20 years, is that good enough? What? The current leader of China is only the 4th/5th generation. The CCP's hold on power today is much stronger than it was in 1989, if you couldn't have got an independent judicial system back then, what are your chances of getting one now? The CCP doesn't have to try hard to legitimize its control at all -- it's the only political power in the country, it's the only one with guns, and it already controls every single local government in the country. How hard does it need to try? It is hard, but that doesn't mean it's not doable. Are you serious? I only remember learning why and how capitalism exploits the workers and how the capitalists send their representatives to their governments to oppress the people, and how socialism was so much better, it never said anything about why the separation of power wouldn't work in China. What the "communists" think is not the same as reality. The current Chinese economic policy no longer can be called "communism". If you'd told me 20 years ago that communism would work, I might have believed you, but I can assure you that nobody would believe that any more. The students were a bunch of clueless hotheads, that's a given. An independent judicial system and freer press would give CCP fewer opportunities to abuse its power. This is true, but I still don't see why the protesters couldn't have made some reasonable compromises and stopped at that. Look, the CCP believed in the fairytale of communism and had decades of disastrous economical policies. You cannot argue that they were right about their ideology being better than the western system. The old CCP had a twisted and very negative view of the western economical and political system. The 80s was the start of the economic reform, and I don't see why some political reform was unreasonable. The 1989 protests had the chance of taking the country a step forward, but they messed up and the country took a step backward. The current CCP cares about nothing but their stranglehold on power -- being in power is now their only ideology.
I don't think it's a question of feasibility, but rather what's the most stable and beneficial. India's economic rise is attributed more to its economic reforms than its democratic system. Its bureaucracy, heavy regulations and military posturing was in the way of economic success for a long time. It's tough to debate the merits of a system that suppresses human rights and free speech, but I think the CCP's efforts to address class disparities and uneven distributions of wealth should be noticed. Most of China's population is still fairly poor, albeit not dirt poor. Once more Chinese become richer, I agree with the posters who mentioned that they would demand more in terms of freedoms and civil liberties. Just as it happened in S. Korea and Taiwan.
cmon Sam, you're making a very incidienary comment like that. The same can be said for Americans who think they're too smart to get hoodwinked but wind up putting Bush in the oval office for 8 straight years. So let's not go patting ourselves on our backs yet. Sure you can pass the buck and say you didnt vote for the idiot, but a majority of your fellow Americans did. And I'm sure just as many felt the same way about Clinton. As for why India didn't dissolve into a civil war, my guess is that it has something to do with the caste system which from wha I understand is still in effect today in a lot of parts of India. The history of China is one filled with many many "difference of opinions". A 50 year window is nt the best sample size for a country that has traditionally shown it cannot get alolng even with its own people. Ask a Cantonese person how he feels about Shanghai people. one last point Sam and to everyolne else who is complaining about china's regime. Just take a look at how Chinese people have assimilated in this country. It has been a quiet assimilation, not a loud in your face, I want equality NOW type assimilation (though I obviously wish it was the latter). Parents are patient enough to work for the betterment of their future grandkids which havent even been born yet. In other words, the Chinese like to take their time, unlike Westerners who must have it NOW NOW NOW. Again, don't impose your standards on the Chinese. And don't mistake patience for docility.
Of course, but my point was that the idea that China simply can't institute a democracy is silly. It's probably fair to say that an Authoritarian government like the CCP actually has a better ability to promote economic reforms since it isn't hampered by politicans pandering to voter interests by giving out subsidies and delaying needed reforms. But China is certainly capable of instituting such a system. As someone suggested earlier, it can be done by working from the bottom up. Start instituting elections on the local level and eventually work your way up. Naturally, it's unprecedented in the sense that an authoritarian power has never just given away power like this, but it certainly is possible.
Indians of the lower social caste would vehemently disagree w you. using a functionality index comprised of literacy rate, population control and economic growth, inspite of its flaws, the PRC has been more functional / effective than the "self-proclaimed" democracy in India.
Oh please, the "we don't deserve democracy, we're not ready" canard is far more insulting and patronizing than anything I can ever say. If you have no self-respect, then don't expect much from without. And I don't know why you're bringing in Bush or Clinton - they have nothing to do with this, there was no argument that people in democracies make infallible choices. Just that people in a democracy are able to make choices at all, and hopefully to rectify them. While I dislike the president, i still respect the institution and as a consequence there's a 0.0% chance I would seriously advocate his unlawful overthrow. As for the rest of it, the scale of exaggeration of regionalism in china is really laughable. Yeah, so what, people from shanghai and beijing don't like each other have a regional rivalry - if you think that they have less in common than say, an african american from the south bronx, a farmer from Nebraska, a jewish retiree in Miami beach, and a korean shopkeeper in seattle, then you're kidding yourself. China is 92% Han. If South freaking Africa can manage to have a functional democracy - I'm pretty sure China can cope.
thank you for proving my point about India being far less-suited for democracy than China, yet able to pull it off regardless. Nobody said that a democracy would magically eliminate India's social ills, rather the argument was that democracy was able to suceed in spite of India's inherent divisiveness, divisivness that makes Chinese regionalism seem petty child's play by comparison.
dude, you've totally misread my post. I didnt say Chinese are not ready for it, I said that our way of getting what we want was simply slower than what Westerners are used to. If you want to dismiss this and call it docility, fine, I can't do much about it. It's just the way things are in the culture. If you can't reconcile that with Western immediate gratification, then that's that. and hasnt Bush done some things just as bad as any totalitarian regime? wiretapping? destruction of checks and baalnces, seling out to the energy lobby? those actions don't warrant a overthrow simply because of the title he hold? yet you advocate the same thing for the Chinese. I brought up Bush because in these types of arguments, there's always some argument about how the West knows better than other countries on how to govern themselves and what works for that particular country and what doesn't. Like it or not, it's akin to neo-cons. Do I think Democracy works for everyone? definetely, and I hope China achieves full democracy someday, but if the culture and the people want to achieve that through their own means and time, then wouldn't I sound like the typical know it all American by telling them what they need and want? isn't this what got us in the Iraq mess in the first place? if you don't understand the dynamics of Chinese culture, don't comment on it. You make good points in the rest of your post though. It's actually more civil than your regular stuff on this topic
There is no need for me to be forced to act like a CCP apologist if many of the non-Chinese posters who have little clue about China are little more prudent in their comments rather than spewing nonsense liberally. Speaking of freedom, I'd like you to entertain us 1) what major economic freedom that you personally enjoy here doesn't have its equivalence in PRC right now, and 2) how millions of low and lower-middle class Americans, enamored with plethora of political freedoms, feel about their lives, in particular, their economic status?
But that's a product of the legacy of India, not an indictment of democracy. The caste system was a system that existed for thousands of years and became ingrained in the culture of Indian society. Classist politics is still very common because the caste system is just starting to disappear. Democracy has nothing to do with that. In fact, I'd argue that democracy was the one thing that empowered the lower castes to have any influence on society. Up until, the advent of Indian democracy, the lower castes were entirely shut out of politics. Now, there is affirmative action for lower castes in schools and government jobs (and IMO, its gotten ridiculous in terms of the amount of affirmative action that goes on for lower castes and minorities) An authoritarian government in India would probably be composed of individuals from the highest caste and would reinforce classist and sectarian divisions in India. I'd say democracy is actually pretty good in this instance. Finally, as pointed out many times before, India is still able to have a democracy inspite of intense class division and major ethnic and religious minorities. All the more reason why a homogenous country like China could pull it off.
And that sounds like a recycled version of Lee Kuan Yew's "asian values" speech on how westerners can't understand why easterners are happy without democracy - essentially a thinly veiled bit of propaganda about why he should remain in power. Asian countries that have mature democracies like Korea and Japan are able to overcome this overplayed cultural handicap quite well despite thousands of years without any democratic instutitions. That would assume that China had a functional constitution or rule of law, by which its leaders could be impeached or removed, which it does not to my knowledge (thoguh I am sure there is some procedural gobbledygook on some prty manual more honored in its breach than its observance). Not a good analogy by any means. But if you want to know the electoral process has worked to rob the presidentof power and hold him accountable for his misdeeds - that's what last year's election was about.
I'm not familiar with the speech, but I've already pointed out previsouly that democracy would be mosre important for people if their most basic needs were first met. Korea and Japan had billions of western dollars to help them achieve this. How much aid did the Chinese get the last 50 years? When the people are fed, then they will start worrying aobut other things higher on Maslow's hierarchy. My cousin makes $30 USD per month, what do you think is her #1 priority? But other countries dont see that, they just see that BUsh is still in power. Do you think we have failed by their standards because we didn't impeach him?
it would help it you improve your reading comprehension. India may call its form of government a democracy; but in practice it is not. it is a government that caters to its elite caste. you're sidetracking our debate, in which my position is that India doesn't practice democracy. the form of government that India practices is catered to the elite, in a manner that the PRC caters to the CCP elite. you make it sound like this is indigenous to China. Regionalism, economically, socially and otherwise, run rasmpant in India.
Isn't that the point though. Chinese authoritarianism would be more justified if they pursued a true command economy structure. But instead they embraced capitalism, which reduced the economic motive for having an authoritarian governmental structure. So then, comes the political question. Certainly, you can't pretend there aren't differences between here and China regarding freedom of speech, press etc.. Also, you keep focusing on economic differences. Fine, the CCP liberalized the economy so in terms of economic utility, there may not be much of a difference. But that's the key point. So why the hell not have a democracy if you eliminated the one reason to have an authoritarian structure. The government is reducing its intervention in the economy, so why can't it reduce its total intervention in society. Economic intervention on a large scale can only happen with totalitarian governments. But now that is out the window, so why can't China phase in a liberal democracy. None of your arguments are reasons why democracy in China would be bad. Only that the CCP isn't as bad as we all make it out to be. Well maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that phasing in democracy wouldn't be any worse than the status quo.
actually, that is an indictment against those who would spin that India is a democracy. it is a government that caters to the elite, in a manner that the PRC caters to the CCP elites. you have no idea what you're talking about. If India ( with its dramtically lower national literacy rate, run-away population growth and slower economic growth) is what a "democracy" is, no right-thing would want democracy. wtf for?
No, you're flat out wrong. The BJP just got voted out of office because lower classes voted them out due to the fact that economic benefits hadn't spread to the lower classes. In fact they got voted out in every level of government. In my parent's home state of Andhra Pradesh, it was rather unprecedented to see the BJP get the boot from state government. In fact, Congress has quickly pandered to the poor and minorities by raising farm and fuel subsidies and by increasing quotas at major universities, including IIT. (which btw has set off huge protests because the quotas are absurdly large for lower castes and Muslims) So, that's flat out nonsense that you're posting. The Congress Party has practically bent over backwards for the poor. In addition, the current coalition government includes the two marxist parties that have ensured that labor laws that traditionally benefit the poor have stayed in place. Um.. I'd rather not bother answering this. That has nothing to do with democracy and this is unsubstantiated bs. No one said democracy would somehow solve all of China's problems. India's problems are much more complex than just saying "oh, democracy causes them." Read the posts above, India is a sectarian nightmare with tons of different cultural and religious identities. Not to mention the caste system. Those structural differences create a lot of problems and reinforce a lot of problems. The whole point was the in spite of those problems, India instituted democracy and it works for the most part. China as a homogenous country with a booming country, has no reason why it can't do the same. And please, since you're such an expert on Indian politics, highlight the reasons why democracy there causes poverty and illiteracy. I'd love to learn.
Changing to democracy for the sake of democracy doesn't have much merit. Examples are abundant. Look at the disparity in the rates of economic ascensions between PRC and *democratically-transformed* old Soviet Republics / Eastern European countries, most Chinese would find the overnight democratization in the form of sudden regime changes not all that appealing. Take, as another example, the rates at which PRC, Cuba, and Vietnam lift impoverished children out of hunger and those of other not-so-"authoritarian" regimes (such as India), revised command economy has been proved to do a much better job. The question is not why PRC should not gradually evolve into a state of more fairness, openness, and freedom in press and politics, it's how and when that should be done. TAM mass demonstration is certainly not the way to go.
other than continuing the trend of abysmal national literarcy rate and run-away population growth there are 56 ethnic groups in China. The most recent census grouped the Jews with the Hans, the largest ethnic group.
Political masturbating is precisely what you have been doing in your obsession with pseudo democracy and freedom. How is it a fantasy when the history of China is littered with bloody feuds among various factions? The question of mine is, what were you in China for? To put it simply, the difference between you and me is that I care about the well-being of China and its people as a whole while you are only interested in the experimentation of your utopia with total disregard of history as well as reality, on top of your deep-rooted imperialist colonialism that has been well documented.
China's economic backbone is still a command economy structure. A lot of foreign multinationals have been burned while trying to get a foothold into the Chinese market, and more that its Western counterparts, its banks decide which domestic company lives or dies. China made a lot of reforms for that WTO membership, but now that they're integrated into the global economy, it'll harder to enforce compliance. While it moves hundreds of millions into the working class and into cities, it's influence is definitely seen and felt. As far as most peasants are concerned, they are the invisible hand.
