Democratization in China? - Page 2

PandaRoo · 10-18-2006, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

wangrui,

except for number 1 and (half of) number 6, the rest of your post is idiotic. western words, huh. what does "san min zhu yi" mean to china and chinese (including taiwanese)? do you even know who said it? do you have any idea what it even states?

Well, I kinda agree with you here, although I think wangrui is NOT totally stupid to have said that.

I KNOW ,not I think, that there are certain values that are mean to be universal to human kind.
Making democracy something that Chinese, especially mainlanders, can only admire from afar is something I believe to be part of the brainwashing propaganda.

Yet the balance here is whether you want a certain type of stability based on which the economy can grow really quick or a real good idea that can't be possibly enforced within a short time.

I'm totally unashamed to be a calculating ***** here, and I'd say that given all the problems we've got here now, I'd reluctantly pick the former.

Maybe this is the bashed-wife mentality...

But anyway, unless there is something that proves otherwise, I don't consider undergoing some drastic social change a good idea.

FINALLY, it's a shame that a Chinese person would ever say something like Chinese don't need democracy.
A REAL SHAME, that is.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10-18-2006, 01:15 AM

He's a Party Man, what did you expect?

PandaRoo · 10-18-2006, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

He's a Party Man, what did you expect?

Fair enough!
Now I expect nothing except for a few typos and grammatical mistakes

Thanks for the info~

**astralis** · 10-18-2006, 13:12 PM

pandaroo,

Quote:

Yet the balance here is whether you want a certain type of stability based on which the economy can grow really quick or a real good idea that can't be possibly enforced within a short time.

I'm totally unashamed to be a calculating ***** here, and I'd say that given all the problems we've got here now, I'd reluctantly pick the former.

Maybe this is the bashed-wife mentality... But anyway, unless there is something that proves otherwise, I don't consider undergoing some drastic social change a good idea.

oh, certainly, certainly. i don't think we can simply plunk down democracy into china and expect it to work.

in fact, if you had asked me this question of whether the CCP is correct in sacrificing political reform for economic reform, i would have certainly said "yes" 10 years ago, a less-qualified "yes" even 5 years ago (incidentally when i first made my foray into chinese politics/military online), but now...

right now the CCP has identified a new problem, that of rising peasant protests, which has actually increased 40% in the last 2 years. the CCP's new focus is now NOT upon economic growth, but "social harmony". this is a good deal more vague than a focus on economic growth, and as we have seen, efforts to "partner up" the rich coastal provinces with the poorer hinterland provinces haven't really succeeded- it's more of a drag for the first than a help for the second.

this problem, combined with an inevitable future problem of middle-class restlessness, is going to make life a lot harder for both china and the CCP. the trick to solving this problem isn't a renewed call for "social harmony", but to institute some very basic political reforms which at this stage will not rock the boat that much at all. i can think of a few: independent corruption review panels, an accelerated freedom of the judiciary, increased freedom of press.

right now corruption is being hunted down on a political basis- ie, the offending corruptor is so blatant that doing so hurts the party image, or because the offending corruptor is a political enemy of someone higher up, or both. this makes hunting down corruption a very hit-or-miss affair. an independent corruption review panel would reduce this problem and force CCP officials to be somewhat more accountable.

the latter two the CCP have begun to do, but at a snail's pace. this no longer fits with the astonishing growth that the chinese economy is experiencing. as a basis for economic growth, rule of law must be implemented. the CCP talks about this (especially intellectual property rights/protection), but it's still not enough.

finally, increased freedom of press: the chinese gov't likes to talk about the explosion of foreign press in the country. that is all well and good, but the CCP still has a disturbing habit of silencing dissenters (although less forcefully and less often than 10 years ago). by now, i think that actually hurts CCP credibility more than it helps- it doesn't provide for much "stability" and causes much grumbling.

these ideas are not dramatic social changes, these are fairly incremental political reforms...reforms that the CCP will have to do sooner or later. it would be better for them- and china- if they started doing it sooner. china can afford these now.

**astralis** · 10-18-2006, 13:17 PM

http://www.slate.com/id/2150811/entry/2150841/

some very interesting reading regarding democratization, and the attending advantages/disadvantages.

LongshotSNN · 10-18-2006, 13:24 PM

Astralis, I really hate coincidences.

Just two weeks ago, I was braining myself over a research paper on mainland civil society and and social mobilization.

Some literature by Kevin O'Brien, Elizabeth Perry, William Hurst and Gordon White (among others) was quite useful in giving me a window of sorts into the sort of growing social problems, or are scenarios a better word(?) the CCP faces.

**astralis** · 10-18-2006, 14:43 PM

longshot,

Quote:

Just two weeks ago, I was braining myself over a research paper on mainland civil society and and social mobilization.

Some literature by Kevin O'Brien, Elizabeth Perry, William Hurst and Gordon White (among others) was quite useful in giving me a window of sorts into the sort of growing social problems, or are scenarios a better word(?) the CCP faces.

kevin o'brien has written some excellent work. i like his collaboration with larry diamond (another big name in the business, look him up).

to some degree, the CCP doesn't mind the endemic corruption going on at the local-level, because the CCP can then step in and portray itself as a shield against the local bloodsuckers (and the CCP sometimes is).

therein lies the CCP's greatest weakness: in almost all of its dealings, both foreign and domestic, the CCP continually looks for legitimacy. interestingly, though, i think one of the things that the "village democracy" experiment has shown is that it ironically legitimates and expands CCP power. sometimes i wonder why this hasn't given the CCP more confidence in making further reforms.

LongshotSNN · 10-18-2006, 14:59 PM

Astralis,

Do the village elections count for all that much? I always figured them for some sort of a sop to the people tbh.

From what I read, the elected headman, although in a manner the voice for the villagers, still had to co-operate with the local cadre or party secretary, whose opinion ultimately mattered. Slowly by slowly, voter numbers have begun dropping due to this tension between the chief and the local secretary.

(Then again, I took relatively few courses on comparative politics, particularly Chinese politics.

)

**astralis** · 10-18-2006, 15:19 PM

longshot,

Quote:

Do the village elections count for all that much? I always figured them for some sort of a sop to the people tbh.

From what I read, the elected headman, although in a manner the voice for the villagers, still had to co-operate with the local cadre or party secretary, whose opinion ultimately mattered. Slowly by slowly, voter numbers have begun dropping due to this tension between the chief and the local secretary.

(Then again, I took relatively few courses on comparative politics, particularly Chinese politics.

as with many things chinese, yes and no. for the CCP, it introduces a level of organization into places where the party previously had very little subtle control- the village.

while it is true that the village headman is just that (and thus wields very little power beyond his own small village), it formalizes a heretofore rather chaotic process. and, as you say, gives the villagers a more organized voice. these are not insignificant things- it does not seem to be coincidence to me that as the experiment matures (over 680,000 villages holding elections), we have seen more and greater village protests at company exploitation, environmental degradation, etc etc.

in any case, it is good preparation IF the CCP one of these days begins the plans casually mentioned by Wen Jiabao: that he envisions direct elections soon at the township level, and later at the county and even provincial level. (of course he was mute about whether or not the candidates would have to be CCP members or not.

but even THAT would be an improvement.)

LongshotSNN · 10-18-2006, 15:38 PM

Uh yeah, that sorta leads me to something on my mind again.

So far we've been seeing increasing protests and social mobilization, but they're usually scattered in the sense that there's no true unifying cause and usually its about class-action matters such as compensation etc.

Even then I think thre were some academic publications talking about the urban-rural divide between those in the cities and the peasants and their different social mobilization tactics/strategies.

Which leads me to ask whether or not the townsfolk and the countryfolk can actually unite for something as remote as Ironduke's original question again about democratization.

gunnut · 10-18-2006, 16:55 PM

That will take time.

Look at the industrialization process in America. It started in the 19th century and continued until the end of WW2. It took 100 years from urban migration to organized labor to centralized labor unions that wield political powers. And that's in a nation where voting is commonly practiced from day 1.

It will take many decades to transform China. However, I don't see China ever be as democratic as the US. The culture is just too different. American culture is unique in that the government derives power from the people in a elected representative government. All other governments, no matter how democratic, gives power to the people, rather than the other way around.

**astralis** · 10-18-2006, 22:20 PM

longshot,

Quote:

Which leads me to ask whether or not the townsfolk and the countryfolk can actually unite for something as remote as Ironduke's original question again about democratization.

traditionally in china, it's been very hard to unite these two in one cause- too many different priorities, and that extends horizontally as well as vertically: the peasant from zhejiang has different issues than a peasant from henan, not to mention the city-dweller in shanghai.

most likely, before that happens, the CCP will have sped up the process of democratization so that such a wellspring for revolution will not be reached. the party's quite sensitive about it. in the crackdown following 6/4, the people whom were punished most severely were NOT the protesting beijing students, but the few workers whom had joined in- especially the workers whom came from other provinces.

**astralis** · 10-18-2006, 22:30 PM

gunnut,

Quote:

However, I don't see China ever be as democratic as the US. The culture is just too different. American culture is unique in that the government derives power from the people in a elected representative government. All other governments, no matter how democratic, gives power to the people, rather than the other way around.

i personally think you're overplaying this idea of culture a tad. let us remember that the american government HAS given power to the people REPEATEDLY in its history. from wealthy white protestant males to wealthy white males to white males to males (under certain circumstances) to females and finally to everyone.

and in many of these cases it was not a suddenly huge wellspring of support- it was a top-down decision.

as for china not being as democratic as the US, i don't know about that. taiwan does an awful good job, and i mean it in both ways. the taiwanese put the z in democrazy.

i know what you're getting at, though, in america the state formed largely after the nation formed. does this more democratic make? it's hard to judge, simply because among liberal democracies it is difficult to say if one system is "better" or not. instead, we political scientists find that democracies fit the circumstances. for the most part, presidential democracies arise from nations that experience revolutions and parliamentary democracies arise from nations that undergo political evolution.

PandaRoo · 10-19-2006, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

pandaroo,

oh, certainly, certainly. i don't think we can simply plunk down democracy into china and expect it to work.

in fact, if you had asked me this question of whether the CCP is correct in sacrificing political reform for economic reform, i would have certainly said "yes" 10 years ago, a less-qualified "yes" even 5 years ago (incidentally when i first made my foray into chinese politics/military online), but now...

right now the CCP has identified a new problem, that of rising peasant protests, which has actually increased 40% in the last 2 years. the CCP's new focus is now NOT upon economic growth, but "social harmony". this is a good deal more vague than a focus on economic growth, and as we have seen, efforts to "partner up" the rich coastal provinces with the poorer hinterland provinces haven't really succeeded- it's more of a drag for the first than a help for the second.

this problem, combined with an inevitable future problem of middle-class restlessness, is going to make life a lot harder for both china and the CCP. the trick to solving this problem isn't a renewed call for "social harmony", but to institute some very basic political reforms which at this stage will not rock the boat that much at all. i can think of a few: independent corruption review panels, an accelerated freedom of the judiciary, increased freedom of press.

right now corruption is being hunted down on a political basis- ie, the offending corruptor is so blatant that doing so hurts the party image, or because the offending corruptor is a political enemy of someone higher up, or both. this makes hunting down corruption a very hit-or-miss affair. an independent corruption review panel would reduce this problem and force CCP officials to be somewhat more accountable.

the latter two the CCP have begun to do, but at a snail's pace. this no longer fits with the astonishing growth that the chinese economy is experiencing. as a basis for economic growth, rule of law must be implemented. the CCP talks about this (especially intellectual property rights/protection), but it's still not enough.

finally, increased freedom of press: the chinese gov't likes to talk about the explosion of foreign press in the country. that is all well and good, but the CCP still has a disturbing habit of silencing dissenters (although less forcefully and less often than 10 years ago). by now, i think that actually hurts CCP credibility more than it helps- it doesn't provide for much "stability" and causes much grumbling.

these ideas are not dramatic social changes, these are fairly incremental political reforms...reforms that the CCP will have to do sooner or later. it would be better for them- and china- if they started doing it sooner. china can afford these now.

Read your reply carefully, good point made

Well, as an ordinary person here, I can only HOPE for the better.

It's not like we can vote anybody out.

You are a pretty rational and realistic person, I like your style.

wangrui961 · 10-19-2006, 09:56 AM

CCP will do futher efforts on democratization ,but now economy is the most important . you can't imarge a democratization with millions of poor men. Give CCP more time .

10-18-2006, 01:15 AM	#17 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,917 Country:	He's a Party Man, what did you expect? __________________ Chimo

10-18-2006, 16:55 PM	#26 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,376 Country:	That will take time. Look at the industrialization process in America. It started in the 19th century and continued until the end of WW2. It took 100 years from urban migration to organized labor to centralized labor unions that wield political powers. And that's in a nation where voting is commonly practiced from day 1. It will take many decades to transform China. However, I don't see China ever be as democratic as the US. The culture is just too different. American culture is unique in that the government derives power from the people in a elected representative government. All other governments, no matter how democratic, gives power to the people, rather than the other way around. __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Debate about China, india and US economies, by Businessweek	oneman28	Political Discussions	7	11-28-2007 08:43 AM
China’s democratization and reunification	pin_qinghai	International Defense Topics	100	01-06-2007 07:59 AM
Where is Taiwan as China rises in the global IC industry?	oneman28	Political Discussions	0	09-12-2005 13:58 PM
Does the Future Belong to China?	oneman28	World Affairs Board Pub	6	05-25-2005 07:59 AM
How China Will Change Your Business	oneman28	Political Discussions	6	04-04-2005 12:21 PM

10-18-2006, 13:17 PM	#20 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,946 Country:	http://www.slate.com/id/2150811/entry/2150841/ some very interesting reading regarding democratization, and the attending advantages/disadvantages.

10-18-2006, 13:24 PM	#21 (permalink)
LongshotSNN Regular Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 141	Astralis, I really hate coincidences. Just two weeks ago, I was braining myself over a research paper on mainland civil society and and social mobilization. Some literature by Kevin O'Brien, Elizabeth Perry, William Hurst and Gordon White (among others) was quite useful in giving me a window of sorts into the sort of growing social problems, or are scenarios a better word(?) the CCP faces.

10-18-2006, 14:59 PM	#23 (permalink)
LongshotSNN Regular Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 141	Astralis, Do the village elections count for all that much? I always figured them for some sort of a sop to the people tbh. From what I read, the elected headman, although in a manner the voice for the villagers, still had to co-operate with the local cadre or party secretary, whose opinion ultimately mattered. Slowly by slowly, voter numbers have begun dropping due to this tension between the chief and the local secretary. (Then again, I took relatively few courses on comparative politics, particularly Chinese politics. )

10-18-2006, 15:38 PM	#25 (permalink)
LongshotSNN Regular Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 141	Uh yeah, that sorta leads me to something on my mind again. So far we've been seeing increasing protests and social mobilization, but they're usually scattered in the sense that there's no true unifying cause and usually its about class-action matters such as compensation etc. Even then I think thre were some academic publications talking about the urban-rural divide between those in the cities and the peasants and their different social mobilization tactics/strategies. Which leads me to ask whether or not the townsfolk and the countryfolk can actually unite for something as remote as Ironduke's original question again about democratization.

10-19-2006, 09:56 AM	#30 (permalink)
wangrui961 Patron Join Date: 09-19-06 Posts: 297 Country:	CCP will do futher efforts on democratization ,but now economy is the most important . you can't imarge a democratization with millions of poor men. Give CCP more time .

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)