China Squashes Attempted Tunisia-Style Revolt the JASMINE REVOLUTION

[marshall]

Japan's transition to democracy was far far far after it became rich. Singapore still has not transitioned. Taiwan has CIA

Let us hope that the current Singapore democracy NEVER transitions completely to a multi-party democracy because the day it does, is the day it will begin it's downward spiral to the sociopolitical quagmire and self-delusional ideological propaganda that is the norm in long-time multi-party politics. Singapore is in practice a one-party meritocratic "democracy". This is a superior political system and is the key reason why Singapore was/is able to maintain it's prosperity to the ultra successful degree that it does. China should, and I believe it is, adopting a similar style of governance and should never accept any sort of multi-party political system in any form. Democracy yes, multi-party absolutely not. Multi-party politics is institutionalization of interest groups to the detriment of the whole. This is nothing but a dead-end to eventual national gridlock. Whether this is economic gridlock, political gridlock, social gridlock is debatable but it has already done so in MOST of the older democracies and is gradually doing the same to the new ones.

 

[below_freezing]

China has more freedom than India, NOT democracy as it is defined in the modern world, which is MULTI-PARTY democracy. Multi-party democracy is not the institutionalization of freedom, it is the institutionalization of managed majority rule and is abused to varying degrees depending on the democracy. Freedom is a much more nuanced concept, whose degree of success is tied to not just the political system, but to economic development, culture and justice, and I don't mean justice via International Law.

A better way to put it is: 2 party and 1 party rule are the same thing and multiparty rule is inefficient.

USA is the best example. It looks like 2 parties on the surface, but at the core, both parties agree with each other on everything except tiny issues of detail. They fake a "debate" to distract the masses, like a circus. During Vietnam War, the Republicans wanted to "crack down on them gooks" and "bomb them back to the stone age" while the Democrats wanted to use a "more balanced approach" and "smart use of power". NEITHER Wall Street regime "party" ever talked about the Vietnam War being WRONG.

 

[Tigershark]

Multi-party democracy is not the institutionalization of freedom, it is the institutionalization of managed majority rule and is abused to varying degrees depending on the democracy.

Exactly. Americans elected Barack Obama on the promise of Change. Yet he has so far been incapable of delivering on that promise. Republicans have vowed to overturn the flawed health care reform; Guantanamo Torture Center is still open for business; he cannot cut the military budget despite the lack of a credible threat to US security, he scraps NASA's moon program instead, and culls social programs. Despite the myriad dysfunctions of American democracy--the military industrial complex, the excessive influence of lobbyists, the lack of credible opposition to bipartisan policy--they have the gall to demand that China become just like them!

The US must reform. But it apparently is incapable of Change. If a democracy is unable to change in the face of obvious dysfunction, it gives lie to the claim that democracy is the most dynamic and flexible form of government that is best able to adapt to a changing world. How many times have I heard that claim!

 

[anon45]

Exactly. Americans elected Barack Obama on the promise of Change. Yet he has so far been incapable of delivering on that promise. Republicans have vowed to overturn the flawed health care reform; Guantanamo Torture Center is still open for business; he cannot cut the military budget despite the lack of a credible threat to US security, he scraps NASA's moon program instead, and culls social programs. Despite the myriad dysfunctions of American democracy--the military industrial complex, the excessive influence of lobbyists, the lack of credible opposition to bipartisan policy--they have the gall to demand that China become just like them!

The US must reform. But it apparently is incapable of Change. If a democracy is unable to change in the face of obvious dysfunction, it gives lie to the claim that democracy is the most dynamic and flexible form of government that is best able to adapt to a changing world. How many times have I heard that claim!

Because if the US doesn't follow your ideas of change it is not dynamic and inflexible. You have quite a bit of gall yourself to make assumptions about what the US demands. The US cares about China having its exact system no more than it cares about Europe having its exact system.
If you want to live in chains of silk its your life, China won't become a democracy unless its people desire it.

China's intention of denying freedom of the seas in Asia is a threat to a US core interest.

 

[marshall]

A better way to put it is: 2 party and 1 party rule are the same thing and multiparty rule is inefficient.

Although multi-party rule is definitely inefficient, it's not just this. There is a qualitative difference between a MERITOCRATIC essentially one-party democracy like Singapore and a supposedly superior Swedish multi-party democracy that comes down to COMPETENCE. Multi-party democracies that do not institute meritocratic political cultures are also much more vulnerable to being hijacked by interest groups who always place ideologically driven figures into their power structures to perpetuate their own narrow interests, that's why they're called political interest groups. In short, multi-party democracy is a recipe for gradual and finally inevitable power politics that filters to the lowest levels of society through laws that are passed through the decades by each successive interest group/political party in power. This is a recipe for total gridlock and the key reason why nothing can get done in the long-time multi-party democracies of the "Western" world.

Compare this to a meritocratic one-party democracy and you have not just a more efficient government but a more competent one because the internal contradictions of the one-party concept and hypothetical conflict of interests is canceled out by meritocratic institutions such as have been practiced by Singapore for decades.

USA is the best example. It looks like 2 parties on the surface, but at the core, both parties agree with each other on everything except tiny issues of detail. They fake a "debate" to distract the masses, like a circus. During Vietnam War, the Republicans wanted to "crack down on them gooks" and "bomb them back to the stone age" while the Democrats wanted to use a "more balanced approach and "smart use of power". NEITHER Wall Street regime "party" ever talked about the Vietnam War being WRONG.

Few Israelis are saying bombing Palestinian civilians is wrong either, while the entire world is practically yelling at the top of their lungs of injustice. Israel has the USA in its back pocket while Vietnam did not. You can thank Jewish-American politicians, who owe more loyalty to Israel than the USA, and the Israeli lobby in Washington for that, which is yet another interest group applying pressure via their funding to American politicians. That's multi-party democracy and it's associated interest groups at work and it's a work of beauty all right.

 

[CardSharp]

Exactly. Americans elected Barack Obama on the promise of Change. Yet he has so far been incapable of delivering on that promise. Republicans have vowed to overturn the flawed health care reform; Guantanamo Torture Center is still open for business; he cannot cut the military budget despite the lack of a credible threat to US security, he scraps NASA's moon program instead, and culls social programs. Despite the myriad dysfunctions of American democracy--the military industrial complex, the excessive influence of lobbyists, the lack of credible opposition to bipartisan policy--they have the gall to demand that China become just like them!

The US must reform. But it apparently is incapable of Change. If a democracy is unable to change in the face of obvious dysfunction, it gives lie to the claim that democracy is the most dynamic and flexible form of government that is best able to adapt to a changing world. How many times have I heard that claim!

The US I think is a case of democracy co-opted and manipulated to give the appearance of "change without difference" (which should have been Obama's actual campaign message)

 

[CardSharp]

The US cares about China having its exact system no more than it cares about Europe having its exact system.

I'm surprised you can say that with a straight face.

China's intention of denying freedom of the seas in Asia is a threat to a US core interest.

Has China prevented commerce in the seas that it control? If not what you are really saying is that China wishes to deny US warship the universal access even if it compromises her own security.

 

[Tigershark]

China's intention of denying freedom of the seas in Asia is a threat to a US core interest.

That is a very misleading claim. What is truly being threatened? The freedom of movement of merchants and tourists and travelers and fishermen? Absolutely not. China believes in the absolute freedom of the movement of the seas. What is being threatened is America's ability to abuse foreign nations' sovereignty by sending spy ships, spy planes, and conducting coercive military exercises close to foreign shores. Understand this: American military coercion is not a "right" nor anything remotely close to a principled position. America is a militant and militarized nation loath to lose its imperial prerogatives. I, for one, am glad that US warships are losing their ability to bully countries in Asia.

 

[skyknight]

Jasmin revolution in China？Just Only a joke.

 

[CardSharp]

Jasmin revolution in China？Just Only a joke.

Welcome to the forum and you should make a introduction thread here.

Members Introduction

 

[skyknight]

OK, I will write it later...

 

[CardSharp]

I found this excellent comment under an article named Why China's tiny 'protests' actually matter – Peter Foster, Telegraph Blogs

Thats one way of reading it.

But I have to take issue with your citation of 1989 as pivotal moment. It may have been, but not for the reasons you imply.

After '79 there were three leaders primarily responsible for the neo-liberalization of the modern world. Thatcher, Reagan and Deng.

June '89 came along shortly after Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis (written in April '89) and shortly before the fall of the Soviet Bloc, predicated by Gorbachev's persestroika and glasnost reforms.

But the events of Tiananmen were not pro-democracy in the sense there was no overarching demand for electoral reform. Deng's government were being criticized by various groups (fractured rather than a unified movement, with different groups campaigning for differing interests) for the rampant cronyism and "undemocratic" redistribution of state-owned assets through privatization. Mainly it was about corruption within the ranks of the party and the main voice was a call for a slowing down of the pace of reform.

Tiananmen is hugely misunderstood. That Deng managed to hold on to power through the use of state violence was tragic, and is not in dispute. But this was massively beneficial to the powers that be in the west who were then able to continue outsourcing to China and also to use cheaply made goods to boost consumption in the developed economies. Had the TAM protests been successful, the reform & opening -up policies would have been slowed down substantially, perhaps even stopped altogether with a more socialist agenda being adopted.

I think the fact that so few Chinese bothered with these protest calls can be interpreted in a variety of different ways depending on your own beliefs. Most in the west will view it as evidence the the CCP is so feared, people will not dare oppose them. This is too simplistic and shows a lack of knowledge about the country.

Secondly, you could interpret it as a sign of apathy. Yet I believe the Chinese are anything but apathetic, certainly when it comes to the development and continued strengthening of their own country.

Thirdly, it could be attributed to pragmatism. This I think is most likely, but it is also nuanced. Middle-class are too busy taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them by the current system. They would not benefit from change at the top. However, those disenfranchised aren't really concerned with replacing the CCP. Had it been a protest for salary increases or tighter property controls or social security for migrant worker and other issues, you may have seen an altogether different response.

Finally, it needs to be restated that China has gone through huge political transformation since 1989. Politically, China is a totally different animal. Smarter, more agile and more determined. The CCP has ditched strong-man politics in favour of consensus-building. But it will continue to use a gradual system of reform. Why should the government be criticized for doing everything in its power to avoid bloody protests?

 

[Merilion]

My question is still standing out there, that according to you who will decide the ruler of over a billion people.

i for one, still believe in democracy, it is a goal we chinese people shd work toward in my opinion. however, to have a meaningful democracy, it has to be met with some basic pre-conditions, for example, a sound national education level, national average wealth to be above a certain threshold(gdp per captal above USD10k for example), country finished industrialization etc.
i know i'm not being political correct to saying it but i don't buy the BS that my vote is equal to a guy cannot even be able to write his own name. but then to shut out the other guy from voting is so against democracy so my choose is to wait until it's the right time. i'm willing to sacrifice my voting right for the well being of my next generations.

 

[CardSharp]

i for one, still believe in democracy, it is a goal we chinese people shd work toward in my opinion. however, to have a meaningful democracy, it has to be met with some basic pre-conditions, for example, a sound national education level, national average wealth to be above a certain threshold(gdp per captal above USD10k for example), country finished industrialization etc.
i know i'm not being political correct to saying it but i don't buy the BS that my vote is equal to a guy cannot even be able to write his own name. but then to shut out the other guy from voting is so against democracy so my choose is to wait until it's the right time. i'm willing to sacrifice my voting right for the well being of my next generations.

You need a well educated citizenry before you can have a well functioning democracy. Too many developing country has fallen into the trap of going for democracy too early and sabotaging their own development.

 

[Nomenclature]

I'm actually still not convinced by the supposed advantages of democracy. Sure we may gain some efficiency from a less corrupt and better supervised government but how's that comparing to the efficiency lost from potential political gridlocks and such?

Maybe we could try a hybrid regime with a winner-takes-all approach for elections?