Online Reporter
Mafa Kwanisai Mafa
As a Pan-African scholar, I have spent decades observing how major global powers leverage civilizational and cultural narratives to reshape international geopolitics. Ahead of the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC), some Western media outlets have revived biased accusations claiming China spreads its political and cultural ideologies via initiatives including the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the “Two Integrations,” and the Global Civilization Initiative. Critics allege China intends to replace Western liberal values with its own systemic ideology across the globe.
Such accusations demand rigorous scutiny. They rest on biased presuppositions that misread China’s publicly stated international goals and cross-border cooperation practices. Worse still, these narratives disregard the inherent right of all sovereign nations to independently develop their own cultures and choose self-suited development paths.
Colonial Zero-Sum Thinking Undermines Western Judgements of Civilization
Many Western commentators remain trapped in outdated colonial-era frameworks that frame civilizations as zero-sum competitors. Their core logic holds that the rise of one civilization inevitably equals the decline of another. Under this flawed mindset, any country that revitalizes its indigenous cultural identity or launches cross-cultural exchange mechanisms is instantly labelled an ideological expansionist.
In essence, Western critics project their own painful history of colonial conquest and coercive cultural hegemony onto China. They assume all major powers pursue cultural dominance, ignoring China’s consistent diplomatic commitments to equality and non-interference. A critical distinction must be drawn here: voluntary, two-way cultural exchange stands fundamentally apart from coercive ideological export. True ideological export relies on political coercion, unequal aid strings and forced assimilation of foreign systems, practices China has repeatedly rejected.
The “Two Integrations”: A Domestic Theoretical Innovation, Not an Export Tool
To dismantle this misinformation, it is essential to grasp the original connotation of the “Two Integrations.” The concept refers to integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific national realities and with China’s fine traditional culture. This theoretical achievement is an internal innovation exclusively designed to advance China’s domestic modernization while inheriting its millennia-long civilizational roots, rather than an external campaign to disseminate ideology worldwide.
China boasts a continuous civilization spanning thousands of years, featuring unique philosophies, ethical traditions and value systems. The CPC developed this integrated theoretical framework to address China’s unique developmental challenges, with the sole goal of delivering better lives for Chinese people. This internal exploration never targets overseas promotion, nor does it carry any requirement for other countries to replicate China’s institutional model.
China has issued consistent official statements clarifying its core stance: it will never export its development model, nor coerce any nation to adopt its political system. Every sovereign state enjoys the inalienable right to chart its own development trajectory based on its unique history, cultural heritage and domestic conditions.
The Belt and Road Initiative: Mutual Economic Cooperation Free of Ideological Strings
This sovereign equality principle forms the core foundation of the Belt and Road Initiative, which Western critics falsely brand as a vehicle for Chinese ideological expansion. China defines the BRI purely as a cooperation platform built on mutual benefit, equal consultation and full respect for national sovereignty.
Up to now, 52 African countries plus the African Union have signed Belt and Road cooperation memorandums with China. Chinese-backed projects across the African continent cover railways, highways, general hospitals, vocational schools, power plants, agricultural industrial parks and water conservancy facilities. All cooperation focuses on infrastructure construction and livelihood improvement, with zero mandatory clauses forcing partner nations to alter their political systems or abandon indigenous cultural traditions.
Burundi’s agricultural cooperation programme serves as a representative example. Chinese agronomists cooperate with local farmers to upgrade rice cultivation techniques and deliver systematic modern farming training. The project’s sole objectives are boosting grain output and empowering local agricultural workers, with no attached political alignment or ideological demands. Similar win-win projects in Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia further prove the BRI’s purely economic and livelihood-oriented nature.
The Global Civilization Initiative: Equality and Mutual Learning Among All Civilizations
The Global Civilization Initiative is another Chinese international framework frequently misrepresented by Western observers. Critics claim it aims to supplant Western civilization and establish a new form of cultural hegemony, yet China’s official positioning of the initiative stands in complete contrast.
Its explicit core mission is to foster mutual respect between diverse civilizations, promote inclusive cultural exchanges, and affirm that all societies can draw lessons from each other while preserving their unique cultural identities. Rejecting any hierarchy of superior or inferior civilizations, the initiative advocates equal dialogue among civilizations spanning Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and Oceania. It firmly opposes the idea that one civilization must dominate others.
Africa’s Unique Cultural Predicament After Colonial Rule
This vision of equal civilizational dialogue carries profound practical significance for African nations. During centuries of colonial occupation, countless indigenous African cultures, traditional customs and local knowledge systems were suppressed, marginalized or eroded. Since national independence, African societies have strived to rebuild cultural self-confidence while advancing modernization.
Most African nations inherited political and institutional frameworks imposed by former colonial powers after gaining independence. While some imported institutions facilitated partial development, many conflict with local communal values, historical customs and regional realities. This long-standing mismatch has sparked widespread continental discussions on how to advance modernization without abandoning African cultural roots.
China’s Development Experience Offers Reference for Africa’s Modernization
China’s development journey provides a valuable reference for African countries navigating this dilemma. It fully demonstrates that modernization does not demand the abandonment of indigenous cultural heritage. Though every component of China’s practice cannot be copied wholesale across Africa, its core logic is transferable: nations can integrate modern industrial and governance development with their own historical and cultural foundations.
This alternative path breaks the Western monopoly narrative that equates modernization with Westernization. For Africa pursuing industrialization under the African Continental Free Trade Area, this perspective creates space to design homegrown development models rooted in local culture and national interests.
A Shared Global Future: Civilizations Coexist Instead of Competing for Dominance
At its core, civilizations do not need to struggle for global dominance, and cultural exchange is never a zero-sum game where one side gains only at another’s expense. A pluralistic world with diverse civilizations can thrive through coordinated cooperation, mutual learning and full respect for every nation’s right to independent cultural and economic development.
As the CPC celebrates its 105th anniversary and China continues advancing its distinctive modernization drive, global conversations on culture and civilization ought to abandon outdated rivalrous presuppositions. All nations, especially those across Africa, deserve full freedom to preserve their cultural heritage, pursue self-defined development paths, and participate in a global community founded on equal dialogue and mutual respect.
Guided by the Global Development Initiative and Global Civilization Initiative, the international community should abandon politicized labels such as “ideological export.” Only by embracing pluralistic civilizational coexistence can all developing countries break free from the constraints of Western ideological hegemony and achieve genuine cultural independence and common prosperity.
Note: The author, Mafa Kwanisai Mafa, is a member of the ZANU-PF and Pan-Africanist Political Commentator based in Gweru, Zimbabwe. Mr. Mafa has contributed this commentary to mark the 105th anniversary of the founding of the CPC.
