This argument isquite lame. Of course there is corruption in our government - the reason why you know about it is that we have a system of controls which both deter and root it out. (where is scoooter libby headed in next month? One guess ). Simply because its not perfect (and it is by no means perfect or close to it) is no reason to denigrate it. If all laws were perfect then there would be no need for police, or courts, or regulatory bodies at all. It's an indisputable that a state that is functionally (ad not just nominally) democratic, transparent institutions that are able to implement a substantial degree of rule of law are, on the whole, much more stable and much less prone to the kind of corruption illustrated in my china example. One need only look at Transparency international's corruption index. The list of least corrupt nations in the world is dominated by mature western democracies. (interestingly, including hong kong which on the local level implements a lot of democratic rule of law principles). Now, you will no doubt find democracies that rank lower down (Mexico, India, and CHina all have mediocre rankings) - but one thing that you will most definiely NOT find is an autocratic authoritarian regime that ranks highly. The only semi-autocratic states that even come close to the elite ranks are small city-states/confederations like Qatar or Bahrain - which barely crack the top 40. The highest ranking large autocratic state is probably China and Saudi Arabia - tied for 70th. If you look at the very bottom ranks, it is littered with corrupt dictatorships or military regimes, like Myanmar, formerly Nigeria, Turkmenistan, or failed states like Iraq and Sudan.
Your argument was specifically that people want a democracy because of the corruption of the CCP, and that by implication a democracy will solve those issues. I merely addressed it. And let's try to keep the snide remarks to a minimum ok? You're allotted one snide remark per thread, and you've used it up quite a while back already the same list shows India (the country that everyone points to as how Democracy can work in a large scale heavily regionalized country) as having the same corruption index as China, a country that has a hell of a lot more foreign money coming through it, and logically many more opportunites for kickbacks, bribes, etc. The list you refer to doesn't really bolster your argument about corruption in the CCP when you see the same results happening in the model jewel of large democracies. Listen I support part of your view that China and every country in the world should allow their citizens to be able to say no to something without worrying about being hauled off in the middle of the night. I simply disagree with your insistence that it happen right now according to Western standards, and that if it doesn't happen like that, then the Chinese have been fooled into docility by their CCP masters. I find the tone patronizing at best, and condescending at worst, though I don't think you mean any harm by it insomuch as your desire to see people live freely.
China wasn't ready for democracy back then. It happened to early. But it also goes to show that the U.S. can serve as a positive influence, but only if we keep a foreign policy that captures our ideals. I think we all know now that trying to actively promote democracy through pressure is a mistake. First vietnam, and then Iraq, not to mention numerous other failed experiments. To me, it seems that the number one driver of democracy is economics. There's a reason why the richest nations in the world are democracies. And China wants to be rich. Democracy is also a grass-roots efforts. It will happen for China, but not overnight - in fact, it seems it is already happening. They will be fine.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. When people are poor and suffering, they will almost always turn to a autocractic government, e.g. post WWI Germany, post cold war Russia. Once their bellies are filled and they have a roof over their head, then they will start clamoring for the freedom to say no. I mean, who is serisouly going to goto a farmer in China who makes $200 USD a year with 2 kids and tell him that he should start complaining about the fact that the newspaper doesn't show a balanced view of the world. Do you think he really cares?
Very well said. The richer the standard of living for an average citizen, the better equiped that country is for democracy.
Nobody said India was the model jewel of large democracies - in fact if you examine my posts in this thread I've repeatedly acknowledged otherwise. The point of bringing India in (historiclaly India is almost the anti-china in terms of demographics and unity) is to illustrate the complete idiocy of the arguemtn that China is too inherently divided, too segmented, too poor to have a functional democaracy. I've said it enough times to where it needs no further explanation. Second - I expressly acknowledged that democracy is no guarnateed path to a corruption-free utopia. Rather I took great pains to point out that as a whole, the functional democracies finish substantially better than the autocracies, which at best can hope for mediocrity, but frequently bring up the rear with the failed states. Again, there is no room for accusing somebody of patronizing when the "we aren't ready!" crowd is in the room. It's practically like hanging a "patronize me" sign on your back. It's espeically hilarious that Expat chinese posting in this thread who live in the US (who apparently conside THEMSELVES ready for democracy and rights given their choice of residence) inform us how their country cousins can't be trusted with the reins of self-determination. "not ready yet" is a classic excuse that autocratic states use to hold onto power, and it is a refrain that you will hear in perpetuity as long as they around. I don't see how any group of people, no matter what their level of edcation, can be deemed "not ready"for things like rule of law, transparency,and accountability. Rural chinese seem to understand it very well.
What freedoms do Chinese people lack that we have in America. I must admit I'm pretty ignorant to how life is in China. What aspects of life does the government control. does it control where you live, what kind of work you do?
For the most part, no to those questions, if you can find a job you can move. You can not go around screaming "down with CCP! free China" LOL.
In terms of size and regionalization as well as history, India is really the only model we have to look to when discussing what will happen once CHina has open elections. You can't just pick and choose which aspects of Indian democracy you like and use it for your argument. Again, which democracy most closely mirrors the makeup of China and India? I know you don't think what works for Finland will work for India and China. The logical place to look for what will happen with corruption in a democracy is to look at India. you're right, you weren't patronizing, you were being condescending. Again, I think that comes out of your desire to see people living what you think is freely. The visual that comes to mind is the Simpsons episode where the ants finally get released form their ant farm while in space. I think the cry was "freedom...terrible freedom". When you tell people you know better than them how to live and what they should do, it's going to come off as condescending. I come from a farm in China and have gone back and visited 3 times and still talk to my relatives. Farmers make $20USD a month by basically selling their stuff to the government. My grandmother is 90. She didn't even have a decent wok to cook food in till the 70's. I can tell you right now, none of them care about having the right to say "down with the CCP".
Thanks for the great reply. Believe me, I understand why a lot of people with concern for China would be afraid of too much political change too fast. My point is that it is in the CCP's interest to promote that idea among the Chinese people, and the expatriates that hold China close to their hearts. And I think they are doing a brilliant job. Not only that, but where it simply isn't working, they are ruthless in squashing what could become a nascent form of open political discourse and rule by the people through elections. Time and time again, history has shown that when you suppress the desire of the people to have a way to influence their own lives and choose their own leaders without fear of suppression, or worse, you drive that desire underground, where it festers. And if true change doesn't occur that allows open political discourse, and friends and relatives end up in jail, or worse, because they attempted to express their desires for political equity, political fairness, an end to censorship, a free media, and a government that responds to the will of the people to address corruption, favoritism, nepotism... free public discourse in a host of arenas, be it the village council trying to address a local party official wanting their land, held for generations, because that official and his cronies can making a buck if they toss them out, or stepping one a small businessman trying to run an internet cafe, because he attempts to allow his customers to simply surf the web, as we do here, and doesn't follow the censorship imposed from above, or if it is the suppression of the right of students to express themselves through peaceful discourse and peaceful demonstrations, or the suppression of working men and women to demonstrate for better working conditions and equity in the workplace, as well as a host of other examples (I'm sure I've listed too many here... the sentence is getting rather long!), then not only is a great disservice done to the people, not only are their rights as free individuals curtailed "for the good of the people," an age old excuse used throughout history to maintain authoritarian rule... not only do those things occur, but those hopes, desires, a longing for equity, a fair shake, and a true voice in the political process are driven underground, there to fester and grow, ultimately becoming more of a danger to the State, in my opinion, than allowing the people to have the freedom to do those things. When one looks at the governments perfidy with regard to Hong Kong, why should the Chinese people, or those of Taiwan, always a contentious issue and a nation of people that not only the current Chinese government, but the Chinese people in general desire to renew political ties with the mainland... why should the Chinese people believe their own government? Why should they think change is going to come, beyond economic change, just because the CCP says it will, someday, perhaps, maybe? The CCP says whatever it thinks is needed to defuse what they see as a potential political problem for them, and couch their actions to suppress that "problem" without regard for their own promises. They have done that with Hong Kong, they are doing it in China, and it is to maintain power. Not because of a 5,000 year history, not because of the 1.3 billion people. That is propaganda used to justify their repressive actions. Just like our own government has used fear to win elections, the CCP uses fear to suppress the Chinese people. The difference here is that we can vote Bush and his party out of office (sadly, sometimes it takes awhile for the American people to "get it"), once it has sunk in that his government and his political party leadership and foreign and domestic policies were a disaster. We are lied to in America, brother, and in our system, there is a heavy burden on the voters to actually vote and to educate themselves about what is really happening with their government, and whether they should vote to change course. So we vote them out of office and change course, if needed, peacefully. I'm certainly not saying China should have a system just like ours, but I am saying that I believe the Chinese people have just as much ability to have an open political system, answering to the collective will of the people. To say they don't, in my opinion, is doing exactly what the CCP wants the Chinese people to do. Not because they cannot, but because the CCP believes they cannot keep their grip on power, if they allow it. And think about that statement. If they allow it. It speaks volumes. I'd add that this is debate and discussion. We are all just flickering in the ether. D&D. Replicant Voter.
Didn't know you came from a farm in China. That is very interesting. I agree with you. I don't think the vast majority of Chinese people really care about democracy. I do think that China's leaders considered Gorbachev a fool and are moreso following South Korea and Taiwan's model of economic development first and foremost - with democrary perhaps later down the road. I'm curious if there are elections of any sort in China - like on the local village level. Or does the CCP appoint all local magistrates, aldermans, etc. THX!
If that is what you feel than you need to go back and re-read indian and chinese history - the two could not be further apart. India didn't even exist as a political entity until 50 years ago, while China is probably the world's oldest nation-state existing in some form for millenia. India is the most diverse and fractious places on earth - China is one of the most utterly homogenous and unified places on earth - how do you think the CCP is able to maintain control for so long? I've said it many times, and I will say it one last time: the amount of obstacles facing democracy in India are thousands and thousands of times more substantial. Finland - let's see, socialist economic background, 92% Finno-Uguric & Finnish speaking, techinically Lutheran but practically secular. Egalitarian without much class separation. Representative democracy arranged around socialst welfare state. China 92% Han, one official language, highly centralized state, comparatively tiny role of religion, officially atheist, has espoused communist war on class distinctions for decasdes. Granted, I understand China has minorities but they are a small part of the populace and largely exist on the geographic and cultural periphery. India - 100 official languages, 1000 unofficial ones and dialects, 50 something states, 5-10 major religions, constatntly at each others throats (Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, Parsis, Christians -just to name a wfew. Each of which has warring sects within themselves; two major, constantly warring ethnic groups (Dravidians and Aryans), the single most rigorously segmented and stratified class system in the history of mankind. , federal system with lots of autonomy devolve onto local governments, due to lack of existence as independent state and only as collection of thousands of fractious feudal kingdoms for most of its history. This is an easy question - Finland is a lot more like China in a lot of ways. Other tha being both huge, in the eastern hemisphere, and third world - that is where the similarities end. In fact I'd argue that the US is a lot more similar to India than China. I spent one month in China in 2005, followed immediately by two months in India - I cannot stress to you how profoundly different the two places are culturally - it is literally night and day Which exactly what you're doing, that's why I'm arguing for SELF-DETERMINATION. I'm not arguing how people should live, I'm arguing they should decide how they live. Now the silly answer to this is "well they decided it back when the communists party won the revolution! blahahahaha!" but that is idiotic and I don't need to address that.
I share the same opinion. economics will run its course. if China is, as you claim, so homogenous and unified, (by innuendo)easy to "control", how do you think the CCP's predesessor lost control of China in the first place?
That's one of the few very interesting things I've read in this thread. While we parcel out political power to the majority, as a general rule, our own constitutional system is designed to protect minorities from the ''tyranny of the majority" - perhaps there's a cultural aversion to protecting minorities in a cplace where conformity and rigidity are more highly valued. I think this question can be divorced, however, from the question as to whichform of government is better. Many of the same reasons that made it easy to control from within made it easy to control from outside. One need look no further than the Yuan dynasty, when Kubla Khan came from Mongolia and effectively stepped right into the shoes of the emperor and exercised the central government apparatus to wield power. Look at this very thread - we have people voluntarily asserting that they should continue to be dominated by a bunch of autocrats over whom they have no oversight whatsoever.
I was visting my sister in New York one year and in the New York Times on a Sunday I was there, they did a special on what draws foreigners to America. They started out with the idea that America is different from any other great civilization in the history of the world because people are drawn here. Where as other empires in the history of the world took over other lands and forced other people to become a part of them, America draws people here. The point I'm getting to is that I think the majority of China will have to see beyond the benifit of self rule for democracy to be benificial. It has to look at the culture that has developed in America because of freedom. The freedom to own your own business, which in turn drives technology, the benifit of building a better mouse trap so to speak. I don't know much about China but it does seem to be a country where conformity seems to be an inherent value of the majority where as in America, we at least claim to value individualism almost above anything else. This in turn drives the support for democracy. China is a unique civiliztion because not only is it homogenous, it has been homogenous for thousands of years. There is no other place in the world that has developed like it.
Chinese does want democracy but they are simply not ready for it. (atleast not in the next 30 years) Let me tell you an actual story here in Vancouver Canada. I live in a condominium where there are over 250+ units. And majority of the owners are middle-age to elderly chinese and every years, we would "vote" on many things to maintain the building. When something isn't going as they might have hoped, during meeting there will be "fight" (we have to get the cops sometimes) or just recklessly yelling for change. When we vote for certain things, practically none of them have a single clue whats going on or what are we "voting" for. I remember every single times there will be a large group of elderly chinese asking "should I vote Yes? or No?" or "What did you vote?", but never ask "what am I voting for?" Then there is this one time during our city election for council or something. Me and my dads where eating in a chinese seafood restaurant during a weekend at china town. And I overheard some of these middle age chinese guy talking about the election. I forgot the detail but it went something like this, "just vote the chinese guy, as long as he's chinese thats good enought, more chinese guy getting elected the better." The above 2 example relect the typical elderly chinese. I'm not sure if I want these kinda people voting. The fact that majority of the chinese population are uneducated, democracy will not work. If china somehow become a democratic country today I wouldn't be surprise to see nuclear bombs raining over Taiwan tomorrow. I mean, in Taiwan you constantly see actual politician fighting on TV, now Imagine what you would see in China........ <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a_-Eigd7RbU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a_-Eigd7RbU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pnR-BAhA2WE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pnR-BAhA2WE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
On a superficial level, China and India appear very different, but they are in fact numerous similarities that aren't often mentioned. Values wise, both nations are very similar. Both are agricultural societies transitioning to industrialization. Both have population issues. Both have a complex about the yoke of colonization. Both are influenced by British customs more then any other foreign country in the modern era. Both began the 1940's as improverished nations Both have values based on a strong interconnected family Both share an eastern perspective in thinking, in fact China's culture has borrwed a great deal from India through the spead of Buddhism. Both are non-individualistic countries Both are made up of diverse people - and in fact are not homogenous The key differences are social tiering to be honest. Just like India, China was made up of waring kingdoms that waxed and wanned. India has only been called India for 50 years, but before that Bharat (the proper name of South Asia) has operated as a set of kingdoms for 1000's of years. At times united under larger empires, and at other times fractured. The British created india only in it's modern sense. I would say that India has struggled greatly with Democracy, and there are many who believe, including myself, that democracy was not the best for the nation in it's early years. In fact, I don't think India was a true democracy until the 90's. One party controled the country for decades, and it was a very socialist oriented one. Not that India's rising power has been accompanied by far more active changes in the rulling power. In the last 10 years there has been 3 prime ministers. In the first 40 years there was 2 - Nehru and his daughter. Anyway, it's not as simple as it's being painted here. I think for India, economic reform is spurring true democratic principles, not the other way around. People forget that the U.S. was born not out of a starving and poor entity, but was fairly well off to begin with. Democracy may indeed be the gov't for the wealthy. I have my doubts whether it's right for a poor nation. It may be why it fails in places like Haiti and Iraq, and may not work in Palestine just yet.
What works in America might not work in other parts of the world. Examples are plenty. In fact name some countries that rise from poverty because of democracy or freedom? I can only think of South Korea and Taiwan being recently coverveted to democracy and relatively posperious by western standards. But these two had authoritorian government and economic sucess before democracy. Democracy was hard won by several generations of struggle in these two countries. And they are tiny countries compared to China. They are actually good models for China in that how economic success can bring about democracy. This country is very proud of its democratical values and tradition, and sometimes whole-heartedly want to spread them to the rest of the world. But good intentions are often mixed with it national interest and often simplified with simple logic and terms, such as we are the beacon of the freedom. A lot of people will lost their jobs in washington if they are asked to change their cold war mentalities. To me it's same dumb as the Communist's countries once bevlieved they are to save the rest of the wrold from the evil of capitalism.
