India has had just as long a history, has nearly as many people, has more sectarian differences, more class structures, and has maintained a democracy since its independence. For crying out loud, India has 13 official languages and each state practically has its own cultural identity. The country is a patchwork of different cultural, religious, and ethnic groups and yet they are able to have national and regional votes. Now that's not to say there aren't problems that come up, but the argument that democracy isn't feasible in China sounds like bull**** to me.
what about the murders of Jesuit priests in El salvador and the massacre of El Mozote(over 1,000 civilians murdered By U.S backed forces)..not even an apology from the U.S right was ever given All these tragedies should be commemorated so we can learn from them. Governments,in which ever form,should never spill the blood of innocent mothers and children.
I agree, and the govt. sponsored death squads in Central America are a huge blight on our recent history.
Not sure if you have lived in China. What you said are ideals that are not going to happen under communist's by just one movment or even a generation. Everybody in China knows it. These things will take time in China. The CCP tried very hard legitimizing its control of China after 1949 and it has pretty darn complete theoritical ground to back it. This isnt a clear cut matter of what to do in China. The speration of power and judicial system is easy said than done. The political science course in China's high school includes study of other countries' political systems. The merit of independent judicial system is clearly lauded by the officials in the study. But communist's firmly maintain the China has its own circumtances, and western systems wouldnt work in China as they are. I agree with it to certain degrees. The comunists believe its ultimate success will create a more democratical society than capitalists. The students clearly werent equipped nor were than capable of challenging CCP in 1989. Even if the students had been up to the tasks and laid out clear steps torwards, say independent judical system or freer press, the CCP wouldnt have had its control loosen up becuase of it. China wasnt exactly like Russia. As I mentioned there were factions inside CCP such as the gang of Zhao Zhiyang. They are sort of like Yeltsin in terms of political ambition. But at the very top, it was Deng, the old commie boss from the 20s in control, and he wasnt like Grobchev to be bullied around. The CCP old guns werent going to let the power slip, as they see it exchanged by their commrade's blood. Now, the CCP knows all about western democracy, independent judical systems, free press all that. They know better than all the students combined. But they believe that China has unique circumtances that prevent those ideals to be implanted in China. The CCP is not all wrong in that regard. And when the "kids" naively ask for these things, the CCP was really just playing along nicely. Things wont change in China ever like that, not in a 1 billion+ nation.
The unique circumstance is the CCP's authoritarioan regime and their ability to exploit the homogeneity of the population and convince a fair amount of them that they're unfit to rule themselves.
Wow, dont put a big statement out like it is an undisputable conclusion. The causal factors are certainly debatable. First, why did the CCP suceeded in over-throwing the nationalist's party? The majority of people(albiet largely farming pouplation, but the intellectuals were eager too) supported it. Second, if you go up to north China or west China(where you might've already been ), majority of people today there still think the CCP is preferrable than any form of government there can be. And the sentiment is genuine. It's like the poor Russians supporting Communist's come back after USSR dissolved. One unique circumtance of China for sure is that it always lacks democratic traditions. Is China ready for true democracy? I sadly dont think so, not when 2/3 of the country is still farming population.
Interesting discussion and for the most part fairly civil. I'm glad to see this hasn't turned into a bashing China thread and counter bashing of US imperialists have many threads on China have ended up. Many posters have addressed this but just to give my two yuan. There is a concept in Confucianism called The Mandate of Heaven that says that under a good emperor thngs will be good and in many ways I believe that the CCP has embraced this concept and believe that they have a mandate of heaven. Therefore opposition to the CCP is the equivalent of going against that heaven. The problem is though what do you do when you have a bad emperor. Under Confucianism you wait it out, this is where the 5,000 years of history thing comes in. Why wait it out? Why not have a system where a bad emperor can be removed from office? If the Chinese belief system is that people are inherently good then the people should be able to judge for themselves whether to keep their leaders in power instead of having to trust that they are. I don't see any contradiction with democracy and the belief that people are inherently good. For a sucessful democratcy that would be a requirement.
First, you're conflating socialist econmic programs with an authoritarian, undemocratic regime. As there are a number of mature democracies (our own, for example) that are able to employ programs with socialist aspects, the two are hardly preconditions for each other. Second - again, the relative success of democracies in nations that have far, far, more daunting obstacles - India being the most glaring example, shows this rationale to be false. Not only did India have no tradition of democracy, it had no tradition as a unified entity. While democracy did not solve the ethnic and religious strife in India which have existed for centuries, it has not been subsumed by it either and has managed to survive it. But I don't even need to say that. The fact that chinese are docile enough to argue against their own capacity for self rule inavlidates the contention that, left to their own devices they would become "a billion baghdads" as another poster warned, into a hysterical piece of fiction, in both senses of the word.
i guess i should make myself clearer. i know that no one will willing give up power (there were exceptions in china before). but i'm simply looking at it this way. looking back in any culture, changes happen all the time. when the right person step up, a big change will happen. but you should not force the issue. just looking back 50 years, you will see chinese had more freedom decade by decade. back in 1989, it just wasn't the right time yet. and students method at the time, just wasn't the right way to go. i am positive that in 50 years, there will be huge change in china. but achieved by a peaceful method (i would hope). no one want any chance of instability/conflict. and i'm not trying to bash india or anything, but i think average chinese lives more comfortably than indians according to some world bank statistics. you guys have more rights, we have less, but we are able to achieve more things. so until you guys surpass us, i would prefer current government. it's hard as hell to keep 1.3 billion people fed and more b**** at each other.
at present stage, democracy does not work. way too many un-educated people that does not comprehend voting. votes would be easily swing around by politicians. that's why i said it takes a long time, once the population is educated enough to understand what is good for them, then you can try. but that'll take a long time. right now, there are village level local elections in china already, but the issues are mostly civil related. people need to have better understanding of the international relationships to effectively govern the country on all levels. of course, there are a lot more issues people need to understand too, but i'm not going to list all of them.
Under the CCP doctrine, socialism is the first stage of communism. Whatever that means. This socialism is different from the socialism like the ones in the Scandinavian countries or socialism like municipal socialism in this country. Who's right? I dont care. just terminology. I never confuse them either btw. Yeah, we can argue in theory what is better, yada yada... But it's not about what, but how, if you really care about China. Is India better off with democracy and why are there some Indian attributing China's ecnomic success to its authoritarians? How about Russia? How about the Phillipines? While Singopre is dictatorship and Japan is almost one-party ruling ... Hitler is elected under democracy overwhelmingly ... Of course, I imagine China would be democratic one day, but tell me how without sacrificing generations into chaos, civil wars ... The CCP is a autoritarian form from get go and it was a historic destiny for China. What are we going to do? At least some of CCPers care about China. Oh, rememer Russia and empty promises for its properity after democracy?
All I am saying is that western ideals to implemented in China like Russia is not for the benifit of China. China had too many revolutions already in recent
China is vastly different from the USA or any other country which makes situation more complicated. The biggest problem now of China is that the Chinese don't know what to believe. The CCP trashed the traditional culture back in the hardcore communism days. Now their belief system is in danger, maintaining only nominal existence. The various groups in China with different beliefs are now trying to fill the void of belief, discussing in public, or often attacking each other on the internet. Where will the trend go? Woud it be something from China's past like Confucinism, Taoism, Buddhism, or something from the outside, like Christianity? or even a revival of Marxism? or a mix of various beliefs? Nobody knows. Right now the Chinese' beliefs have not taken a concrete shape yet. How does it reflect on politics? The CCP is in an embarrassing situation, it has enjoyed support because it uses capitalism to develop the economy, yet it has to keep harping Marxism and praising the revolutionists to legitimize its power. It's a contradiction that has been in place for about 30 years. If China leaps into democracy and total freedom of speech tommorrow, you bet that CCP's own identity will be immediate jeopardy facing the public accusation from all the new parties. It's like opening the Pandora Box. So how the CCP handle an identity crisis on that scale? They must make sure that they cling onto an existing framework of beliefs to survive. They either maintain Marxism and revert back to hardcore Marxism or they abandon ship onto a new shore. Democracy would not allow them to play double faced role anymore. The problem is, that framework of beliefs is a work in process, it will take time for it to take concrete shape. In USA it's pretty simple, ya can't go wrong with preaching Christianity. And for Americans the next president has a prototype to keep their mind steady. 99% of chance that a new president is: White Male Christian Either a Republican or Democrat It might change in this coming election, but it has been so for a long long time. As for Chinese? If China leaps into democracy tommorrow, nobody knows what the hell will happen. If CCP doesn't handle the identity issue well, it might implode and leaving a vacuum for hundreds of new parties to fill. Too many democratic conflicts can distract the nation from development. The uncertainty and risks are not something outside democratic preachers will face. It's best for the democratic process to take slow and gradual approach.The CCP leaders, as long as the Chinese, will take their time to explore their own way, just like their way to develop economy. Nobody told them how to do, they find their own way and get the job done.
I have some questions: 1) Why do we need democracy? I don't need answers like it is better than any other form of government. I would think it is because it is to produce good government leaders. 2) Why do we need government leaders? Because they make good decisions while running country? 3) Why do we need leaders to make good decision? Because they help to make the lives of the people living in the country better? So the fundamentally a government should make the people's lives better. Democracy is just a process to ensure that goal carried out. Currently I would say the CCP is doing a pretty good job in that regard (oh by the way, CCP is only communist in name now in case you haven't noticed). If they change the government leader en mass like some suggests, the country will degrade into chaos in the foreseeable future. I would hope in the near future CCP allow elections of village leaders and other small steps (some of it is being done in some parts of the country by the way) and gradually increase in scope until sometime in the future China become fully democratic like western nations. That is my dream anyway.
Your thinking is wrong. Democracy is not only for producing good lears as its end goal. It's not like China doesnt need democracy. Democracy and good western political traditions are proven to be working. However, Marx also pictured that communism is superior to capitalism in ideal, which is very plausible. The problem is both of them arent realistic under China's present conditions. Is China a communist's or Lenninist's country strictly? Can China have western democracy and shake up its political foundations tomorrw without resulting in chaos? China is on the right track.
You're right, ultimately it doesn't matter, so I'm unsure it's even relevant given China's commitment to a system that is capitalist in form if not nomenclature. Let's see - India's alternative was to be ruled from afar by the British - which was not a viable alternative in any event either for India or for Britain. In fact, India itself as a state did not even exist before democracy. But yeah India is probably better off now as a large, chaotic, often volent, but ultimately functional democracy than if it were a multitude warring feudal principalities as it was for most of its history - it has certainly reaped economic benefits of unity. Same with the Phillipines - does anybody actually believe a continued American protectorate would be the best idea? You'd be hard pressed to find anybody here or in the Phillipines that would agree with that. Japan has a modern, mature western democracy with multiparty elections. Hitler, once elected, abolished democracy after he was elected and installed an authoritarian regime - that is the same type of regime China has now. SO this line of argument is thoroughly unconvincing. Recently, pretty much all of eastern europe managed to do it, without the financial resource of china. In fact even poor, formerly communist Mongolia managed to do it. Tell me again why we should expect less from Chinese? The cultural barriers compared to those facing other nations that have done it are very low. Adding in accountability would do nothg to detract from those who care about china and theoretically have the opposite effect. Finally I don't see how Russia is a good example. The economic and social situations of Russia 1989 and China in 2007 are literally light years apart. China switched to a market based economy 30 years ago. In 1989 Russia hadn't even begun.
I will agree with you that it may need to be an evolutionary rather than revolutionary process but I don't believe the Chinese are incapable of having democracy and in the long run believe that it will be a good thing for China.
Here's the funny the thing about China, the middle class and educated (usually the forebearer of any social chage) these days are fairly patriotic, but do want changes, but also only gradually. If most of the people in China are happy with it's government (or atleast compare to potential unknows), is there an imperative to change/force to a democracy merely for the sake of being... democratic?
I will answer all of your questions with this response. Its not necessarily about creating good leaders, as you can see democracies produce bad leaders, its about the leaders having accountability and a peaceful way to remove bad leaders.
