Policy and Strategy (the UK VS China)

Policy and Strategy (the UK VS China)

Introduction

Its policy and strategy framework determine the political system of a country. Policy and strategy assessment also helps a country in designing the guide principles that are used in its governance. Although the terms policy and strategy are interrelated, they are different in their application. Strategy refers to a unique plan that an organization designs for the achievement of a market position. Policies also help organizations to reach their goals and objectives.

On the other hand, policy refers to the laid down rules that the organization uses to make rational decisions (Guerrer et al., 2015, p. 750)[1].

Difference between policy and strategy

Strategy can be looked at as the game plan that the political system chooses to reach its objectives and for gaining the trust of its citizens. The procedure is also used in attaining competitive advantage and in acquiring a position in the political world. The strategy consists of intentions and actions that are well thought (Guerrer et al., 2015, p. 754)[2]. The purposes determine the country’s desired goals and destination, and work took. The approach enables a country to compete against its rivals successfully. It contains flexible and designed cooperate moves. Policies are dynamic, meaning that they accommodate the change.

One of the distinctive features of a strategy is that it should be designed from the top management level. Middle-level management can come up with sub-strategies, but the main plan should be from above (Guerrer et al., 2015, p. 760)[3]. The senior management should be ready to bear the consequences of the policies they formulate. The administration should take responsibility for the strategy. Another feature is that strategy should be long term. A plan should have a long-range perspective. Policies should be dynamic and should be geared towards solving uncertain situations. The approach should utilize scarce resources and make the best out of them. Therefore strategies should be designed in such a way that they use the available resources entirely.

Policies are similar to strategies in that they are also formed by top-level management. They act as guidelines to be followed when making a decision. Systems are mini-statements of what needs to be done to achieve the country’s goals. All the actions of an organization are based on the policies. Policies are formulated by taking into consideration the general view of members of the country. Systems are also based on the past experiences of the members (Wagner et al., 2017, p. 22)[4]. The citizens of a particular country can recount on past experiences which are then included during the process of policymaking. Members help the country’s governance to come up with what should be done and how it should be done.

Strategy and policy differ in that an approach is a plan that is adopted by the country from the many systems (Guerrer et al., 2015, p. 760)[5]. The country picks on the best idea, which will help it achieve its goals and objectives. Another difference is that a strategy is a plan of action, while the policy is the guiding principle of the operation. Strategies are flexible and dynamic. They can be modified to suit the situation. The system doesn’t change; they remain uniform though adjustments can be made from time to time to suit the conditions. Strategies are concerned with the action to be taken while the policies are related to decision making. The top management is responsible for formulating the plan. Sometimes the middle-level management can come up with sub-strategies. On contrast, policies are generally made by senior management, but people in the organization participate in making them. The systems and strategies of a country affect its political, social, and economic reams (Guerrer et al., 2015, p. 760)[6]. This paper, therefore, examines whether the political system of a state or the nature of its civil-military relations determines the effectiveness of its armed forces. The study will compare the United Kingdom and China’s political system in its analysis. The study will also assess whether military effectiveness affects the social and economic aspects of a country.

China’s Political System

China is a single-party socialist country. The country is run by the Communist Party of China, whose head is the General Secretary.   The state exercises its powers through the People’s Republic of China that is headed by the Communist Party and the Central people’s government (Heberer and Schubert 2017, p.979)[7]. The state power is also channeled through the provincial and local representation. The primary source of information to the society of China is through Internal References. Internal references are secret documents that are published by the Xinhua News Agency.

In each province, there is a local Bureau which is headed by a regional leader. The local leader works in collaboration with the leader of the corresponding office that is at a higher level than the local bureau.  The overseers of the local government are the people’s congresses and the elected members of the provincial people’s congress. The People’s Party elects the National People’s Congress. The National People’s Congress meets every Year March in Beijing (Heberer and Schubert 2017, p.979)[8]. The Communist Party Committee influences the selection of the candidates to the local congress and the higher levels of the government.

A ceremonial president heads china. The president is a ceremonial figurehead who operates under the National People’s Congress. The head of the government is the premier who presides over the State Council. The State Council is made up of four premiers, leaders of ministries and commissions. Since China is a one-party country, the ultimate power and authority over state and government belong to the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China. Since 1993, one person has simultaneously held the posts for the president, the General Secretary, and the chairman of the Central Military Commission. By keeping these posts, the individual has acquired de jure and de facto power over the country (Bullard 2019, p.1967)[9].

 Civil-Military Relations in China

Civil-military relations refers to the relationship between civil society and the military organization of a country. One of the factors that determine the civil-military link is the political system of a nation.  In China, the civil-military relationship is distinct. The civil leaders in China are drawn from the China elite. These civilian leaders have the mandate of choosing the military leaders who mostly have longstanding ties with the leaders. The senior military leaders are given a political experience that makes them attain the ‘dual-role –elite’ status (Adams 2018, p. 1530)[10]. The senior military leaders are changed upon death or retirement.  The top army officials are promoted on merit. Their promotion is based on professional skills. All the senior officers belong to the Communist party, although they are not supposed to show their stand openly. The officers do not have an independent political position with the Communist party or the public. The civilian leaders on their side don’t have military experience. The civilian leader’s careers are based on their educational credentials. The civil leaders are also supposed to have the technical knowledge and must have experience in management.

The interaction between the city leaders and the military is limited. It is only the top civilian leaders who are at the senior provincial or national level that have the opportunity of meeting with the army. The party structure also limits the interaction of the city leaders and the military.  The government also minimizes the interactions between the military leaders and civilian leaders. The military is formally trained at excluded military institutions away from the other members of society. They also spend most of their careers within the single army region. The only chance that the military has of interacting with the city leaders is when the senior military leaders meet with senior civilian leaders in Beijing (Adams 2018, p. 1530)[11].  The diverse backgrounds between the civil and the military leaders affect the military role in elite politics. The civil-military relations can also lead to the two groups having different views on the key issues. The limited contact between the civilian and military leaders can make them mistrust each other. The civil leaders have no military knowledge, and this can influence their decision making.

United Kingdom Political system

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy with no written constitution.  The constitution is made up of universal laws and can be changed by a simple act of parliament. The constitutional monarchy consists of the head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) and the parliamentary democracy, which has a legislative arm. The parliament has an upper chamber and a lower chamber. The top committee, also known as the House of Lords, comprises 88 hereditary peers, 667 life peers, and 24 bishops (Wagner et al., 2017, p. 26)[12]. The lower chamber, also known as the House of Commons, has 650elected members. The prime minister and the cabinet lead the executive arm. The elections for parliamentary seats are held every five years. There was a major constitutional reform in 1998 that was aimed at removing the hereditary peers. The local authorities run domestic government affairs. Each local government conducts the affairs of their respective governments.  The United Kingdom is a multi-party system where the number of election posts determines the ruling party. The major political parties are; Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives.

U.K. Military System

The British armed forces also known as Her Majesty’s Armed Forces comprises of professionals, regulars, volunteer reserves, and other personnel. The primary mandate of the British Military Force is to defend the U.K. and its overseas territories. The military is also responsible for promoting Britain’s broader interests. They are also involved in international peacekeeping missions and the provision of humanitarian aid. The Commander- in Chief of the British Army is the British Monarch. The prime minister has executive authority over the army and can make significant decisions on the utilization of the armed forces.  All in all, the queen is the supreme authority of the military. The existence of the British Army is approved every five years by the U.K. parliament through the Armed Forces Act (Wagner et al., 2017, p.34)[13].

Apart from the prime minister and the queen who have powers over the army, the other city leaders have distant relationships with the military. The president cannot make the decisions of using the army. The command is more involved in protecting the interests of the U.K. The army also swears allegiance to the queen. This means that the queen can use the military in any way she pleases without being questioned.

UK VS China

The political systems in the U.K. and China are very different. China is a single-party communist country, while the U.K. is a Monarch. The political system in the two countries determines the civil-military relationship. In China, the relationship between civil and military leaders is limited. The only connection between the civilian and military leaders is between the top leaders and the senior military leaders (Nathan 2017, p. 89)[14]. They only come into contact in the National meeting that is held every three years in Beijing. The civil leaders also do not have any military knowledge or experience. Lack of military knowledge influences decision making in issues affecting the military. The distance relationship can also lead to civil and military leaders holding different views on important issues affecting the government.

Effectiveness of the armed forces

In the United Kingdom, the queen is the Commander in chief of the armed forces. The queen also has supreme powers over the army. Indeed, the army swears allegiance to the queen. The queen is in charge of the military, and the city leaders have limited relationships with the military. It is only the prime minister who has executive authority to direct the use of the military (Moskos and Burk 2019, p.145)[15]. In this case, the civil-military relationship is distance. The political system of the U.K. does not allow the city leaders to work in collaboration with the military.

The British armed forces are more effective than China’s armed forces. Since the British armed forces have no political influence, they concentrate on what they were called to do. The core business of the British Army is to protect the United Kingdom, peacekeeping, and offering humanitarian aid. The army is not involved in any way in the political aspect of the country. In China, the top military officials meet with the senior government officials in the National Congress (Bullard 2019, p.1962)[16]. Although the military personnel is not supposed to show their political stand, they are, to some extent, involved in political matters of the country. The China military top officials are also elected by the senior congress officers. They also belong to the Communist People’s Party. Being affiliated with a political party can make them ineffective because they are likely to take sides in case of disputes.

Economic Relationship between the U.K. and China

The economic bond between the United Kingdom and China is growing strong daily. There are business opportunities in China that the United Kingdom can capitalize on. However, challenges like political constraints may hinder the United Kingdom from exploiting the possibilities thoroughly (Daltonm and McAllister 2015, p. 760)[17]. All the same, the U.K. signed an agreement with China due to the prevailing economic potential. The commercial interests that the United Kingdom has in china can be narrowed down into three objectives. The first objective is that the U.K. wants to rejuvenate its trade relations with China to benefit in the service sector. Another goal is to improve the two-way direct investment between China and the United Kingdom. The third objective is to bring reforms in China that were agreed upon in the EU-China negotiations (Copelovitch et al., 2016, p. 815)[18].

Investment policies in the U.K. and China

The major challenge of the U.K. and China Agreement is that the two countries have distinct investment policies. The Chinese investment policy is rigid, while the U.K. has very liberal economic rules. The FDI for each economy are not equal and are inclined towards favoring China. The areas that the U.K. is interested in venturing into are the financial services that are reasonably competitive. The main objective of the U.K. is to have direct control of the bilateral investment relationship. Brexit also wants to have exclusive powers of handling economic disputes amongst them. The British government has yet not shown signs of renegotiating the 1986 bilateral investment treaty with China (Dalton and McAllister 2015, p. 763)[19]. However, the best approach will be for both deals to come into a consensus about the investment plan as stipulated in the UK-China comprehensive Free Trade Agreement.

The United Kingdom is also aiming at pursuing economic reform in China. Britain will have to take the initiative of address in the problems it is experiencing in its commercial relationship with China (Copelovitch et al., 2016, p.814)[20]. One of the problems is the technical barriers that hinder trade between the United Kingdom and China.

Another problem is the presence of the regulatory obstacles that restrain the economic activities between the U.K. and China. The United Kingdom also faces the challenge of unfair treatment, unlike Chinese enterprises. The national security legislation is also discriminative in foreign enterprises.

The China interest in UK Market

The success of the trade relations between China and the U.K. will be determined by the benefits that China has in the United Kingdom enterprises.  The U.K. may be forced to change its stand in future negotiations with China to accommodate the Chinese enterprise’s objectives (Duan 2018, p. 1354)[21]. China’s goals with other big economies include building stable bilateral structures. The reciprocal arrangements promote stability and sustainability in economic growth. The strong and sustainable economy makes the Chinese Communist Party legitimate. This broad objective has specific components.

Challenges of the U.K.- China Partnership

Despite the many opportunities that the two countries will exploit from each other, some obstacles may hinder the development. The major challenge will be the political constraints that will limit the future growth of UK-China economic relations. Both the U.K. and China have significant political obstacles. There are external constraints that will be enforced in the U.K. The European Union poses as the most significant constraint on the British economy after Brexit. U.K. may have to adjust some of its standards with the E.U., especially the sectors that the E.U. is the primary or dominant market for U.K. exports.

These sectors include motor vehicles, foodstuffs, and pharmaceuticals, which are regulated by the E.U. The U.K. will have to contend with E.U. rules regarding international relations, or it will not recognize different when agreeing with countries like China. The pressure that the E.U. will put on the U.K. is more political than technical. The E.U. is likely to put conditions on the U.K. about being compliant with Britain’s broader principles of the economic Agreement. E.U. is a significant threat to the successful relationship between the U.K. and China (Shambaugh 2015, p.376)[22].

U.K. Domestic Constraints

The other challenge is the domestic constraints for the U.K. After the Britex; internal political constraints will likely emerge. The U.K. is the only economy in the E.U. that has emphasized a liberal economic approach (Newton 2018, p.37)[23]. U.K. promotes openness and has bravely supported the Chinese interests in the E.U. decision making. The U.K. opposed the harsh trade defense measures imposed on China in 2016. The U.K. has also objected to the removal of less duty rule to China (Copelovitch et al., 2016, p.100)[24].

The move to partner with China will be known by the public and is likely to bring opposition from the domestic audience. Other political issues like national security and human rights have to be considered when getting into an agreement. The effect of protecting critical infrastructure will also be factored in. U.K. will have to consider the available measures that safeguard the U.K. infrastructure against the interference by China’s equipment.

Already there is a controversy of whether U.K. Telecom should use China’s Huawei 5G wireless infrastructure. There are concerns about whether Huawei products have the resilience of software design. There are on-going discussions about human rights concerns. The European Union emphasis on rights of an individual while China focuses on societal, economic reasons. E.U. is concerned whether China will be in a position of protecting individual human rights.  Difficult choices about getting into partnership with China will have to be made. British politicians will have to bear the responsibility for adverse political and economic outcomes.

China’s Domestic Political Constraints

Besides, China also has its share of domestic political constraints. In case China goes on with the Agreement with the U.K., then there is a likelihood of political rift emerging. The political objectives of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are to enable the party’s leadership to be controlled and promote the economic development of the country (Nathan 2017, p. 95)[25]. The party-state seems to distance itself from the market forces. China’s economy currently is focused on strengthening the state-owned enterprises as opposed to venturing into international markets. The current situation indicates that China is not politically ready to get into the Agreement. The government of China seems to be reluctant, probably because the major Western economies are also unwilling to recognize it as a market economy. China is also receiving pressure from the U.S. to change its economic policy. China is reluctant to liberalize its economic policies, which have resulted in a break-down of US-China negotiations.

U.K. and Political Influences

The political influences will hinder the U. K.from achieving a modest outcome. First, it is not easy to tell what additional market access the U.K. can offer China. Predicting further market access is essential as it will facilitate leveraging significant advantages in return. U.K. economy is one of the most open economies, and domestic and international pressure will make the U.K. pull out from further negotiations with China. It is also unrealistic to imagine that China will be willing to offer the U.K., which is a smaller economy more than it gives to principal trading partners like the U.S. and E.U. China is likely to prioritize to make deals with more significant international markets (Nathan 2017, p.89)[26].

The U.K. is coming to the bargaining table already with political baggage. The U.K. is a close political ally of the United States of America. Previously the U.S. administration has labeled China as a strategic competitor. The U.S. has been criticizing China’s human rights records. It has also been humiliating China for a long time. The U.S. has been occupying part of China until 1997 but still hold territorial commitments to that territory under the international law (Shambaugh 2015, p.382). With the above facts, it will be difficult for China to accord any special treatment to the U.K. Another shortcoming is that the U.K. has recently abandoned an economic partnership it has been having with its neighboring market for 46 years. It will be difficult for China to trust the U.K. as a new friend in the business.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it is evident that the political system or nature of its civil-military relations determines the effectiveness of its armed forces. Apart from the performance of the armed forces, the political system also influences the social and economic aspects of a country. China is a single-party communist state whose political system is rigid. The economic and social policies of China are also severe, making it hard for it to collaborate with other countries in business. United Kingdom’s political system is dynamic (Dalton and McAllister 2015, p. 763)[27]. The U.K. has no written constitution. The U.K. is governed by the non-written structure, which consists of the common law. A simple act of parliament can do the amendments of the rules. The flexibility of the U.K. political system makes it have flexible economic and social policies, which make it easy for the U.K. to collaborate with other countries.

The political system in China influences the civil-military relationship. The relationship between civil and military leaders is distance. The farfetched relationship makes it hard for the civilian and military leaders to have a standard view of essential issues in the country. The senior military leaders must belong to the Communist People’s party. Although they are not legible to take any political side, being affiliated with a particular political party can make them ineffective. Besides, in China, military leaders are elected by the top civil leaders. The military leaders only meet the political elites during the National Congress meeting that takes place in Beijing every three years (Bullard 2019, p.1975)[28].

The political system in the U.K. is different. Although the U.K. has a monarch political system, its armed forces are more effective compared to those from China. The British army is involved in international peacekeeping missions and humanitarian service. The military also has the mandate of protecting the U.K. and the British territories oversee. The British army comprises professionals, regulars, volunteers, and other personnel.  Unlike the China army who are trained exclusively in military institutions, the British military is drawn from the civilians who have a touch with the political aspect of the country.

The policy and strategy analysis of the U.K. and China partnership shows that the challenges are considerably many. Although the UK-China economic relationship is a viable idea, it is evident that both the United Kingdom and China have to deal with the challenges beforehand for a successful partnership. The benefits of the UK-China economic partnership are far-reaching. Each economy will substantially benefit from each other.

Reference List

Adams, S., 2018. Tactics or Politics?“The Military Revolution ‘and the Hapsburg Hegemony,       1525-1648. The Military Revolution Debate (pp. 253-272). Routledge.

Bullard, M.R., 2019. China’s Political/military Evolution: The Party And The Military In The         Prc, 1960-1984. Routledge.

Copelovitch, M., Frieden, J., and Walter, S., 2016. The political economy of the euro crisis.           Comparative Political Studies, 49(7), pp.811-840.

Dalton, R.J., and McAllister, I., 2015. Random walk or planned excursion? Continuity and           change in the left-right positions of political parties. Comparative Political Studies,     48(6), pp.759-787.

Duan, W., 2018. MING CHINA AS A GUNPOWDER EMPIRE: MILITARY    TECHNOLOGY, POLITICS, AND FISCAL ADMINISTRATION, 1350-1620Ming        China As A Gunpowder Empire: Military Technology, Politics, And Fiscal     Administration, 1350-1620.

Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J.A., and Urbano, D., 2015. The economic impact of entrepreneurial  universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), pp.748-764

Heberer, T., and Schubert, G., 2017. Political reform and regime legitimacy in contemporary         China. Critical Readings on the Communist Party of China (pp. 978-997). BRILL.

Moskos, C.C., and Burk, J., 2019. The postmodern military. The military in new times (pp.            141-162). Routledge.

Nathan, A.J., 2017. China’s changing of the guard: Authoritarian resilience. Critical           Readings on the Communist Party of China (pp. 86-99). BRILL.

Newton, K., Stolle, D., and Zmerli, S., 2018. Social and political trust. The Oxford handbook of social and political faith, p.37.

Shambaugh, D., 2015. The coming Chinese crackup. Wall Street Journal, 6, p.382.

Wagner, W., Herranz-Surrallés, A., Kaarbo, J., and Ostermann, F., 2017. The party politics of            legislative‒executive relations in security and defense policy. West European Politics,        40(1), pp.20-41.

[1]  Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J.A. and Urbano, D., 2015. The economic impact of entrepreneurial            universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), pp.748-764

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Wagner, W., Herranz-Surrallés, A., Kaarbo, J. and Ostermann, F., 2017. The party politics of legislative‒executive relations in security and defence policy. West European Politics, 40(1), pp.20-41.

[5] Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J.A. and Urbano, D., 2015. The economic impact of entrepreneurial              universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), pp.748-764

[6] Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J.A., and Urbano, D., 2015. The economic impact of entrepreneurial            universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), pp.748-764

[7] Heberer, T., and Schubert, G., 2017. Political reform and regime legitimacy in contemporary China. Critical Readings on the Communist Party of China (pp. 978-997). BRILL

[8] Heberer, T. and Schubert, G., 2017. Political reform and regime legitimacy in contemporary China. Critical Readings on the Communist Party of China (pp. 978-997). BRILL

[9] Bullard, M.R., 2019. China’s Political/military Evolution: The Party And The Military In The Prc, 1960-1984. Routledge.

[10] Adams, S., 2018. Tactics or Politics?”The Military Revolution ‘and the Hapsburg Hegemony, 1525-1648. The Military Revolution Debate (pp. 253-272). Routledge.

[11] Adams, S., 2018. Tactics or Politics?”The Military Revolution ‘and the Hapsburg Hegemony, 1525-1648. The Military Revolution Debate (pp. 253-272). Routledge.

[12] Wagner, W., Herranz-Surrallés, A., Kaarbo, J. and Ostermann, F., 2017. The party politics of legislative-executive relations in security and defense policy. West European Politics, 40(1), pp.20-41.

[13]Wagner, W., Herranz-Surrallés, A., Kaarbo, J. and Ostermann, F., 2017. The party politics of legislative-executive relations in security and defense policy. West European Politics, 40(1), pp.20-41.

[14] Nathan, A.J., 2017. China’s changing of the guard: Authoritarian resilience. Critical Readings on the Communist Party of China (pp. 86-99). BRILL.

[15]  Moskos, C.C. and Burk, J., 2019. The postmodern military. The military in new times (pp. 141-162). Routledge.

[16] Bullard, M.R., 2019. China’s Political/military Evolution: The Party And The Military In The Prc, 1960-1984. Routledge.

[17]  Dalton, R.J. and McAllister, I., 2015. Random walk or planned excursion? Continuity and change in the left-right positions of political parties. Comparative Political Studies, 48(6), pp.759-787.

[18] Copelovitch, M., Frieden, J. and Walter, S., 2016. The political economy of the euro crisis. Comparative Political Studies, 49(7), pp.811-840.

[19] Dalton, R.J. and McAllister, I., 2015. Random walk or planned excursion? Continuity and change in the left-right positions of political parties. Comparative Political Studies, 48(6), pp.759-787.ere

[20] Copelovitch, M., Frieden, J. and Walter, S., 2016. The political economy of the euro crisis. Comparative Political Studies, 49(7), pp.811-840.

[21] Duan, W., 2018. MING CHINA AS A GUNPOWDER EMPIRE: MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, POLITICS, AND FISCAL ADMINISTRATION, 1350-1620Ming China As A Gunpowder Empire: Military Technology, Politics, And Fiscal Administration, 1350-1620.

[22]  Shambaugh, D., 2015. The coming Chinese crackup. Wall Street Journal, 6, p.382.

[23] Newton, K., Stolle, D., and Zimmerli, S., 2018. Social and political trust. The Oxford handbook of social and political faith, p.37.

[24] Copelovitch, M., Frieden, J. and Walter, S., 2016. The political economy of the euro crisis.         Comparative Political Studies, 49(7), pp.811-840.

[25]  Nathan, A.J., 2017. China’s changing of the guard: Authoritarian resilience. Critical       Readings on the Communist Party of China (pp. 86-99). BRILL.

[26] Nathan, A.J., 2017. China’s changing of the guard: Authoritarian resilience. Critical         Readings on the Communist Party of China (pp. 86-99). BRILL.

[27] Dalton, R.J. and McAllister, I., 2015. Random walk or planned excursion? Continuity and change in the left-right positions of political parties. Comparative Political Studies, 48(6), pp.759-787.

[28]  Bullard, M.R., 2019. China’s Political/military Evolution: The Party And The Military In The         Prc, 1960-1984. Routledge.