Were you as out raged at Japan changing their history books? Because the same argument applies. Just wondering (you could've, that thread was a long time ago).
I don't think Yallmean is arguing for change just for change sake and I am certainly not. One thing that I strongly believe could hamper the PRC becoming a first world economy and addressing economic inequity is corruption, lack of transparency of government, lack of accountability and rule of law, particularly contract law. Democracy isn't a panacea but it can go a long way towards addressing those along with individual rights and an independent judiciary. While the leadership might see those things as secondary to economic development those things are important to creating a strong economy. True there are problems in every government and the US government has some big ones. The tools thought to fix, or at least address those problems are within the US system. There is accountability and as we have seen in the last year the ruling party that failed to deliver has been held accountable by the electorate. For the PRC at the moment it is a matter of trust that the CCP can continue to deliver since there is no legal way for the citizenry to change the leadership if it fails to deliver. The June 4th Mob though had widespread support throughout the PRC and within elements of the government and even the PLA. This wasn't some gang of hooligans but a legitimate widespread movement.
Why do you say that? Who decides other developments can come as secondary? The legal system, the political system? I will argue in order to further economic progress, reforms in those systems have to come as primary. The mechanism has to be in place to sometimes vent mounting pressure from the people. A democratic system can work as a safety valve to let out the pressure. Beijing is doing its best to nib a lot of things in bud, such as labor dispute protests, and the current system is working towards sweeping everything under the rug, which is the wrong direction. I don't believe in a political process consisting of supposedly wise leaders and official to carry out the best interest of people. Wishful thinking, impossible to achieve. There we go again, parade of horribles. I concede there is no perfect system out there as long as human factors exist, but why are you and MFW so adamant on the point that because democratic society has problems, democracy is not the way to go for China? Only through democratic channels, I believe a country as whole can grow. It is the soil, not the tree. We need that mechanism to evolve China. Democracy by itself doesn't guarantee anything, the people will have to fight for their rights, but at least there needs to be a way for them to be heard. Again parade of horribles. Why not talk about the merits of the system in this country. At least I know there are limits how far the executive branch can go, because other branches and the democratic political process serve check on the executive branch in this country. People can always vote the rascal's azz out of the office in this country. Can you say that about China? Yeah, the poor peasants, workers, ****, religious radicals and other common Chinese are not capable of knowing what they want, much less to demand recognition of their basic rights.
I only wish US could send experts to China to carry it out. Talk the talk and walk the walk. There was a Harvard economic professor experimenting a large scale medical insurance system where one can vote out incompetent physician the network. in rural China. This supposed was very different from the conventional Chinese medical insurance coverage in the rural area and had an element of election which should have made Beijing uncomfortable. But to the contrary Beijing was very acceptive of the idea. China needs more know-how help than simple creeds of democracy.
I doubt we are in disagreement that political change is not needed in China. However, empirical evidences from former Soviet Union and India (aka the largest democracy in the world) suggest PRC's approach may have been the best for China. PRC's pressing societal and economical problems definitely exist, but the government has been addressing them one by one. Some will take longer than others to fix. The progress can be frustrating to those who are affected, but overnight revolution demanded by the June 4th mob can't solve these problems miraculously. The political power vacuum resulted from overzealous and immature democracy only leads to chaos, stalemate, and instability. Let's face it, China will not lose sleep if activist scoundrels don't get their wishes. If (Western) democracy has problems, why do you insist China must go that route? Why can't China have its own way? Maybe for certain periods, a country may grow faster non-democratically? How can you be sure the decision made by 50.001% is better than the one by 49.999%? Just live with the result? How many years did it take before the U.S. rid itself institutional racism, for instance? Knowing the limits of the branches of government is nice, but the problem is your rivals know them as well as you do, if not better. This can easily lead to gridlock, among other things that are undesirable. You sure can vote rascal's azz out of office, but it's not guaranteed. Plus, you have to wait for 4 or more years to have a chance to do so. Oh, if your patience doesn't betray you, why not extend it further when it comes to China? Peasants, workers, and other common Chinese are indeed the fabric of the (Chinese) society. The pace at which their problems are being solved definitely leaves a lot to be desired, but it's not like they are being deliberately ignored by the government. Hate to bring this again, this is not unique to China only. Religious radicals? Are you talking about the Branch Davidians?
I'll refer you to my response to YallMean's followup post. In Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards had absolutely more support of all sorts than any "pro-democracy" faction enjoyed in the late '80s. The establishment was totally destroyed and many more lives were lost in the "great struggle." Your point about the June 4th Mob's support and legitimacy is moot.
Thanks for the party lines. I have heard this rehashed many times before. I even preached it myself , but came to realize they are nothing but a sack of lies. The logic just doesn't hold, , maybe because whoever (certainly not you, suspect some genius from the party school, who probably never experienced democracy) came up with those lines and didn't really understand what democracy is. What is that secret approach to solve societal problems? Are those problems really being addressed? I am not seeing any signs towards a freer society. People's rights are not supposed to be given by anybody and demands of equal rights are not equivalent of revolution. These lines are propaganda to avoid political changes. As to once again parade of horribles, India and Russia have their own problems to worry about and some may be attributed to ill-formed democracy. However, ask any Indian or Russian, would he/she want the country to adopt a black box political system that he/she is no part of, the answer is probably no. A democratic system won't cure every problem in China and I am not arguing for a Russian style shake up and shock therapy either. I however want to see signs of less bureaucracy, reforms towards independent legal system and eventually a democratic political process that checks the executive branch of the Chinese government. Quit calling the June.4th protesters mobsters. I thought you were part of them. What's wrong with genuine outcry for more freedom and calling for the government to fix itself up, even if the movement was not best organized. Again I don't think economic progress should be the only goal. Whose economic progress is anyways. 20% gets 5 times richer while the rest 80% of China just get a little bit richer and treated like second class citizens? A conscionable government has to at least try protecting everybody's rights. When the government fails to do so, there has to be a way making it accountable and channel it to the judiciary. Can you tell a poor migrant worker whose right is violated by the factory owner that you better put up and shut up because it is better for the country's economic growth. If guaranteeing everybody's rights means added cost to the economic progress, so be it, this is the cost the country will have to pay. I will actually argue paying a cost up front right now will benefit the country in the long run for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Had founding fathers of this country instilled a system similar to that of China's, I can imagine racial problems would never go away because economic instaliblity disturbing the status quo might bring. Parade of horribles. Yes, democratic political process doesn't necessarily guarantee everybody's rights. Often the result came down to bloc voting. Rascals may cheat their ways in the office and stay there for ever. Heck, Hitler was elected by the German people under democracy. Surprised you didn't bright that up. Slavery and racial segregation were going on under the democracy. Sure, problems, problems, and problems. But OTOH, don't you agree democracy gives people a chance to correct mistakes? I have been told to be patient and political changes will soon to follow as the economic progress reach the threshold in China, but I am actually seeing even more tighter grasp of the power. I am agitated, and start to believe fire needs to be lit under the CCP's azz before we actually see some changes, because so far the most effective way to bring it about, sadly, is some poor victim's death that anger the whole society.
You are going in circles. Oh memory lane? How nice? And here I thought it was a real life example of how a merely being a democracy doesn't guarantee greater rights for the less fortunate communities. The argument that democracy is best for China right now is your opinion, so let's cut the crap and call it what it is, an opinion. And as you can see there are quite a few ones that are different than yours. And empirical data doesn't support your claim. Once again, wnes already mentioned Russia and India, but why stop there? Why not mention Zimbabwe, Nigeria, the banana republics in Central America, etc etc etc. I am also perplexed as to the subject of your post. On one hand you claim that your post is not about economics but rather, individual rights. Yet on the other hand you be-moan that the poor rural communities are left behind in the progress. Which one is it? Economic or not. Want an economic indicator? The Gini Index of the US and China are highly comparable. You might want to look it up since you didn't care for the New York example. Kind of deflate your claim. So how about this? In a democracy, you'll get left behind but can whine about it in public. In China you can't. We good? Party line? If wnes is guilty of citing party lines, you are at least guilty of spinsterism. Ask anybody whether they want to "adopt a black box political system that he/she is no part of," all else equal, they will say no. Ask anybody else whether people want to "adopt a black box political system that he/she is no part of" in which their lifes are far superior than one that's not, they will say yes. Once again, cut the crap, China is far ahead of Russia and India in that regard right now that it makes your example laughable, and like I said, spinsterish. India in particular, largest democracy right? It always ahead when both countries gained independence/revolution due to not having suffered WWII. It is not so far behind in any tangible category that it doesn't warrant comparison, i.e. if it wasn't clear enough, it was a sh1thole before, it is still a sh1thole now. So once again, if your point was that they have to right to whine about it, we are in agreement. And one final kicker, I noticed it all the time. Whenever you (for the lack of better term) pro-democratize now types make an argument, you always invariably bring out the usual "hats" instead of arguing the point. You have heard of them. Of course you do. You use them. Terms like brainwashed, party line, CCP apologist, etc etc etc. So while you are tossing out hats, let me tell you right now. I'm not a "middle class who benefited." I am upper class. Always have been. Get it right.
You can tell a country what to do when it is in dismay because when it is the whole country lacks confidence and they would listen to whatever ideology that *sounds* rosy. Tiananmen square incident happened right at the moment when China gradually opened itself, and the Chinese people were shocked that the outside world (esp. western coutries) were far superior than their beloved motherland which they were made to believe had the best political system in the world. And we want democracy, they say. But if you believe they wanted democracy because they wanted to be actively involved in political transformation, you are mislead. They wanted democracy because, well, "western countries are democracies and look, they live a far better life than us!" Over the years the table has turned. The Chinese people witnessed too many democracies fumble. They saw democracy did not guarantee economic development. They saw democracy did not guarantee corruption freeness. They saw democracy did not guarantee the protection of the interests of vunerable groups. They saw central America, Korea, African countries, Taiwan, and they saw almost every developing country adopting democratic system suffering. They saw the largest democracy in the world, India, like MFW says, still in sh1th0le. Now they are seeing the strongest democracy, U.S., in its own trouble. Now you tell China "you need democracy", it is much much less appealing that it sounded twenty years ago. Time has changed, and now the Chinese people again gained their confidence back. Their reaction is more like "Ok, I know democracy may be good. But I am no longer desperate. I will do it my own way and on my own pace. Mind your own business and let's see how things turn out."
Why am I circular reasoning? I think I said all I have to say. I go to China twice a year, see places and heard stories. I am often saddened to tears by what I know. If you and wnes are still not convinced, I feel sorry for you. What I heard from you guys are nothing but parade of horribles about democratic systems. I concede it will be hard to implement large scale democratic system in China, but that's not the reason not to change.
Me toeing party line? Hardly. I see with my own eyes and I have had a change of heart since my youth experience. You, on the other hand, never seem to get tired of taking pages straight out of the playbook of activist scoundreldom. I think MFW has summed it up pretty well with regard to your black box analogy. Essentially, you go with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know, especially when the devil you know has produced more promising outcomes than the devil you don't know. What you see glass half empty is what I call glass half full. Better yet, the full glass example you trumpeted is never really full, so much so you have to qualify or backpedal. There is no secret approach to solving societal problems. You try to work within the system. Changes are gradual and subtle but nevertheless move to the right direction. Sorry, the system instilled by founding fathers did not in and by itself get rid of slavery and racism in this country. Your imaginary magic bullet didn't work. It took a lot more than a set system. Now for your 20% vs 80% example, twenty years ago it was like 2% vs 98%. So just by percentage shift alone most fair minded people will say it's a tremendous progress. There is also a little devil in the details. Twenty years ago, there was little or no economic mobility in China. It's no longer the case any more. Even in a "mature" and full-fledged democracy, you have people who feel like they are getting screwed by one political party or the other. You can't appease everybody no matter what. The best approach for China is building on what's working and improving what's not, one by one. But please go ahead if you are anxious to light fire under CCP's azz, I can't wait to see your photo on Time magazine's cover.
^^^ I don't know what that right that direction is with a government having a top down control of everything, legislation, law enforcement, judiciary. Imaginary magic bullet. Yeah that's what they taught me in the law school. You guys don't need to give me parade of horribles about "devils". I have learned those in the school. I don't need to be on Time's cover (won't turn it down though). I will be there in the trench and do what I can for sure. You guys just sit tight and watch in the States while being protected by the "devils". Sorry just calling what it is.
It could have been resolved gracefully. Lives should not be sacrificed. I blame the then CCP leaders who had never sincerely listened to the students nor answered their requests, even to the least extent. Apr 25, 89, “World Economy Guard” ( 世界經濟導報 ) protested for not allowing them to published their special edition in memory of Hu YaoBang by posting a blank editorial that day (or did they still print the special edition?). Eventually all the printed copies were confiscated by then Jian ZeMin-led ShangHai Municipal Council (??) (you lived in ShangHai then, you should know the incident better than I do). Also the notorious “Apr 26 Editorial” ( 四.二六社論 ) brutally defined the peaceful campaign as rebellion which basically blocked or killed all the “channels” and “rooms” for liaisons. I attribute the “deterioration” of the, as ones may claim, (from student movement turned into social movement; from a simple anti-corruption request to overthrown CCP slogans) to these 2 could-not-be-worse-more decisions made by those CCP leaders. Why has the situation deteriorated? It’s because the privileged will no longer fear of being “monitored” by general public. If you knew you would be killed by your own government, grinded into pieces by the tanks, will you still stand out and protest for an end to corruption? I did not bring Zhao into discussion. I don’t know where you caught that from. Even if I did, your claim of Zhao’s first born participated (or won the deals) in certain mega trades due to his privileged status was hearsay. Do you think CCP would let go his son if they had any solid evidence of him breaking the law after Zhao became unperson? I have another solid case for you though, the then Mayor of BeiJing, Chen XiTong, who also firmly supported the military intervention to “squash the rebellion” in Beijing city, was found one of the most corrupted officers in the party a decade later. Was it an isolated case? Unlikely. I just want to point out the fact that Hu was condemned by his party for paying sympathy to the students who quested for corrections of the rotten practices in the government. He resigned from the Chief Secretary and died a couple years later. At that time, supporting anti-corruptions, anti-rotten will be labeled as lack of determination to counter the “liberty of bourgeoisie”. (sorry I may have used the wrong words, but I mean 打擊”反資產階級自由化”乏力 ) Finally, I treasure the freedom to discuss this incident with my fellow countrymen on this basketball forum. At the same time, I regret that my other countrymen in Mainland have zero opportunity to express their thought freely, esp. in this subject. To me, unless one shares the same interests with those corrupted bastards, I honestly don’t understand why one would attempt to justify the decision of military suppression on June 4 1989.
well i can verify that you are from china and that you are not a crazed yao fan. these other guys on the board, i don't know. regardless, this was a sad incident where people lost lives. chinese posters here should feel sadness cause it's their own people.
My comment was a direct response to this statement: You are painting this as a group of innocent students and most Chinese as not agreeing with them. Considering how widespread the demonstrations were its very likely the hardliners in the CCP were in the minority.
Yet if you look at countries with authoritarian systems and ogliarch rules like Zimbabwe, Iran, NK, Turkmenistan, and so on you don't see economic development but massive stagnation and corruption. You've cited Taiwan and Korea (I presume South Korea) and while there is turmoil they haven't collapsed and their economies now are much larger and stronger than when they were under single party authoritarian rule. As far as India consider that the IT revolution in India didn't occur until after single party rule was broken. Lots of India is still a sh^thole but its not the economic basketcase that it once was considering how Mumbai, Bangalore and many other places in India has boomed. Consider too that many part so rural China are still sh^tholes also. I will agree that democracy shouldn't be forced and that the PRC should find its own way. A democractice system, which I think is inevitable, in the PRC won't be the same as the US and shouldn't be. Democracy isn't perfect but what it does have is accountability and that is somethint that the PRC will need.
I totally agree. Whether the people in Tiananmen on June 4th were right or wrong it is a wrong for a government, any government, to brutally crush peaceful demonstrators.
I guess you missed the point. It doesn't matter how many countries with authoritarian systems are going down to hell, because China is not going to learn from them. Even if you consider China an authoritarian country, it is authoritarian in its own way, and so far it is doing well enough. On the other hand, if democratic countries fumble, China will take extra caution because that is the direction every country has to go when economically developed. Even communism considers democracy an integral part of its ideology. I cited Korea dna Taiwan for their corruption issues, and I cited india for its lack of protection of the interests of vulnerable groups. My exact wording was "They saw democracy did not guarantee corruption freeness. They saw democracy did not guarantee the protection of the interests of vunerable groups". I should have made myself more clear.
