Chinese Democracy

[politicus]

If China were to become a democracy what do you think would be the most likely scenario?

http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/5-ways-china-could-become-a-democracy/?allpages=yes

[angus]

other:  china was around long before democracy and there's no reason to assume that it won't still be around long after the last democracy crumbles.  Europeans have, for 700 years, claimed racial, religious, and moral superiority over the rest of the world, and even after we see what devastation that has caused, at least indirectly, in great swaths of the planet, we're still doing it.  Witness the confidently- and oft-stated posts on this forum claiming that the Chinese want or will accept democracy.  I think that with the Chinese they will have met their match.  There is absolutely no reason to assume, a priori, that a people whose language and culture account for a quarter of the world's population and whose history stands unbroken for at least 40 centuries would care to adopt the messy ways of the West.

Also, the article you posted is full of inductive reasoning.  Persuasive to some, perhaps, but not very well supported.  Anyway, I call bullshit on the recent spate of Democratic China articles.  There's just no evidence to support it.  

[tik 🪀✨]

I have no basis to state my opinion that the old cultural differences between Chinese society and the West are likely to rapidly disappear as new technology and connections take place, especially among the youth. I think growing wealth, easier access to education, and the overall unstoppable force of information and ideas, points towards some kind of upheaval eventually.

But yes, I am talking out of my ass. Sure feels right, though!

[anvi]

It's quite difficult to say.  There are a number of writers speculating about the onset of democracy in China.  One of them is Jiang Qing, who speculates about a kind of tripartite legislature with an upper and lower house as well as a house of "junzi" or learned-vaguely Confucian-ministers who serve a kind of advisory function but who have veto power over the other two houses.  Another is a Singaporean-based author named Tan Sor Hoon, who seems to think that local forms of government will gradually become more essential to Chinese politics than the centralized state.  But these kinds of writers generally argue that China becoming a democracy will involve a slow, socio-economic transition which is always discussed in the most vague and indirect of ways--perhaps out of necessity--and the process for getting there is not really discernible.  I understand the point behind that view; namely that democracy is not like wallpaper--you don't just put up the institutions and expect it to start working well right away, as it requires a great deal of democratic socialization, so to speak.  I also don't buy much into the arguments that "it's always been this way, so it will always stay this way with Chinese peoples," as Taiwan and Singapore are, in varying degrees, exceptions to this fashion of rule.

Still, I myself tend to be skeptical of all these vague, gradualist models  The central government in the mainland is pretty ruthlessly authoritarian, and I doubt they would willingly loosen their political grip on the state anytime during my life--I sure don't see any signs of that.  The central government has, however, very tightly pinned their legitimacy to economic prosperity in the country in recent decades, and this is generally fine with China's wealthy, as their interests are closely protected by the state.  So if China is to morph into a more robustly republican form of government anytime in the near future, I think some kind of financial meltdown would be the most likely precipitator, followed by mass movements demanding greater decentralization.   There are a few things on the horizon that may result in dramatic slowdown of the Chinese economy, the housing bubble being perhaps the largest one.  But I don't really see anything causing a collapse.  So, in the end, I don't really pin much hope on "democracy" in China anytime soon. 

[Middle-aged Europe]

other:  china was around long before democracy and there's no reason to assume that it won't still be around long after the last democracy crumbles.  Europeans have, for 700 years, claimed racial, religious, and moral superiority over the rest of the world, and even after we see what devastation that has caused, at least indirectly, in great swaths of the planet, we're still doing it.  Witness the confidently- and oft-stated posts on this forum claiming that the Chinese want or will accept democracy.  I think that with the Chinese they will have met their match.  There is absolutely no reason to assume, a priori, that a people whose language and culture account for a quarter of the world's population and whose history stands unbroken for at least 40 centuries would care to adopt the messy ways of the West.

Also, the article you posted is full of inductive reasoning.  Persuasive to some, perhaps, but not very well supported.  Anyway, I call bullshit on the recent spate of Democratic China articles.  There's just no evidence to support it.  

If we follow this logic, China's "natural" state of being is that of an absolute monarchy.

However, China's current political system was more or less copied from Russia (which in turn was based on a Russian interpretation of the works of a 19th century German philosopher) and there's no indication that they'll go back to their old indigenous one. So, they're already massively "contaminated" by foreign influence as it is.

[angus]

If we follow this logic, China's "natural" state of being is that of an absolute monarchy.

However, China's current political system was more or less copied from Russia (which in turn was based on a Russian interpretation of the works of a 19th century German philosopher) and there's no indication that they'll go back to their old indigenous one. So, they're already massively "contaminated" by foreign influence as it is.

True, there are no more isolated national identities.  Even the 150 or so members of the Mashco-Piro tribe in the Amazon headwaters can now be seen sporting Spongebob T-shirts.

I just find the confident assumption that our ideals are the wisest and best to be deeply insensitive.  I'm not basking in the warm glow of White Man's Guilt, and I loathe political correctness of all sorts, so that's not the source of my disturbance.  It's just that we don't even seem to have any qualms whatsoever in the assumption that everyone should want our culture and our morals.  It'd be one thing if this were Spain during the Carlos Quinto years, and we all thought that carrying forth in the name of the Pope was righteous and necessary, but in a time when even the most impoverished among us can read and write and have a basic understanding of history we are still undeterred in our basic imperialistic tendencies.  We no longer call it imperialism, and we dress it up.  We use words like "transparency" and "democracy" but it is basically the same push that the Europeans have been making for centuries, often with terrible results.

In any case, there really is scant evidence that the Chinese want a Western-style democracy.  Sure, they want money.  Communism is a funny name for a party system of such a venal people, no doubt.  But these labels are just labels.  They like having stuff.  We all like having stuff.  That has nothing to do with a desire to emulate western political ideals.  Moreover, China is a success story, unlike anything the West has ever produced.  And they know it.  Chinese nationalism is alive and well.  

Of course, Chinese business leaders are very much aware that Westerners are pushing democracy, and they like the sweet trade deals they have and don't want to rock the boat so they're using the word more and more.  One Chinese think tank that wrestled with the question of "what kind of democracy do the Chinese want?"  They concluded in their report that the kind of democracy that the West is always pushing "... originated from Greece ... and through the catalyst of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, produced the type of democracy we see today in the United States and England."   Prominent political scientist Yu Keping also using the word democracy when he writes that in Chinese civil society "the actual space exceeds the institutional space allowed by current, out-of-step regulations."  He rejects Western models of democracy.  Some western analysts fret over whether such arguments are intended to push for reform from within the system, or to appropriate the label of democracy for practices that are anything but.  I think such fretting is inappropriate and unnecessary.

Then again, I don't have a crystal ball either.

[politicus]

other:  china was around long before democracy and there's no reason to assume that it won't still be around long after the last democracy crumbles.  Europeans have, for 700 years, claimed racial, religious, and moral superiority over the rest of the world, and even after we see what devastation that has caused, at least indirectly, in great swaths of the planet, we're still doing it.  Witness the confidently- and oft-stated posts on this forum claiming that the Chinese want or will accept democracy.  I think that with the Chinese they will have met their match.  There is absolutely no reason to assume, a priori, that a people whose language and culture account for a quarter of the world's population and whose history stands unbroken for at least 40 centuries would care to adopt the messy ways of the West.

Also, the article you posted is full of inductive reasoning.  Persuasive to some, perhaps, but not very well supported.  Anyway, I call bullshit on the recent spate of Democratic China articles.  There's just no evidence to support it.  

A quarter of the worlds population is 1,8 billion. 20% is more like it if you add the diaspora and deduct the ethnic minorities in China.

Inductive reasoning is usually all you got in social sciences and in the case of regime change in dictatorships you got a lot of data with clear patterns.

Democracy developed in the West, but exists in an Asian version that's more corporative and consensus based. Its no longer a purely Western idea.

Communist one-party states gone capitalist have so far been more viable than right wing dictatorships, but level of economic and social development is a major factor in this and while the party is an efficient tool for repression, I think the article has a good point that its able to attract less and less commited people all the time.

Aristotle's idea that democracy is the system of government compatible with a society where the middle class is dominant has a lot of merit to it, and China's middle class is becoming increasingly numerous, prosperous and self confident all the time. Its quite difficult to uphold a dictatorship in a fully developed and middle class dominated society.

Financial crisis (or ecological breakdown, but a financial crisis will happen first) is my best bet.

[angus]

A quarter of the worlds population is 1,8 billion. 20% is more like it...

Inductive reasoning...

Democracy...

Communist...

Aristotle...

yada.

Financial crisis (or ecological breakdown, but a financial crisis will happen first) is my best bet.

probably.  This happened in Bulgaria, Russia, etc.  Also, their growth engine will likely be stymied.  No more "Make it so, number one!"  No more Three Gorges Dam displacing millions of people against their protests.  No more 10% annual growth.  It'd be more like India.  What sane Chinese person would want that?  I wouldn't, if I were steeped in collectivism and ancient wisdom.  (I'm not, of course.  I'm a greedy westerner and fairly Lockean by nature and by socialization.)  But if I were Chinese I'm sure I'd recoil at the thought of trading the good stuff for some intangibles that the leaders of far-away civilizations with long records of empire-building and enslavement were pushing on me.

[opebo]

I think that with the Chinese they will have met their match.

Haha, no.

Talk about messy - China's the messy one.  Historically a basket case as often as it is a strong empire.

Of course I dislike democracy, but I dislike Chinese 'culture' even more.  

[Foucaulf]

Let me calibrate this argument a bit. All this Chinese democracy discussion is based off of two facts:

1) recent social science research predicts a "generic" trend toward democracy as living standards increase.

2) The CCP has not shown acceptance of democracy since 1989.

Conflict, as it stands, seems inevitable, and I would claim it is that that is the heart of the matter rather than democracy. This is the axis on which Chinese history has revolved for the past several millennia: unity-fragmentation. The Party can very well see democracy as an external shock on the real problem, that of pacifying the farmers' and the poor's consciousness. Same goes for the academics.

I would agree with Angus on that most Chinese people don't care about democracy, and in addition that most people talking about it don't care either.

Will it be different this time? Probably - Chinese demographics is in an unprecedented state, what with urban concentration and all. I want to think China's heading toward a spate of decentralization with a more robust inquisition branch, contrasted with a judicial branch dealing with tort troubles. But predicting when regime collapses happen has never been easy.

[Beet]

There is no current sign that China will be moving towards democracy any time soon.

The Chinese care as much about democracy as any people with the same history with it as the Chinese people have it. They care about it like a homeless man cares about fine meals. He does not really know it as a tangible, but if he had it and appreciated it he would not let go of it.

If I may diverge for a moment here -- as a Christian, I do not believe that God created humanity with the intention that he live by bread alone. That is, the present materialism of Chinese society will not do. We are more than that. The Chinese are more than that. God has been keeping the Chinese stored, like Al Gore's lock-box stores up Social Security. But one day He plans to open up the lock-box and make something of what is inside. At that point, the CCP will be like Soddom and Gomorrah.

[Sec. of State Superique]

1. Gorby
2. Financial Meltdown
3. Happy Ending

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

World War III.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Dictatorships usually fall because of a bad economy, economic inequality, and/or rampant corruption and because contrary to a democratic system there's no mechanism to sufficiently vent political dissaffection ("lack of freedom" in itself seldomly leads to a revolution IMO... even the United States essentially came into existence because of a dispute over money).

Now China is very well on the way of surpassing the U.S. as the country with the world's largest Gross Domestic Product at some point in the nearer future, so I gather that the stability of China's political system is not threatened from that area.

However, they do seem to have developed a major problem with corruption because the increasing wealth of the country's elite was followed by increasing greed and cronyism. China currently ranks 80th on Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index - 
slightly worse than Italy or Romania. And unlike  a democracy with a free press, freedom speech, and free elections, China's political system must be capable of correcting these excesses all by itself on a permanent basis.

Granted, the system also managed to institute term limits for their party leaders all by itself so it certainly works better than its Soviet counterpart in that respect. But still, it's quite a challenge and hence the greatest potential threat to the stability of the current system.

[PJ]

Hard to say, and also hard to think about this late at night.

Well China's government will inevitably be replaced by another system at some point, I don't see that in the near future. As previously stated, one of the reasons we cannot predict what a democratic China would look like is because they have know idea what they would do in a democracy. Obviously, some kind of rebellion would likely be needed for the nation to become democratic, and that ain't happening soon.

[politicallefty]

As much I'd like to see a free and democratic society out of China, I don't think it is a realistic possibility for some time. If Tiananmen Square couldn't take down the PRC in 1989, it's hard to see how it would happen today. It would at least take a Gorbachev-type or a financial collapse of the Chinese economy. If the people of China don't want democracy, it won't happen short of a crisis.

[anvi]

If Tiananmen Square couldn't take down the PRC in 1989, it's hard to see how it would happen today.

Yes.  It is quite telling, I think, that while the Communist government was willing to admit errors after the end of the Cultural Revolution and Mao's death, there were two occasions, at the end of the '70's and the end of the '80's, where democracy protests were put down and no admission of error whatsoever took place afterward.  There is just no indication, beyond some broadened village elections, which are still tightly monitored by the CCP, that the central government has any intention of relaxing their grip on the reins.  They even forthrightly argue that strong central control is necessary for both continued economic development and social stability.  Unless the economic ground crumbles from underneath their feet, the CCP is not going anywhere or opening up the political process anytime soon.