You are right in pointing out the way to foster the constituents - parties, rules, culture - that form the mechanism of a democracy. I don't know how you get the idea that the village election is just a gimmick,though. Yes, it doesn't really spawn new parties, but despite having some pratical problems, the head of a village has some real power, not as great as those officials in the cities and towns I admit. It reflects at least a symbolic pro-democracy stance(although not a very firm one),some level of competition and useful lessons that can be learned in the process. It's more like simulation, field tests before actual construction and launching a program. I would be wrong to suggest that the government is totally commited on developing democracy. First, the form of democracy in China would not be an exact copy of a western country. There will be modifications that needs time to explore. Second, although the government might realize democracy is the ultimate way to go, the incentive of implementing it on a national level now is none. Maybe they are open to getting a feel of it, at a restricted level. It's very unrealistic to expect a dictating party to act on good will and proactively spawn opposition parties. The real driving force comes from widespread and unanimous demand, and that demand comes from people. It might be persuasive to tell the people of China the benefits of democracy and entice them to act now and push for it. However, democracy should not be established as a means to solve problems, although it can be, it is ultimately a way of living that people naturally feel inclined to. If the people of China feel they need it now very much, they really don't need persuasion to act. Feeling is all about relativeness. You feel the Chinese has little freedom, while they may feel otherwise, how so? The back bone of society today are those middle aged men who grew up in the communistic era. Compared to before, more money brought them more freedom, and more civil rights were realized. Before 1978, people didn't have the right to choose their jobs, nor where they could live. If the party assigned a city resident to a remote village, they go. Freedom of speech and freedom to be in contact with different thoughts were non-existent. Contact with outside often deemed as subversive. Wearing a nice watch maybe deemed as a way of admiring the corrupt lifestyle of capitalism. The middle aged men who grew up in those days are now the backbone of this society, in the government, in the companies, in the various institutions . They are getting all kinds of freedom that they couldn't dream of before. They choose their professions, live whereever they want to, wear whatever they like, speak a whole lot wider range of things without worrying about going to jail, travels to different places, driving cars around... They are pretty satisfied and the higher level of freedom, such as election rights and total freedom of speech are bonuses for them, not essentials or necessities.They treat the society as a company, a place not to elect the boss, or say whatever that's on the mind, but a place to make a living and enjoy their new found basic freedoms. So time is needed until one day the new born generations of China, those who were born in the late 70's, 80's and 90's become the backbone of China. Born in the refrom era, when basic freedom has become a norm,they have, intrinsically, a bigger apetite for freedom than their parents.When those people take control of the government and the society, there will be unanimous demand in the society and more tolerance from the party to go democratic. Let things come instead of forcing things should be the way to go. If things go well, time will get the Chinese richer and more liberal - as it already does. Democracy is not just a political and economic question, more importantly, it's a social one.
Is that because people think all Chinese look alike? I mean, I thought Chinese were not homogenous - not anyone near what the Japanese or say the Mongolians. You have Hui, Tibetans, Mongols, and Hmong...not to mention Muslims - all as minority groups in China. I don't know a lot about Chinese culture, but even what I learned in college was that China isn't homogenous.
LOL ... the world must have been upside down, why am I seeing more sensible posts from NewYorker alone than from those combined by all the neo-libcons in this thread?
Correct and that's my point. It's a pure symbol. It's a way of saying that we've started instituting democracy when in reality its just a symbol and not a real first step. I suppose China gets marginal credit for this but when Saudi Arabia was able to institute local elections, then I'm not giving the CCP very much slack on this issue. Yes, I don't expect democracy in China to be identical to the West. But it needs to have the fundamental elements of it in place. And your second point is critical. There is no incentive for the CCP to develop a democratic system. In fact, it's almost guaranteed that they lose power in the long run because the moment the economy goes sour or any crisis hits, they take the fall. And that's what everyone here is criticizing. China could and should have started the process to creating a democracy but they haven't because the CCP is halting the process out of their own self-interest. Yes, this is a classic argument and one that I suppose posits the west as armchair intellectuals who can't speak for the Chinese. But you have to agree that even if a democracy weren't in place, basic principles like freedom of speech, religion, press, etc.. are fundamental rights that need to be installed somehow. Far from being the impetus to create change, economic growth is a great way of quelling the demands of the people by satisfying them with monetary gains. (see Singapore on this issue) Look there's no way around this question, either you defend democracy being better or not and exclude the Chinese self-determination question because this whole issue is postulation anyway. I'll still contend that democracy is better than non-democracy and that there's no reason why the Chinese couldn't start the problem tomorrow. A good point and one that shouldn't be overlooked. I suppose it may take a new generation before demands for democracy sprout. But I don't think that's the question. It's not whether democracy will or will not come. It's whether or not China should start the process now. And till now I haven't heard a legitimate reason as to why we couldn't start the process (at least at the local level, I assume it would take years before reaching the national level) Maybe so, but why later instead of now? Start now by giving a taste of democracy at the local level. Maybe provide elections in the big cities for city councils (I suppose the CCP would still like control and would appoint mayors but it would be a start) Even if those elections are by and large pointless, it at least builds up the infrastructure that I talked about earlier. Political parties will really only arise when state elections start coming into play (and later national ones) I'm still not convinced that democracy would be a BAD thing today. I've heard arguments about how the Chinese aren't ready and I find those foolish. The CCP has its own interests to care about and obviously has no interest in seeing democracy instituted in China. But saying that it will happen eventually isn't a reason why we can't start now.
China is 90+% Han. Now, 10% of China is still 130 million people or so, but it is very homogeneous compared to many countries around the world.
I think in a way, China is starting on the road. It's not going to be a switch (like what Gorbachav sp?) tried to do. It will be at a gradual pace. China has a 5000 year history, if you look at the past 20 years, you should really be suprised at the progression that's already happened. There's a quote something like 50 miles is a long distance for Europe and 50 years is a long time for the U.S. I'm mean what kind of timetable do you think is there going to be? Think how long it took the civil rights movement to happen. Taiwan didn't have it's first real election till the late 80's. Let's judge China in another 20 years and see what movements have being made.
No the village election is not only symbolic on the national level, it's also real first step, albeit a smaller one. It's not just symbolic because although it has deficiencies here and there, some of them are not rigged. You seem to think that since Saudi Arabia can do it, then so should China. I don't think that's a valid argument. Since when China and Saudi Arabia are on the same stage or phase in terms of economic, political and social infrastructure? Saudi Arabia being monarchical is exactly why the royal family doesn't feel threatened by allowing local elections. And allowing local elections doesn't mean they would be inclined to give up power. The local elections are just a gimmick for the royal family to look good, like what the British installed in HK, all smokes no substance. It's totally different from China's situation. If China is going to install widespread local elections featuring multiple parties, it will be a full fledged program into democracy, unlike the half a$$ed Saudi Arabia and HK program. In case of a economic crisis, a big and centralized government is better than a small government IMO. I don't see a good reason to suggest that China would be better off in case of an economic crisis under the hands of a unknown government elected by poor, uneducated people who lacks the ability to reason but full of greed. Particularly, if an economic crisis breaks out, poor people who have nostagia for the lazy yet guarenteed life under Marxism might multiply and use their democratic power to go back to the old way, like how Hitler was empowered by democracy in Germany's bad time. It's a possibility I mentioned earlier. Capitalism has yet to take complete control of China. Rationality and reasoning is also lacking, as one poster pointed out earlier. Well, I agree with that a certain degree of freedom in speech, religion and press can be installed somehow without a democracy. When HK didn't have a real democracy despite all the local elections, it did have some degree of freedom mentioned above. I know that since I lived there a long time. However, in the case of Saudi Arabia and HK, while they could afford some degree of freedom, they have a common theme - an absolute authority which is above all. A royal family to SA and an insurmountable British government to HK are much stronger than CCP, a party whose legitimacy comes from its tender image, which is vulnerable to attacks allowed by complete freedom. The question is, would it be better to tear down that "Marxism outside, capitalism inside" veil of the CCP now or later? Which point in time is in the Chinese' interests?My answer is later. If you choose now, then tell me, how do you arrange the destiny of sixty millions members of the Chinese communist party once freedom of speech is allowed and attacks at the party's identity occur. The world is never cut in black or white. The question is if democracy is better for China right now or later. There is no be all, end all judgement etched in stones that says "X is better than Y all the time, everywhere". You look at poor democratic countries and weight if freedom of speech weighs more than bread and clothes. China going democratic now may not affect China's economy, but it has a chance to derail it, as the growing pains of economy would inevitably be interwined with the growing pains of new politics. See Russia and India. I've explained already, the current generation in power is not interested to have drastic political changes. Not only those in the government, but also among the society. They think they have much better freedom than before and are not trying to rush things. If you don't feel that's self determination or that's legit, I have nothing to say. Well, let me clarify a bit. China has a people's representative system that promote local successful figures by people's votes into a commitee, that on surface, has the highest power of all. Even the chairman of China has to have their votes to be legit. However, as you said, it's pointless because pretty much everybody knows it's rigged. That's why I said the elections in villages, on the other hand, have some real meanings. I'm sure at least some of them are not rigged. Nobody is suggesting democracy is a bad thing today. It's just that nobody is persuasive enough to present evidence that democracy can solve the problems most Chinese care about most today, and no evidence to prove that democratization would not hurt the foudation of China's economic development - stability in politics and firmness on capitalism. To those who think democracy is the magic pill that solves pratical problems, they will be disappointed. Transparency and accountability, although important, have handicaps in solving real world problems. We can talk about how Chinese workers are oppressed by the the rich and the powerful in today's China, we can also look back and review how great was the oppression on the poor by the rich and the powerful back in the earlier democratic countries. When the workers worked 16 hours a day and ate dust in coal mines, why nobody attribute it to the oppression of democracies in France, England and America? Freedom of speech and elections may have helped those workers, but after a long time when the ECONOMY was further developed.
Sorry, one more point I'd like to add. To me the question is not just dictatorship vs. democracy. It's more along the line of the basic workings of political transition regardless of a particular type of system. No matter what type of system it is, the transition of power must follow some conditions and guidelines that history has confirmed time after time. IMHO, evolution is better revolution, never carry out economic transition as well as political transition at the same time, let conditions accumulate by itself and do not force things. Be natural instead of artificial. The topics at hand has more or less to do with the working principles of politics in general, instead of running in circles with the dictatorship vs democracy cold war thinking. Just my two cents.
NewYorker rather than generally responding to your silliness I'm just going to pick one line that illustrates how you're being disingenous India does retain a lot of british influence from the victorian era. In fact many have stated that India manages to be more British than England ever was. China has almost no british influence aside from Hong Kong, and a few leftover builidings in shanghai. In mainland china the influence is negligible. Let me indicate a number of "foreign countr[ies]" that are more influenced by the British empire than China (I must have missed how the Chinese Cricket team did this year at the world cup, can you tell me?) USA Ireland Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa Nigeria Ghana Kenya Zimbabwe India Pakistan Bangladesh Nepal Sri Lanka Burma Malaysia Singapore Belize Bermuda Jamaica Fiji Cyprus Malta A whole bunch of caribbean islands.. And that's just off the top of my head. NewYorker you lose once again.
Good post Deck. I fully agree with you that the people in China have essentialy traded in some of the freedoms that we have in exchange for what they think is a better chance at improvement of economic conditions. Do I think that this is a good idea? No, but I haven't been hanging around the bottom of Maslow's pyramid of needs, and therefore I try not to pass judgment on them since I honestly don't know how strong my deisre to speak my mind would be if I was faced with poverty everyday. You're absolutely right, the CCP has used fear to control the masses. There can be no argument in that. They bring out the Japanese or American card every once in a while to stoke nationalism and get people heated up from the real issues (which for me would be the gap between rich and poor). To that end though, as other posters have pointed out, I think progress is being made. The CCP where it is today is significantly better than where it was 30 years ago. We can't discount the strides it has made in that area simply because we aren't hapy with the results today. How long did it take for women to get the right to vote in the U.S. or beofre slavery was outlawed or Jim Crow laws removed? I love the country, but it took us a while to get where we are today. Those kind of progressive changes take time to happen. We need to adopt the same attitude towards China and let the people take their time.
On the India comparison, I'll let new Yorker's post do the talking on that one. As for Finland. Fish, cmon bro, I know we're in the middle of a subject that you're passionate about, and I can see that your intentions are good. But you can't really stick with that argument about Finland and China can you? That's like saying the mayor of a 500 pop. town could be President of a country. As long as the CCP continues to make economic strides for all people in the country, the people's decision will always be to stick with that's working and feeding them. If people are truly angry at the government, I'm sure there will be a large scale revolution of some sort. China's history is filled with those events whenever the genereal public gets unhappy. On a side note, the growing gap between poor and rich in China is one that could lead to a change of opinions. I believe China is still something like 70% agriculture, and probably every one of those farmers are poor as dirt. If anything is going to happen, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the cause of it or at least one of the things that start it.
wrong... han is not a homogeneous ethnic group itself. throughout history, other groups have migrated and joined the han. and many of those groups have since disappared from the face of earth. han bloodline is very mixed. you just can't tell because most of them are asians and they look similar. i mean, heck, even in the mythology, the han started with 2 tribes of people. i am a mixture of at least 2 ethnic groups in china, majority han. korea, japan are different though, cuz their geographic isolation, they are mostly homogenous, lack genetic diversity. china on the other hand, is VERY diverse genetically. mongolia is diverse too.
Whatever floats your boat. But you know, The British only handed over hong kong in 1997, and hong feels more like London then Beijing. Hong Kong and the British influence left over is impacting a billion people. Like I said, I'm talking in the modern era - not the bygone era of colonialism. If you look at the cultural impact today influencing China and India - well, it's still Britain (and not America). And even you combined the populations of all the countries on your list, they are not even a tenth of the number of people impacted in India and China.
LOL, NewYorker, keep digging. Meanwhile I am going to go out with some chinese friends for fish and chips and then have a pint of bitter. Ha ha ha ha. Then maybe we can play some darts or snooker! Rule Britannia! PS HOng Kong has a constitution and human rights, in case you didn't notice, the last 15 pages are almost uniformly referring to mainland china, and the post you quoted expressly refers to it.
Exactly...you're actually proving my point more and more. Hong Kong is now part of mainland China and is influencing it every day we go forward. The British influence in CHina today is massive via Hong Kong, just as with Bombay in India. Anyway, it's hard to debate someone who has some personal ego issue with me, so good luck to you sir.
what are you smoking? i guess the brits started drinking tea before chinese? majority of the chinese don't even know how brits live, how is it possible to be influenced by brits? what i call today's chinese culture, is the result of globalization started by US and mixed with tradtional chinese values. it's inevitable. you can't just pin point any country.
i think it's the other way around. more and more folks from hong kong are getting to know their root. trust me, non of my relatives give a **** about people in hong kong or britain. and historically, chinese dislike brits anyways cuz of opimium war.
Sure, it's partly that, but it's hard to imagine that Hong Kong won't continue to influence China for the next century and that Hong Kong is very much a product of Britain. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Hong Kong only serves to further my point that once Maslow's lowest hierarchy of needs is aschieved, people will fight for other things like freedom to print or say what they want, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people who flooded the streets to protest the CCP even after China had taken back Hong Kong.
Yeah, I'm not talking about liking the British, but if you look at Hong Kong's government set-up, the culture and values, a lot of it was influenced by the British and will likely spread through the rest of China now. I doubt people will even realize they are being influenced by British culture. It's the same way many things done here in the U.S> is actually influenced by foreign cultures but no one realizes it. Like wearing a cumberbund with a tux.
