China follows the trend of the world. During the 1970s and 1980s, when liberalization and democratization was ascendant, liberalization at least was also ascendant in China. During the 2000s and 2010s, with these in retreat, it was also in retreat in China. As some have pointed out, the same trends occur in other countries. China is just the most extreme example.
Therefore in order for China to democratize, the worldwide trend would have to reverse itself. A strong liberalizing wave would have to occur all over the world until it crashes onto China's shores with unstoppable force. It is impossible to see China liberalizing if Russia, the West & other countries find liberal democracy in abeyance and strongman style party rule on the ascendant. That is why I said earlier,
the work begins at home. There is no better place where the revitalization of liberal democracy must occur than in the United States.
distinctly recall reading somewhere that the present Chinese leadership spent significant time analyzing and debating the fall of the Soviet Union, and the conclusion they apparently drew was that being "soft" on a number of political issues allowed the USSR to collapse and the country to lose its international power and influence.
It was not only being soft, but failing to develop the ideology of the USSR. If you notice, the late leaders, Khrushchev and Brezhnev in particular, are not associated with the ideological development of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. Whereas each of China's leaders are associated with the CPC's ideological development, Deng ("socialism with Chinese characteristics"), Jiang (the "three represents"), Hu (the "scientific development concept"), and Xi (the "Xi Jinping Thought"). Critically, each step is not abandoned after the associated leader steps down, but rather each build on those before.
Xi Jinping in his speeches is very careful to pay tribute to each of his predecessors' "contributions", (including those of Mao; whereas Khruschev's denunciation of Stalin was in some ways the spiritual death of the Soviet Union. Mao heavily disagreed with this and it was the first precipitating cause of the split with the USSR; thus in some ways Mao considered himself the true heir of Stalin and Xi an heir of Mao. During the "reform era" of the 80s, it was claimed that Mao was 70 percent right, 30 percent wrong ) It is as if Trump in his speeches paid tribute to "Hope and Change", "Compassionate conservatism" and the "third way" and claimed, with sincere belief, that MAGA was only an addition and improvement upon these, not a repudiation. The CPC leaders really believe in their ideology and see it as real communism, and attempt to get all Party members onto the same page. Thus they have managed to keep communist ideology relevant to the 21st century whereas otherwise it would have been lost in the mists of the 20th.
The United States on the other hand did not study the fall of the USSR because we felt we had nothing to study. Our system won and theirs lost. But this misses the fact that liberal democracy, too, needs apologetics and needs constantly to be improved upon to meet the needs of an ever changing present. Dropping this banner in the misty marshes of Jean Jacques Rousseau and J.S. Mill forever isn't a good idea.
