Apologies for not responding sooner--I never received a notification that you mentioned me in this thread.
I have to parse your statement to address several points.
I think there's truth to what you're saying in the sense that what has been appropriate for other countries (e.g. democracy) may not be appropriate for China, but I'm struggling to understand your analogy about the development of nationalism. Today, the least nationalistic countries are the most developed, especially in the case of Europe. There can be no greater expression of the destruction of nationalism than sacrificing national power to a greater superstructure, like the European Union.
That said, China has taken a somewhat schizophrenic attitude towards its stage of development. On the one hand, we see many Chinese claim that because China is still a relatively poor developing country, it should be excused for its most egregious flaws, and not held to high standards. On the other hand, China believes itself to be sufficiently developed and powerful to claim the entire SCS as its own lake, subordinate Russia into the role of a client state, and challenge the US-established world order.
Needless to say, one of these perspectives is wrong, and as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.
This is a great example of the split mind that I referred to above. China has a several-thousand year old civilization, and is rightly proud of it. Several Chinese users here routinely claim that they are racially superior humans (higher IQ, etc.), and one need not look far to see Chinese members brag about how they will eject the US from Asia and dominate the new world order.
How can such confident ubermensch be concerned with "Western ideological infiltration"? I thought the Chinese are too smart, and their civilization is too superior to be concerned about that.
This is an interesting question that has been the subject of much study. Was the CCP necessary for China's rapid development, and was it uniquely visionary in achieving what it has? Indeed, China has broken records for the length of time it has sustained high growth, but if I may borrow from my Emerging Markets thread:
Emerging and Frontier Markets: Economic and Geopolitical Analysis
Many countries have achieved high growth, so China is not unique. If China has sustained growth for longer, is it possible that it's because it started from a low base, and had the unique advantage of size? Let's look at it from an equally plausible alternative, that of Taiwan. The KMT fled to Taiwan and ruled there, and achieved a similar increase in GDP per capita (i.e. by an order of magnitude) over nearly the same time period.
Don't get me wrong, I think the CCP has done a good job. But the idea that only the CCP could have accomplished the Chinese growth miracle is simply propaganda. If Botswana can do it, it's difficult to see how some other leadership in China would not have had a good chance of achieving similar results.
Regardless, you have condemned Hong Kong and Taiwan as dysfunctional for embracing democracy. The IMF shows Taiwan's GDP/capta (nominal) in 2014 as $22,598. Hong Kong's is $39,871. China's is $7,589. I will take Taiwan's and Hong Kong's "failure" over China's "success" ten times out of ten. Let's not be too hasty to condemn Taiwan and HK for their experiments with democracy simply because their existence is inconvenient for the CCP. As I said before, not every system is appropriate for every country, and thus while totalitarianism may be appropriate for China, it may not be for Taiwan and HK. That's not enough to call Taiwan's and HK's systems a failure.
We haven't even touched South Korea, Singapore, and Japan, which are wealthy, developed Asian countries that also happen to be democracies, but let's discuss that some other time.
Now I need to diverge a bit from realpolitik into ideology. I am not Chinese and can't speak for the Chinese people, but having met, worked with, and befriended Chinese from Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Tianjin, I know them to be intelligent, hard-working, and creative people. That's why it's painful for me to see so many Chinese dismiss democracy, human rights, and universal values as inappropriate for China. The Chinese I know are people just like me--people who, given the chance, will make good decisions, and choose what is best for themselves and their country. That means, at some point, democracy would be the best course of action for China. To believe otherwise is to imply that most Chinese are untermenschen who cannot be trusted to do the right thing, because they are simply inferior to the exalted leadership of the CCP.
I cannot accept this. I believe the common Chinese citizen has the qualities necessary to determine his own destiny, and I think, like the other Asian democracies, China will eventually adapt and accept some version of democracy that maximizes the genius of the Chinese people, instead of filtering it through the CCP gatekeepers.
In an ironic sort of way, I agree with you that Chinese will display more nationalism when China becomes a developed country, although not for the same reasons you imply. I think the nationalism displayed by the Chinese people will come in the form of attacking ideas that do not maximize the material comfort and happiness of the Chinese people--and in that sense, in the Western sense, dissent is the highest form of nationalism.
Once China jumps over the economic development hurdle, we will see an increasing focus on non-economic issues. We already see quality of life and environmental issues rising to the fore, but this is just the beginning.
