic of China on Regional Ethnic Autonomy stipulates that autonomous agencies in ethnic autonomous areas "shall exercise the functions and powers of local state agencies as specified in Section 5 of Chapter III of the Constitution. While at the same time, they shall exercise the power of autonomy within the limits of their authority as prescribed by the Constitution, this Law and other legal provisions". The "power of autonomy" here refers to the "functions and powers" granted to the political organs of the autonomous areas, namely the People's Congress and the people's government of the autonomous areas. Both represent the various ethnic groups in the autonomous areas, and they are public authorities serving the people of various ethnic groups. They are unrelated to the concept of an "ethnic parliament" or "ethnic government" under the idea of autonomy of nationality.

Third, there is a difference in the political systems that safeguards the management of ethnic autonomous areas. In countries practicing Western-style democracy, the establishment of an "ethnic party" is a common phenomenon. This inevitably leads to two situations. First, ethnic party with a smaller population may have little impact on national and local political life, as seen in some Latin American countries with indigenous ethnic parties or alliances. In such cases, if the demands of minority ethnic groups are not met, it may lead to the escalation of conflict, as happened with the uprising of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in Chiapas, Mexico, on Jan.1, 1994. Second, in developed regions, ethnic parties with a larger ethnic population, after gaining regional governance through elections, often continually demand an expansion of autonomy and local power. This can also lead to an escalation of conflict, including launching "independence referendums" under the pretext of "ethnic democracy", as observed in Quebec in Canada, Scotland in the United Kingdom, and Catalonia in Spain.

China practices socialist people's democracy and has established a comprehensive national political system, including the system of People's Congress and the system of CPC-led multiparty cooperation and political consultation. The management of China's ethnic autonomous areas operates within this national political system. On the one hand, it effectively ensures national unity, with ethnic autonomous areas implementing national policies. On the other hand, it can promptly address and resolve the legitimate interests and demands of various ethnic groups, resisting the influence of extreme nationalism and ethnic separatists.

Fourth is the new concept regarding the political rights of ethnic minorities. In the study of governance over ethnic minority issues, those advocating for "autonomy of nationality" invariably consider "ethnic political rights" as one of the reasons. Some even go so far as to regard "autonomy" based on ethnic political units as an embodiment of "ethnic equality".

It's worth asking a few questions: Is it feasible to have "autonomy" based on ethnic political units under the conditions of modern national unity construction? Are the political rights of ethnic minorities synonymous with "autonomy"? And, can "autonomy" fundamentally solve ethnic issues?

The EZLN in Mexico negotiated with the government, proposing indigenous autonomy. Although the government agreed, both sides failed to present a practical and viable plan for autonomy. The EZLN only established some voluntary social organizations called "caracoles" within indigenous villages. The United States confines indigenous peoples to various "reservations", which may be considered a form of "autonomy of nationality". However, these "reservations" are a product of colonial history and cannot be considered an ideal way to safeguard the political rights of ethnic minorities, let alone promote ethnic equality.

As such, when it comes to the political rights of ethnic minorities, people need to break through various conceptual constraints of the "autonomy of nationality" discourse. China's system of regional ethnic autonomy and its practice undeniably represents a paradigm shift.

In contrast to the "autonomy of nationality" discourse that involves territorial delineation, China's system of regional ethnic autonomy allows people of all ethnic groups to jointly manage national and local affairs for their own and common interests and well-being. The joint management of national and local affairs by all ethnic groups is a new concept for governing ethnic issues and a new perspective on ethnic political rights, surpassing the limitations of defining the political rights of ethnic minorities as "autonomy of nationality".

Modern countries guarantee freedom of movement and equal political rights for all their citizens, which is a reality that must be respected in the governance of ethnic issues. In this context, treating different ethnic groups as closed entities and simplistically equating "autonomy" with the political rights of ethnic groups is theoretically untenable and also unfeasible in practice.

History and reality of regional ethnic autonomy in China

The Chinese nation has a long and profound history, with complex relationships among its various ethnic groups that are difficult to summarize in a few sentences. However, a fundamental consensus within the fields of ethnology and history is that throughout Chinese history, each ethnic group did not exist in isolation but rather engaged in mutual interactions and exchanges, resulting in a dynamic "interconnectedness" and a state of "unity in diversity" where the presence of one is intertwined with the presence of others.

On the vast land of China, with the founding of the Qin dynasty in 221 B.C., the principle of "uniform writing script, standardized length of cart axles, consistent adherence to moral standards, and standardized weights and measures" became the unwavering national policy for over 2,000 years through successive central dynasties. The idea of Great Unity is deeply rooted in people's minds. Despite twists and turns along the way, the fundamental causes of the issues did not lie in ethnic conflict. Therefore, this process did not lead to ethnic opposition or disunity, but instead prompted various ethnic groups to further realize that they must move toward integration and unity in order to resolve the pain of division.

The overall trend of unification in China has continuously strengthened the close connections between various ethnic groups in terms of politics, economy, society and culture. High mountains and vast deserts cannot separate us, and the Great Wall spanning thousands of miles cannot divide us. The political ideology of governance through harmony and the cultural values of social unity are widely revered among all ethnic groups and have been passed down through generations.

In Chinese society, it is widely believed that all ethnic groups are integral parts of the Chinese nation and cannot be separated from this community. Therefore, when facing external invasions in the first half of the 20th century, various ethnic groups quickly united to save the nation. The lyrics of the "March of the Volunteers" (PRC national anthem) resonate with the tremendous power to defend the country, declaring that "The Chinese nation has reached its most perilous moment". "Chinese nation" has become the sacred and affirmed common identity in the hearts of people of all ethnic groups in China.

Furthermore, "Chinese national identity" actually involves recognizing and managing the differences among various ethnic groups from the perspective of national unity and ethnic solidarity.

From a historical standpoint, China's implementation of "regional ethnic autonomy" instead of "autonomy of nationality" is rooted in a deep and long-standing social foundation. From a contemporary perspective, designating various levels of "ethnic autonomous areas" as the country's administrative regions, with management overseen jointly by different ethnic groups, represents an institutional arrangement for the construction of the modern Chinese nation and its national unity.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of DeepChina.

The author is Zhu Lun, a researcher at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a distinguished professor at Jiangsu Normal University.