Really? Then how come, India, "the largest democracy in the world", has the same corruption perception index as China in 2006? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
18 years already, that long ago? Looking back, I think the movement could have achieved more and it was failing romance more than a rebellion. But most importantly, it was an outcry from the people, an explosion against communist's opperrsion in all facets of life over 40 years. Sadly, the ruler took the better end of the movement, learned lesson. As for democracy in China, i wonder where those students are today?
The students didnt have a plan. There werent any realistic goals. And who knows more about student movement better than CCP, a party founded by many participated in the May.4th movement. The crack down was ruthless. It was like boom-boom, all out media propanganda charactrizing it as an civil-unrest. Smart moves on the CCP part. The students were out-manuvered.
This question is as relevant as "do you think if Jesus Christ hadn't left earth after he came back to life, we would have been in living in a world of eternal bliss, free from hunger, disease and wars"? There was no real alternative political party in 1989, just like there isn't one now. 1989 was a great chance for the protesters to ask for an independent judicial system and more a freer press and many other things that would have made a practical difference. Instead, the student protesters didn't have a clue what they really wanted, and the vast majority of them were caught up in the frenzy of months of total lawlessness. If you read the transcripts of the interviews between the student leaders and the premier of China at the time, you will not find any concrete and meaningful demands. The protests were far from peaceful, it was like the 1992 the LA race riot in every major Chinese city. China was shut down for months -- schools were shut down, markets were closed, students from all over the country were taking free train rides to Beijing to join the protest and do some sightseeing, there were buses burning on the streets and looting in the shops, but the police were nowhere to be seen as even they had no idea what to do and who was in charge, most people just stayed at home and watched the protests on TV. The entire sequence of events were also rather confusing, it started when a former leader died, then many students went to the streets to commemorate him, a few days later, the government asked the students to go back to study, the students refused and demanded an end to corruption, when the government agreed to tackle corruption and again asked the students to go back to study, the students again refused and demanded for democracy. For rich people in the west, the demand for democracy might have been a romantic necessity, but in 1989's China where the lives of more than 1 billion people were just starting to get back to normal after 10 years of culture revolution (which was basically TAM protests for 10+ years), another revolution for a democratic political system -- which the vast majority of the population had almost no understanding of, was just too much and too irrelevant. China has always been an agricultural country and it still was in 1989. All the important Chinese revolutions start from the rural population, and no revolution without the rural population's support have succeeded. For the last 2000 years, there has been only 1 peasant revolution that succeeded, and that was the communist revolution. The 1989 students foolishly started a misguided ill-prepared and ill-advised revolution in a country against a ruling power that had arguably some of the greatest masters of grass root revolution. It was no wonder that they came to a tragic end.
Typical CCP apologists with craps like you don't understand chinese culture blah blah blah. Don't speak for me (yes, I am Chinese), with people like you and WNES, freedom will never come.
Well, even if the "kids" had asked for these things, the grown-ups wouldnt have allowed it. It's not about that.They did ask o stop corruption and believe or not they asked to enforce more strictly one-kid policy. The movement was like a buffet of letting out frustration against the reality and as well as the past(culture revolution). It was limited in its goals and hence destined to nowhere. Also the movement was caught up in the midst of power stuggle among factions inside CCP. Well, albeit the ad-hoc approach, it's still commendable that students standing up against the totalrian government asking for improvements.
You cannot say that as the "kids" never asked for such things. There were 9 televised negotiations, surely there would have been enough opportunities to think about what they wanted? The devil is in the details, they could have asked to the government to transform China into a superpower in the next hour, but that wasn't really practical, was it? How could the government convince the students that they would keep their promises if they didn't know what promises to make? Similarly, how could the students have been satisfied with their demands, if they didn't know what exactly they wanted to demand? I was under the impression that the government was willing to make lots of compromises before the crack down, unfortunately, the students missed that opening. The struggle was out of CCP's control a long time ago before the crackdown. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
There is freedom with limits. Stability was and is important. You dont want a country caught up in fighting for ideologies. It took CCP blood to gain power and unless there people willing to do the same(maybe you?), CCP wouldnt give up its power. Changes will come gradually and it's started already. Radical movements will only degrade China and I dont see anybody has that kind of guts fighting for its ideology like the CCP did. Lets all look forward. The country is not at juncture that policticaly nessary to change for progress.
I will say these things, the June 4th situation definitely was not one of China's better moments. That said, I think what's in a lot more of Chinese people minds was the cultural revolution, which I think to most educated middle class Chinese was a MUCH bigger situation. You have to remember that chaos started with "progressive ideas" from young people and that was the a major force behind it. China needed stabillity in the worst way at that time, and I don't think anyone wanted a cultural revolution part II. Like another poster stated, it wasn't like there wasn't some power confrontation within the political ranks and that some of the movement wasn't driven in the back ground by part of the political wing. I will give the same response as some of the recent U.S. adminastrations acts. Debatebable action with bad excecution.
Those werent really negotiations really. It was really publicity concern for the CCP to listen to them. Again, there were factions inside CCP wanting to sesize this opptunity for its political gain. It was a complicate matter in the begining. Plus, Gorbachev was visiting Beijing, all eyes were on China... The grown-ups just played along nicely. The improvemts the students asked for, not doubt in my mind, would never be accpeted by the CCP no matter what, let along independent judical system, it's like asking earth obiting moon. The CCP wasnt going to act upon bunch of kids complaints. What the CCP is? Again, it was just playing along nicely in the begining. The historical contigency didnt allow for those things to happen. It took blood to change China radically, and it would take blood to change it again that way.
You are probably true, I don't see any people stand a chance to overthrow CCP even if we are willing to spill our blood (not to mention it seems like many chinese are very supportive of CCP). BUT I don't agree that China is moving towards more freedom and democracy. Too many examples to prove it otherwise. And the one word I hate most is stability. Anytime when some guy/group disagrees with the chinese government, some politicians will jump out and say stability is the most important thing, let's keep our focus on economics. I am still angered by 馬力's speech. Anyway, it's just a rant, it's all talk and I can't do much to improve the situation.
The Chinese aren't living an easy life despite China has a shipload of money to spend. The living expenses aren't cheap here. In a remote big city in Southwest China, one squre feet of new real estate in the center of city costs as high as 70 dollars already, in big cosmopolitan cities like Shenzhen it costs as high as 200 dollars per square feet. To put things in perspective, one average office worker in Shenzhen makes about 400 dollars a month. If such a person decides to get hard on himself and save 200 dollars a month, well, he can buy an apartment of 1000 sq/ft in exactly 1000 months, that is about 83 years. If he decides to buy a house on bank loans, the time will prolong as interests will double payment. That's why it's the dumbest thing to buy real estate by bank loans, many young couples have become what we call "house slaves" facing anxiety over losing one's job, little recreational activities(they cost money don't they?), and lowered living standard. One can lower the standard and buy an apartment at lesser locations, the gap between the price and income is still great. Many Chinese young men worry about getting married because if they get hard on themselves to save money in preparation for marriage, it'll take a long long time and meanwhile, they wouldn't have money to date girls or have fun with friends. On the other hand, if they don't get hard on themselves and own something, they don't know who would want to marry them - nowadays the materialistic girls are in abundance. The hospitals here in China has developed a rep as vampires, part of the corruption circle that is connected with medicine manufacturers and government, no wonder, the head of China's department of Medicine Supervision(rough translation) has just been sentenced to death for reported corruption of 1 million USD - while pretty much everyone know the actual amount is higher than that. The government owned companies like China telecom charges like China is a developed country. Anyway, it's not easy living in China, forget about democracy, people are busy keeping up with the pace of others. With democracy people faces more uncertainty, for example, will the CCP crumble and if so, who will take charge? The Amercans have two parties in place, China has one, one that doesn't have idealogical advantage anymore, one whose own faith is already crumbling under the weight of modern capitalism, commonly and shrewdly called "socialistic market economy". Once democracy is in place and floodgate is opened, there would be major vacuum of faith and hundreds of parties on different agendas and motives will spring out in China, there's no doubt about that. Chinese now are worrying about making ends meet,find jobs, or feeling financial security, it's unrealistic to expect them to want to face the uncertainty of another major idealogical power stuggle in China's history. What the government is doing is to delay everything until a clear direction is manifested within the society, it's not hard to be democratic, the hard question is, after democritization, then what?
Rome is not built in one day. Often objectivity is lost in the media propapganda, ironically both from democarcies and totalrians, about China. If you read papers here, you think, boy, this China is one dark country, master evil, child labor abuser, jesus hating... Of course, you read paper in China, there are plenty of examples the country is enjoying never before the freedom and so called socialist's democracy. Well, me think the reality stands in the middle. While there are human rights problems, dictator-ship type of control, we have to admit the country has moved forward in lot of areas unimaginable under Mao's control. There are certain things Chinese can talk about, and government even willing to listen. Just be patient, the old rigid, marxist, lennist farmer CCPers will be history one day. The future can only be better.
You are entitled to your opinion. The same as I do. I feel China has definitely improved. For one thing, I wouldn't be here typing about the death of state belief now if it's back in 1989. Nowadays a Chinese can type everything on internet including scolding Chairman Mao(I've seen plenty of it on websites and those sites are still there), except on well known key issues that is regarded as against key national interests at present.
The key about China is how, not what. There is this one harvard economist experimenting in west rural China the kind of elective health system similar as the one in US, that farmers can VOTE for which physicians to be included in the network. The government allows that kind of system and happy to see its success. Now if the congress lecture China on yet another human right's problem, China is even lazy to hear about it. Just tell it how to improve it.
The infighting was over before the negotiations though. It sure was complicated, but which side actually was under more pressure, who had the upper hand during the negotiations? On one hand, the students were up in a frenzy and didn't care about anything. On the other hand, the government had to make sure they didn't lose power and face, and didn't let the society degrade into anarchy. One could argue that the government was on the defensive in the whole thing until the only two options left were giving in to the students, or breaking the students. Surely, the students could have played their cards better if they had known what they were doing. Again, you cannot say that because the right demands were never made. They could have just said two things: (1) We want a court system that does not answer to the central government. (2) We want a court system not controlled by members of the communist party. The best that could be hoped for from these two demands is for the government to agree to them. If the government had agreed and kept to their words, then that would have had huge benefits to China; if the government had agreed but then later retracted their words, they would have lost their credibility. If the government had said outright no, then it would put the government into negative lights for refusing a reasonable demand and anger more ordinary citizens to broaden the protest. If the government had given an ambiguous answer, then the students could have kept pressing the same demands, and the more government delays it, the more credibility it loses, and more ordinary people will join the protest. Instead, the students had ambiguous and vague demands -- to which the government was more than happy to give ambiguous and meaningless answers. Politics and power struggle is not a binary process, I'm sure the CCP was willing to make some compromises, and I think it would have been much better to take these compromises and stop the protests, than going to the bitter and fruitless end. If the CCP had always wanted to use violence to suppress the protests, they would have done so when the protests were in their early stages. It takes a lot more than just blood to change a regime, not just in China, but in most countries, just look at all the failed revolutions.
I agree that is a good point. The difference is though there is an ultimate peaceful check on the government in form of the vote and the Indians showed that when one party, the Congress Party, got too corrupt and ineffectual it was voted out of office even though it had ruled India since independence. Since then Indian governments have still had corruption problems but the ultimate check of the people is still in place if they choose to act on it. The problem with a lack of democracy is that there is no guarentee by the people that a ruling party won't engage in corruption. To the CCP's credit they've taken upon themselves to address corruption but that is only as good as you trust the CCP to do so. For a citizen of the PRC though there is no power of the people short of violent revolution to hold the CCP accountable if they are corrupt or ineffectual.
Interesting discussion so far even though I've only had a chance to skim the responses. I don't completely disagree with this view but I think its too extreme. I also have to agree that there may be something in societies that are heavily influenced by Confucian thought regarding tolerating benevolent dictatorships. The Asian country I understand the best is Singapore and in many ways it is a microcosm of what has been going on in the PRC. Singapore historically has had ethnic strife and 50 years ago was even poorer than Burma and the Phillipines. The PAP party of the Lee Kuan Yew has had the attitude that it is right for them to wield overwhelming power and supress dissent because they've delivered results. Lee Kuan Yew in his speeches frequently cites the material and economic prosperity of Singapore when he has been criticized for things like supressing speech and manipulating the justice system to hound political opponents. Its one thing to maintain a benevolent dictatorship over a city state of 3 million and another over a country the size of China. Personally I don't know whether the PRC could've had democracy in 1989 but I believe that they can have it and it would be in the interest of the PRC to democratize. If Taiwan and South Korea can democratize and still maintain economic development disproves the tie between continued development and single party dominance.
I don't think when some posters said that China can't have democracy now, they believe that Chinese people are inapt to enjoy democracy, just the reality doesn't allow that to happen now. China is still a one-party ruling country, after a couple of thousand years of emperor-ruling. Although none of the party leaders buys in communism, they still claim so to hold onto their power. The ruling class will try everything to keep their monopoly as long as possible, instead of giving it away freely. They know corruption might destroy them eventually, and they want to and try to fight corruption, but they just can't. The one-party ruling, without check and balance, system, can't deal with corruption with corrupted officials. The only problem is, Chinese people don't have any alternatives, they don't have comparison to a relatively better party or political group to support. That's why Chinese government take any organized groups seriously, be it religiously or politically interested, they see that as a potential threat to their ruling. Does that mean that China can never enjoy democracy, since CCP won't give up power voluntarily? No, I am not that pessimistic. Comparing to 18 years ago, general public are more clear about what they want, be it own house, better paying money, pretty women, or more power. That's clearly what they want, as individuals. It's no longer some slogans fed by others about "liberating 2/3 of people in the world" or "fighting against this or that class". With better economy, internet, and more communication with outside of the world, people know more about the world, and they think more. It's still one-party ruling, but people are enjoying more economic freedom and more freedom of speech. Is that enough? No, not at all. But it's a gradual and certain process. As many posters pointed out, enough food and stable life are still the highest priority for many Chinese farmers. However, I am confident when the people are ready to voice for themselves, 1 billion voices can turn things around, without violence or outside power. That's how democracy should be achieved. Democracy imposed from outside, or achieved by violent revolution, can never sustain, because that's no democracy any more. Democracy should be people's choice. Just my 2 cents.
