Democracies are never homogenous. Take the USA for example, who cannot handle free elections when pretty much what you do is to flip a coin between two candidates? How difficult it is to choose between George Bush and Al Gore? Things are pretty simple when it's pretty much a multiple choices with two options. Imagine hundreds of new parties selling ideas to the ignorant mass in China, and if a bad leader is chosen, China's economy will suffer a huge hit.
What does that BBC article in post #175 have to do with this thread? It's one thing to be ignorant, it's another to be a troll.
heh thats it for me tonight Deck, I already had dinner, and I don;t like herrings that much anyway I agree with you. Everyone should be allowed to have the freedom to say no to something. I do think it would be nice if my Chinese brethren did not have to worry aobut going to jail becuase of something they wrote. However, like I said, my cousin makes $30 USD a month, he's not worried about his freedom of speech insomuch as his right to eat. As for India, they're almost the equivalent of Taiwan in the 50's, with everyone rooting for them to "win" to justify that the West's way of thinking was better.
Guys (and gals), I just posted these articles (and could find many more, if I wanted to make the effort, which I don't) because I wanted to respond to the posting of articles critical of India, in response to posts about China where India was mentioned. Every country on Earth has problems of one kind or another, India having more than it's fair share, as does China, but the fact remains that being a democracy hasn't harmed India. In fact, it is leading to real changes in the class system, and a real economic boom. Regardless of what those defending the current system in China say, in my opinion there is no reason the country couldn't flourish with real political change, in one form or another, except for two things... the CCP and the CCP's brilliant bamboozling of the Chinese people by making them believe that because they have a 5,000 year history, and 1.3 billion people, they cannot handle real open political discourse and the resultant growth of political parties representing a host of issues. I have a higher opinion of the Chinese people. I think they can. D&D. Where in the World is Carmen San Diego??
You would know all about ignorance, wnes, but little of subtlety. I was making a series of posts in response to hotballa. I wanted to start off with one critical of India, to be fair, and I also found it mildly amusing. A troll would be that fellow looking back at you in the mirror. Now isn't that all grown up? D&D. Replicant Freeway.
Please cool down a little guys. None of what we type here really matters in reality. Sadly but truly, the earth keeps spinning without us. The reason I engage in this thread is I just think it's nice to help outsiders to understand China more.
Any country has to be better than itself 200 years ago. Many Indians believe the country has soft factors that China is lacking and hence will be superior to China in terms of economic growth one day. But in reality the gap between two countries are widening in favor of China by measurable data. Some Indian economists even argue that India is not ready for democracy and should instill a dictatorship government like China. This is not saying China has a wonderful system. By no mistake, it has a lot to improve. But you cannot simply attribute democracy to automatic well-being of a country. There are certain conditions have to be ready for a country to be democratic and posperious. Let's not bogged into the cold war mentality, i.e. good vs evil. It's not that black and white. I believe something might causing another in one circumstance doesnt neccessarily has the same result in another. Also say democracy is instilled in China tomorrow and everybody has a vote at hand but doesnt know what to do with it, is it a good thing? Ideally people should have a say in things that matter to their lives, and I greatly admire this country for just having that, but China is different. Hopefully China will be there one day, but it is a process just like it took western civilization thousands of years to arrive at democracy.
I don't think anyone of them is arguing that the Chinese people cannot do it. Of course they can. I believe they are saying that the Chinese people care more about economic well beings at this time and they are willing to put western style of democracy aside for the time being in exchange for fast improvement of living standards and economic growth. And they cited how much China is ahead of India economically to prove their point. As for the reason why? I do not know. Maybe centralized government is better suited for the current stage of economic growth in China? I believe the Chinese members can better answer this question. I think you guys (gals ) are arguing with each other but are arguing on two different topics.
First off, independent judicial system under CCP was like a fairy tale in 1989. It was not going to happen without overthrowing CCP. I know there were some talks from the top after 89, but that didnt go anywhere. I doubt many of those student even know what it means to have seperate judicial system in 89. Most Chinese people still dont today. Freer press. Common now. What did students have as bargaining power? Sat at Tianmen square, and they were canned at the end. Propaganda is the bread and butter for the CCP. The CCP bosses werent that liberal in 89. Things will change. The old farmer CCPer will die one day. New blood will come. It's going to be different. CCP realized Marx's communism wont work in China as it is, so there is Chinese way of going about it. Isnt that a revisionist's approach, which was unimaginable 30 years ago. So you see there is change already. Under the globalization and internet era, ideology wont be as important as it was before to China. The whole China is engaging in encomic betterment, and that's why I think the country is on the right track. Market and greed will change China.
If China were to be America 250 some years ago to chose which form government to have tommorrow, plus 1 billion people were to export to America, heck I would vote for democracy from ground up. China doesnt need lectures or sympathy. They are forms of arrogance. What China needs is empathy and understanding.
Indeed. Many Chinese do care about economic well being at this time more than freedom of speech and free elections. It's understandable considering that many of them live very tight lives by my standard. To them, economy development is the number one priority, everything else needs to take a backseat right now. It's not the only reason though. China is experiencing growth pains at grand scale right now. The vast social unfairness in wealth distribution, social problems of hundreds of millions of villagers flushing into cities and towns, the environmental pollution, economic sustainbility and high living expenses compared to income etc, are the various problems need to be taken care of. China cannot afford an large scale recession due to a selection of a bad leader or unstable political policies as a result of frequent change in government personel - growing pains that is common for new born democracies. It's inhumane to not being able to express ideas, it's more inhumane for people to not have food and shelter. Is it wise to parallel the economic growing pains with the political growing pains at the same time? or is it better to carry out them in different time frame? I would side with one at a step mentality. Trying to do too many things at one time results in doing nothing at all. History has shown that it is not wise to rush things. Things are easier to get caught up in between too many goals. Between 1789 - 1958, France has changed 5 republics and numerous cabinets. Russia lost out the majority of land after the collapse of USSR. India stalled for decades before it takes steps forward. The revolutions in France didn't build a strong democracy, trying to develop the economy as well as changing political system was bad for the USSR and India. These examples shows that evolution is better than revolution, singularity is better than parallelism. China's situation right nowis not just about normal economic growing pains mentioned above, the loss of national belief is inducisive to excessive political competition. The double faced role - Marxism outside, capitalism inside - of the leading party makes it vulnerable in a democratic environment, in which the rivals will attack this hypocrisy. The leaders of CCP must know the answer before China dive into a fundamental change, for it's a key issue that may collapse the party, and the collapse of the party will be inducive to the rise of a great numbers of new parties and agendas, the recipe to build a weak democracy in which numerous parties rise and fall while the continuity in personel and policies are lost. The economic problems will get tangled up with all these fluctuations which takes decades to settle down. I would like to see China make landmark changes in the political areas when capitalism is further developed that China is strong enough to endure to possible turbulences in the initial stage of new born democracies, and when the CCP is ready to transform itself into a new party that's able to stabilize and lead the way. The maturation of these two things are important for the quality of democray in China in my humble opinion. As a result, not having some of the civil rights now worths the wait for a better democracy and better economy in the future.
Or they could slowly introduce democracy, starting with the local level. Obviously, national level democracy comes only through a transition and not overnight. When introducing democracy, the country needs time to develop political parties, political systems, and experience. Those come with a slow introduction. For example, a great way to start would be to introduce elections for local councils and local officials. Even Saudi Arabia, a country well known for its monarchy, introduced local elections. It would be a great way for China to start without threatening the national CCP. To say that, in the future, we'll introduce democracy is to say we never will because tomorrow is always a day away. Local council elections would be a phenomenal way to start. Even Hong Kong to a certain extent proved that elections are viable in China. Introducing a local level of elections like Hong Kong to the rest of China would give the rest of the country experience with elections and their operations. You're absolutely right when you say democracy is a process and a long-term goal. It can't just be flipped on suddenly. But the process could start tomorrow. If countries like India can pull it off, then China can start the transition now.
Agreed. As dead as Marxism is, it still has fractions of supporters in China right now. They aren't real Marxists any more, for they do not really believe in a communistic utopia. However, they are nostalgic of the good ole days when they were factory workers, although poorer than now, guaranteed with jobs and food, and enjoyed high self esteem along with high social status. Workers and farmers were heralded as the backbone of the society back then. Now they find themselves, without particular skills, dwelling in slums and ghettos, searching for jobs and food, or becoming the working slaves of the "vicious capitalists". No future, no sense of security. As the ones who are left behind by the reform, they talk about the good ole Chairman Mao in respectful tones. Sure, I'm not saying that all the grass root citizens have the same sentiment, but I'm sure that some of them do. That's why China must keep going forward. Capitalism has yet to take complete control. A major recession might induce nostalgia among the poor for they will take the brunt of it. If that happens and they get a choose a leader, god knows what would happen.
You have suggested a good alternative, and China's leaders agree with you too. Elections already started in some of the villages. The villagers get to vote for the local leader. I recently read a story in which a local wealthy guy was elected as the head of a village, but gets tired of it since the poor villagers expect him to carry out his promise, paying out of his pocket to build roads and stuff, it was Ok until free stuff from him becomes an expectation. It'll take time to things to mesh, doesn't it?
Some very nice discussions in this thread, hopefully this is a new trend for the D&D. The debate here is in the means to a achieve a goal. Just like Republicans and Democrats have different idea on how to make USA better, and we know everyone here have their own ideas on what should be done on that subject too.
Deck, please don't pay any attention to the "we can't handle democracy" crowd. If I come off as sounding like part of that crowd by pointing out the regional rivalries, it wasn't intended to. I think most of the people here aren't arguing against it, just that the people of China don't really have it as a high priority because a lot of them are still working on basic things like eating. Inidia has flourished somewhat economically, but the article you posted and the article I posted shows that China has made much more significant economic strides. If people think a system is working for them, they're not going to clamor for changes anytime soon until they feel that the system is antiquated and needs a change, which obviously the students at Tiannanmen felt, but the farmers still don't.
Please, if you harbor a low opinion of the chinese capacity for self-advancement then yes, itthey would be a bunch of thrid world morons. Again, I fail to see why we should harbor such low expectations of chinese to be self determining. However considering that the communist regime started off with about 30 years of mismanagement and economic backwardness (that among other things, killed lots of people during failed experiments with collectivization) before adopting a more capitalist system (following the lead of the hated KMT losers who adapted it long beforehand) - I'm hard pressed to think that that chinese required an autocratic authoritarian police state to become modernized or hard working or whatever thngs you want to give the authoritarian regime credit for. Many other countries have been abe to modernize without one (or at the very least, with a regime that ultimately ceded power back to the people and returned accountability to government). Thus far in all the posts in this thread, people have failed to point out why Chinese are unable to be trusted with self-determination more so than anybody else. People cite history of wars and unrest - you can say this for any nation state anywhere in the world. As I've said before, the obstaclest hat china faces towards self government (with China being one of the world's oldest states) are completely undaunting and unconvincing. And wow - talk about a horrendous insult of a country - wow you just took a dump on 1 billion Indians (who happen to be experiencing phenomenal economic growth of their own despite handicaps far more daunting than the chinese face). WHile India certainly has its problems, I will tell you something interesting: whenever I walked into an internet cafe in China it was loaded with chain smoking kids playing coutner strike and world of warcraft - in India I saw people working on resumes and spreadsheets. So obviously they are doing something right. Because history has ultimately validated a functional, accountable, democracy that incorporates some form of franchise and self determination as a better form of government in almost every possible way - not jsut for its citizens but for its neighbors (yes, that is self interest on my part - but I believe a democratic china would be much better for gobal stability - look at in microcosm - which nation is better to have around, autocratic North Korea or democratic South Korea? easy question). That does not mean that it is perfect - as somebody said earlier it is the least bad form of government invented. In addition young democracies can be particularlly vulnerable. In any event it goes hand in hand with free market economics and supply and demand, and that's just the tip of the political phoilosophical iceberg - I don't realy see the need to go into the rest but if you want start at the Enlightenment and go from there. Anybody that would argue in the long run that in authoritarian regime devoid of rule of law and accountability is better simply just doesn't get it.
Let me add one final point to the "none of us chinese want democracy" crowd. Quite frequently over the last few years in China we have heard reports of underclasss/peasant demonstrations and unrest over corruption - most frequently in the area of party officials basically requisitioning their land and then apportioning it among their cronies to open factories and reaping obscene profits as a result. These protests are for a few things - namely accountability, transparenncy, and rule of law. Iin short these are protests for the concepts which are guiding, fundamental principles of democratic institutions that are effectively impossible and antithetical to an authoritarian regime.
But those are functionally caucuses, not real elections. And as you said, those are elections for positions with no real power. Local elections have to be sizeable enough to where polling stations would be necessary, to where election officials could get real training in running the logistics of the election, and to where the people get a real understanding of how the election process works. Those local village leader elections don't really cut it. Those village leader elections in many cases are just remnants of the collective system imposed by the government decades ago. Those elections were, in many cases, always there. And most importantly, new local elections must encompass districts with large separated groups of people. In the case of these current village head elections, the people running know everyone who is voting. It's not really a game of politics as it also is a game of popularity. Creating larger districts means that candidates wouldn't know everyone and would have to play politics. This would form the basis of new political parties that would hopefully be generated by the process of elections. The CCP has to give new local elections some real teeth and not create worthless caucuses that don't really do anything.
the fact that there is corruption in government has nothing to do with whether its democractic or not. India shows us that, hell our own gov't shows us that.
