China: The Unsatisfied Power

[Carlosa]

Sure I know your point and it's true in specific circumstances but not in China at this moment. I said in the above posts people's control aka vote or anything, is one of the solutions to fight the corruption, I truly hope our people do have more power to supervise the government. But what China lack is the design of a series of coherent systems to control the power. That's our PM Li called "制度反腐" - “systematic anti-corruption”. For example, if the massives can only supervise the officials, but there is no actual punishment to them? What if the officials "buy" votes (As you know, it could happen in China if there is open election, especially those lower class people could be bought), can we call this fake democracy? This is China, anything can happen, because the Chinese law do not really have enough control over the both the officials and the people, it's not effective. The vote is good, only if there is theoretical and practical foundation. Also please explain why India as a democracy has even more serious corruption? I did have experience of living in the west for 3 years like you did in China. I thought the west system is good to China before I came to the west. During my time abroad, I know truly where China's weakness is.

There are exceptions to the rule and India and some other African countries, etc are such (they are usually poor developing countries), but that's because they don't have the education and political culture as in western countries.

China on the other hand, does have an educated class that is smart and vocal about complaining, that's why I think having the freedom to control government would make a big difference. Lets face it, you know very well that chinese don't take sh,,.t from anybody and are quick to fight and complain, that's why there are so many riots and protests so often.

Interesting, where in the west did you live?

 

[TaiShang]

Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics
October 10th, 2014

A popular reason cited by supporters (of HK movement) is that China’s an authoritarian state, therefore to be loathed unconditionally. Anyone who reads mainstream newspapers would know that much. If this fear is indeed the real cause, I’d like to take this opportunity to examine China’s authoritarianism by reviewing some known facts:

1) In 1949, when the Communist Party took over, average life expectancy in China was about thirty-five, illiteracy was 80%, and GDP was lower than Qing Dynasty’s. After a century of pillage and plunder by colonial powers, the country was struggling to recover from near-fatal wounds inflicted by opium, corruption, barbaric invasions and civil wars. Sixty-five years on, it’s the world’s second largest economy. In the past thirty years, the miraculous transformation (GDP growth, productivity, urbanisation of population etc.) of this continent-sized country is comparable to (relatively tiny) Britain’s evolution after the industrial revolution, which took about 200 years. Martin Jacques’ book contains a lot of hard data for comparison, in plain English ("When China Rules the World - Martin Jacques"). However, economic development isn’t everything. It shouldn’t be.

2) According to PEW research, about 80% (fluctuating thereabouts) of Chinese are happy with their Government (Chinese satisfied with government - Washington Times) Admittedly, 20% represents nearly 300 million grumpy citizens, a giant headache. Deng Xiao Ping would have loved to offer them as “free immigrants” when President Carter requested. By contrast, American confidence in Congress has fallen to a historic low of 7% according to Gallup Poll 2014. The Japanese government has been hovering in single-digit for years. Many democracies don’t flare much better. One might question if they are technically still “representative” governments. However, China’s government doesn’t have “legitimacy” in their opinion.

3) America and allies have invaded more countries during the past few decades than China has since 2500 BCE. However, they are worried about China’s intentions.

4) The US dropped depleted uranium bombs on Iraqi civilians, and is still refusing to provide details to the UN to facilitate clean-up (GUO DU－James Tam's Blog ＊ 过渡 － 谭炳昌的博客: Living Ghosts) China is the only nuclear power unilaterally committed to “never use nuclear weapon on a country without nuclear capabilities”, and an unequivocal “no first use” policy. However, China remains a security concern.

5) Opinion surveys, backed by scientific data, say the environment is a top priority. As soon as affordable, China built the largest high-speed railway system, and became world leader in renewable green energy. By now, China, with a population of 1.3 billion, also has the highest private home ownership rate in the world. However, all these are apparently negative.

6) The United States has more than 1000 military bases and installations in 63 countries (The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases | Global Research ) China has none. However, China is a military threat.

7) The operator of drone assassination flights and Guatanamo Bay routinely lectures China on human rights. Mysteriously, the reasons seem obvious to some.

8) China has State-Owned-Media with obvious confines. The West has (Wall) Street-Owned-Media with a hidden agenda. China’s State-Owned-Media are working hard to build credibility. The Western Press is doing its best to destroy (past) reputation by mixing facts and fictions unscrupulously. Are outright lies preferable to limited truths?

9) Google and Facebook are not generally available in China. Mr. Edward Snowden has subsequently told us why it was a shrewd decision. China’s homegrown equivalents are vibrant and enormous. Those who care to check can decide for themselves whether the freedom of (or restraint on) expression is adequate or excessive. To me, it’s chaotic.

10) Chinese police are normally unarmed, but the streets are relatively safe. Armed police are rarely called in to deal with drastic and violent situations. Deployment of American SWAT teams had jumped from a historical average of one thousand to 40,000 raids per year by 2011, mostly to handle ludicrously trivial offences (The Rutherford Institute :: SWAT Team Mania: The War Against the American Citizen ) However, China’s the police state to be feared. Countries responsible for millions of casualties and ruined lives in the Middle East (just during the past decade) continue to reprimand China for (according to Western press) a couple of thousand deaths at Tiananmen a quarter of a century ago.

11) The USA, with roughly 5% of the world’s population, houses 25% of all prisoners on this planet (excluding overseas dark cells such as Guatanamo Bay). Its incarceration rate at 716 per 100,000 is nearly seven times that of China’s (United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) However, the US is supposedly the land of the free.

Enough for now. Eleven is a neat place to stop, neither metric nor imperial, totally arbitrary, therefore quite fashionable.

China is far from perfect, and never will be, just trying hard. And life’s a game of relativity. The Chinese traditionally treasure “social consensus”. In a “globalised” context, this effort is clearly fruitless. The mainstream press seems committed to telling only the negative half of any Chinese story, concluding it with yet another doomsday prediction: Watch! China will soon collapse unless it listens! Their unsuspecting readers nod and sigh. Evidently, Orwell’s Double-speak warning was futile. The masses can’t connect the dots. Moulded minds are impervious to facts. In the brave new world, words speak much louder than actions.

Progress notwithstanding, China always has, and always will have, numerous internal and external problems because of size, history, complexity, and geopolitics. It shouldn’t waste time on insanely biased detractors. If China remains horribly “authoritarian” in reputation because the Chinese refuse to take authoritative instructions from others telling them how to live as a society (after having done so for a few thousand years), then let authoritarianism with Chinese characteristics be a good thing, embraced by at least one-fifth of humanity.

(Published at GUO DU－James Tam's Blog ＊ 过渡 － 谭炳昌的博客)

@Chinese-Dragon , @tranquilium , @Edison Chen , @Nan Yang , @Nihonjin1051 , @Raphael , @xunzi et al

 

[Aepsilons]

Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics
October 10th, 2014

A popular reason cited by supporters (of HK movement) is that China’s an authoritarian state, therefore to be loathed unconditionally. Anyone who reads mainstream newspapers would know that much. If this fear is indeed the real cause, I’d like to take this opportunity to examine China’s authoritarianism by reviewing some known facts:

1) In 1949, when the Communist Party took over, average life expectancy in China was about thirty-five, illiteracy was 80%, and GDP was lower than Qing Dynasty’s. After a century of pillage and plunder by colonial powers, the country was struggling to recover from near-fatal wounds inflicted by opium, corruption, barbaric invasions and civil wars. Sixty-five years on, it’s the world’s second largest economy. In the past thirty years, the miraculous transformation (GDP growth, productivity, urbanisation of population etc.) of this continent-sized country is comparable to (relatively tiny) Britain’s evolution after the industrial revolution, which took about 200 years. Martin Jacques’ book contains a lot of hard data for comparison, in plain English ("When China Rules the World - Martin Jacques"). However, economic development isn’t everything. It shouldn’t be.

2) According to PEW research, about 80% (fluctuating thereabouts) of Chinese are happy with their Government (Chinese satisfied with government - Washington Times) Admittedly, 20% represents nearly 300 million grumpy citizens, a giant headache. Deng Xiao Ping would have loved to offer them as “free immigrants” when President Carter requested. By contrast, American confidence in Congress has fallen to a historic low of 7% according to Gallup Poll 2014. The Japanese government has been hovering in single-digit for years. Many democracies don’t flare much better. One might question if they are technically still “representative” governments. However, China’s government doesn’t have “legitimacy” in their opinion.

3) America and allies have invaded more countries during the past few decades than China has since 2500 BCE. However, they are worried about China’s intentions.

4) The US dropped depleted uranium bombs on Iraqi civilians, and is still refusing to provide details to the UN to facilitate clean-up (GUO DU－James Tam's Blog ＊ 过渡 － 谭炳昌的博客: Living Ghosts) China is the only nuclear power unilaterally committed to “never use nuclear weapon on a country without nuclear capabilities”, and an unequivocal “no first use” policy. However, China remains a security concern.

5) Opinion surveys, backed by scientific data, say the environment is a top priority. As soon as affordable, China built the largest high-speed railway system, and became world leader in renewable green energy. By now, China, with a population of 1.3 billion, also has the highest private home ownership rate in the world. However, all these are apparently negative.

6) The United States has more than 1000 military bases and installations in 63 countries (The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases | Global Research ) China has none. However, China is a military threat.

7) The operator of drone assassination flights and Guatanamo Bay routinely lectures China on human rights. Mysteriously, the reasons seem obvious to some.

8) China has State-Owned-Media with obvious confines. The West has (Wall) Street-Owned-Media with a hidden agenda. China’s State-Owned-Media are working hard to build credibility. The Western Press is doing its best to destroy (past) reputation by mixing facts and fictions unscrupulously. Are outright lies preferable to limited truths?

9) Google and Facebook are not generally available in China. Mr. Edward Snowden has subsequently told us why it was a shrewd decision. China’s homegrown equivalents are vibrant and enormous. Those who care to check can decide for themselves whether the freedom of (or restraint on) expression is adequate or excessive. To me, it’s chaotic.

10) Chinese police are normally unarmed, but the streets are relatively safe. Armed police are rarely called in to deal with drastic and violent situations. Deployment of American SWAT teams had jumped from a historical average of one thousand to 40,000 raids per year by 2011, mostly to handle ludicrously trivial offences (The Rutherford Institute :: SWAT Team Mania: The War Against the American Citizen ) However, China’s the police state to be feared. Countries responsible for millions of casualties and ruined lives in the Middle East (just during the past decade) continue to reprimand China for (according to Western press) a couple of thousand deaths at Tiananmen a quarter of a century ago.

11) The USA, with roughly 5% of the world’s population, houses 25% of all prisoners on this planet (excluding overseas dark cells such as Guatanamo Bay). Its incarceration rate at 716 per 100,000 is nearly seven times that of China’s (United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) However, the US is supposedly the land of the free.

Enough for now. Eleven is a neat place to stop, neither metric nor imperial, totally arbitrary, therefore quite fashionable.

China is far from perfect, and never will be, just trying hard. And life’s a game of relativity. The Chinese traditionally treasure “social consensus”. In a “globalised” context, this effort is clearly fruitless. The mainstream press seems committed to telling only the negative half of any Chinese story, concluding it with yet another doomsday prediction: Watch! China will soon collapse unless it listens! Their unsuspecting readers nod and sigh. Evidently, Orwell’s Double-speak warning was futile. The masses can’t connect the dots. Moulded minds are impervious to facts. In the brave new world, words speak much louder than actions.

Progress notwithstanding, China always has, and always will have, numerous internal and external problems because of size, history, complexity, and geopolitics. It shouldn’t waste time on insanely biased detractors. If China remains horribly “authoritarian” in reputation because the Chinese refuse to take authoritative instructions from others telling them how to live as a society (after having done so for a few thousand years), then let authoritarianism with Chinese characteristics be a good thing, embraced by at least one-fifth of humanity.

(Published at GUO DU－James Tam's Blog ＊ 过渡 － 谭炳昌的博客)

@Chinese-Dragon , @tranquilium , @Edison Chen , @Nan Yang , @Nihonjin1051 , @Raphael , @xunzi et al

Great Read!!

China isn't the only society to be "authoritarian". In fact, before South Korea was a "democracy" it was ruled under a totalitarian by the name of Park Chung Hee, who rebuilt a war torn Korea into a utilitarian state all the way up to 1979 when he was assassinated. Eventually, Korea progressed into the Republic that it is today.

It was not a "Liberal Democracy" early in its developmental stage.

The same goes and applies for Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, Indonesia's Sukarno, Suharto; Philippines's Marcos.

 

[Carlosa]

[QUOTE="Nihonjin1051, post: 6529244, member: 157425"The Malaysians cannot afford to anger and irritate any more neighbors. They already have a precarious relationship with Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Singapore.[/QUOTE]

Wow, it seems like Malaysians are very popular in the region.

 

[Aepsilons]

They have a very colorful history regarding their foreign affairs.

 

[Carlosa]

They have a very colorful history regarding their foreign affairs.

Thinking of it, I would not mind at all if the Philippines were to retake the Sultanate of Zulu and the Indonesians take the rest of the island. I never been fond of Malaysia.

 

[gambit]

Yeah go ahead, you puto, your regime is not superior to anyone but suits yourself, and China just need the regime that benefits ourselves, that's enough. There is no comparison. Stop your long piece of BS to me.

What you are looking for is a benevolent dictatorship, which is about as rare as unicorn farts. It does not matter if the dictatorship is one man or one party. The Chinese leadership may be enlightened enough not to engage in familial dynastic succession, but to the eyes of the citizenry, how is intra-party succession where the next leader is opaquely chosen by the select few any different ? If our system, and am not talking about the American system, is not better, then why do so many chose to follow it or at least have the pretense of it ?

 

[Parmanu]

Great Read!!

China isn't the only society to be "authoritarian". In fact, before South Korea was a "democracy" it was ruled under a totalitarian by the name of Park Chung Hee, who rebuilt a war torn Korea into a utilitarian state all the way up to 1979 when he was assassinated. Eventually, Korea progressed into the Republic that it is today.

It was not a "Liberal Democracy" early in its developmental stage.

The same goes and applies for Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, Indonesia's Sukarno, Suharto; Philippines's Marcos.

yupp !!!

south koreans do not like to remember that part today.

 

[Aepsilons]

yupp !!!

south koreans do not like to remember that part today.

!! Very true and they get sensitive about that!!

Btw, Park was ruthless, but it was under his rule that Korea developed rapidly. He also encouraged Koreans to develop their own industry, he subsidized the growth of Hyundai, Daewoo, and other manufacturing companies such as Dongbu Steel, Pohang Iron and Steel Co.

He encouraged Japanese Zaibatsu style culture in Korea.

 

[Edison Chen]

There are exceptions to the rule and India and some other African countries, etc are such (they are usually poor developing countries), but that's because they don't have the education and political culture as in western countries.

China on the other hand, does have an educated class that is smart and vocal about complaining, that's why I think having the freedom to control government would make a big difference. Lets face it, you know very well that chinese don't take sh,,.t from anybody and are quick to fight and complain, that's why there are so many riots and protests so often.

Interesting, where in the west did you live?

It's true China has a growing number of educated class or middle class, which should be the biggest beneficiary if any political reform happens. The riots and protests inside China is due mainly to social inequality, like the violent land acquisition movement by real estate company, or the worker's claim of unpaid salaries. It seems like Chinese people are not free to require the government act on behalf of them, but the real problem is China is still developing, any improvement or change could make some people benefited while other people lost and thus lead to social turbulence. It's still a very short period for China's economy from political order driven model to an effective market led model, some of China's problems broke out in this drastic social transform period, it's very natural, I believe when the market is strong enough, the government has to step back or make some compromise, at that time they will care people's will more seriously.

The western system is not built in one day, it has been through hundreds of years, along with the industrialization. As Wagner's Law said, as the industrialization moves on, the relationship between the parties in the market also more and more complicated, resulting to the need of commercial law and spirit of contract (China lacks), more judicial organization will be created, the government will spend more to build the law. According to my understanding, it's like many parties, be it natural person or legal person, interact with each other, making contracts, engaging into lawsuit, all of them act by their best interest, they brought wealth to the country so they require rules to protect their assets or interests, as time went by, they will look for the agents of them to speak for them, there will be more conventionalized rule or regulation to maintain the social order, which is the result of the activities in the market for hundreds of years. During this period, people invented vote because of the modern relations of production brought up by the industrialization. Also in this period, western countries amended the constitutions many times to defend the power of capitalists by restricting the power of the King. Finally they put the power of government into the cage. Vote is the final form of balanced relation of the government and the market to me. Vote is not a natural thing, it's the outcome of social development between different parties. Western countries have this condition, but China not. Chinese government is very aggressive, this is good at the beginning, as the private sector grows strong, they will demand more power, to alter the current rule that is against their interest, which requires government's compromise. China's real industrialization only started since 1978, several decades of time is short compared to hundreds years of West's development. China need another 30 years to make our country more justice, under the rule of constitution, not by the authorization.

Looking around, even Japan only allowed vote in 1920s, 60 years after its economy reform. At the very beginning phase, South Korea rise very quicky because of government's direct engagement in the economy like China is doing. After their economy is strong enough with a strong middle class, they began the political reform, all the Asian countries did the same.

I got my master's degree in Austin, TX and worked there for a while, now I'm back to China. Since it's a short time, I basically know how the western society is like, I see all the people followed rule consciously, because the cost of against the rule is high, everyone behaves in their own yard without harming other's interest tacitly. I know this is exactly what China really need, not just the vote, a piece of paper, the thing behind the vote is really hard to tell.

 

[Carlosa]

It's true China has a growing number of educated class or middle class, which should be the biggest beneficiary if any political reform happens. The riots and protests inside China is due mainly to social inequality, like the violent land acquisition movement by real estate company, or the worker's claim of unpaid salaries. It seems like Chinese people are not free to require the government act on behalf of them, but the real problem is China is still developing, any improvement or change could make some people benefited while other people lost and thus lead to social turbulence. It's still a very short period for China's economy from political order driven model to an effective market led model, some of China's problems broke out in this drastic social transform period, it's very natural, I believe when the market is strong enough, the government has to step back or make some compromise, at that time they will care people's will more seriously.

The western system is not built in one day, it has been through hundreds of years, along with the industrialization. As Wagner's Law said, as the industrialization moves on, the relationship between the parties in the market also more and more complicated, resulting to the need of commercial law and spirit of contract (China lacks), more judicial organization will be created, the government will spend more to build the law. According to my understanding, it's like many parties, be it natural person or legal person, interact with each other, making contracts, engaging into lawsuit, all of them act by their best interest, they brought wealth to the country so they require rules to protect their assets or interests, as time went by, they will look for the agents of them to speak for them, there will be more conventionalized rule or regulation to maintain the social order, which is the result of the activities in the market for hundreds of years. During this period, people invented vote because of the modern relations of production brought up by the industrialization. Also in this period, western countries amended the constitutions many times to defend the power of capitalists by restricting the power of the King. Finally they put the power of government into the cage. Vote is the final form of balanced relation of the government and the market to me. Vote is not a natural thing, it's the outcome of social development between different parties. Western countries have this condition, but China not. Chinese government is very aggressive, this is good at the beginning, as the private sector grows strong, they will demand more power, to alter the current rule that is against their interest, which requires government's compromise. China's real industrialization only started since 1978, several decades of time is short compared to hundreds years of West's development. China need another 30 years to make our country more justice, under the rule of constitution, not by the authorization.

Looking around, even Japan only allowed vote in 1920s, 60 years after its economy reform. At the very beginning phase, South Korea rise very quicky because of government's direct engagement in the economy like China is doing. After their economy is strong enough with a strong middle class, they began the political reform, all the Asian countries did the same.

I got my master's degree in Austin, TX and worked there for a while, now I'm back to China. Since it's a short time, I basically know how the western society is like, I see all the people followed rule consciously, because the cost of against the rule is high, everyone behaves in their own yard without harming other's interest tacitly. I know this is exactly what China really need, not just the vote, a piece of paper, the thing behind the vote is really hard to tell.

I understand you and I hope it will work out that way for China in the end and its certainly true that it takes time for society to follow the rules of a system which is the reason why some countries have the system, but don't have a society willing to do their part in the system, so in the end they continue to be a corrupted mess and the system only works in name.

Now I know where you learnt about "puto", ha ha.

 

[Edison Chen]

I understand you and I hope it will work out that way for China in the end and its certainly true that it takes time for society to follow the rules of a system which is the reason why some countries have the system, but don't have a society willing to do their part in the system, so in the end they continue to be a corrupted mess and the system only works in name.

Now I know where you learnt about "puto", ha ha.

Yeah, those guys teach me that word. If I had time to learn another language, it will be Spanish, sounds beautiful than French.

 

[Carlosa]

Yeah, those guys teach me that word. If I had time to learn another language, it will be Spanish, sounds beautiful than French.

Gracias amigo, but I have to tell you, Spanish in Spain actually sounds quite a bit different that latino american spanish, actually nicer, particularly when spoken by beautiful Spanish girls, ahh time for another holiday in Spain, feeling homesick again.

 

[Aepsilons]

It's true China has a growing number of educated class or middle class, which should be the biggest beneficiary if any political reform happens. The riots and protests inside China is due mainly to social inequality, like the violent land acquisition movement by real estate company, or the worker's claim of unpaid salaries. It seems like Chinese people are not free to require the government act on behalf of them, but the real problem is China is still developing, any improvement or change could make some people benefited while other people lost and thus lead to social turbulence. It's still a very short period for China's economy from political order driven model to an effective market led model, some of China's problems broke out in this drastic social transform period, it's very natural, I believe when the market is strong enough, the government has to step back or make some compromise, at that time they will care people's will more seriously.

The western system is not built in one day, it has been through hundreds of years, along with the industrialization. As Wagner's Law said, as the industrialization moves on, the relationship between the parties in the market also more and more complicated, resulting to the need of commercial law and spirit of contract (China lacks), more judicial organization will be created, the government will spend more to build the law. According to my understanding, it's like many parties, be it natural person or legal person, interact with each other, making contracts, engaging into lawsuit, all of them act by their best interest, they brought wealth to the country so they require rules to protect their assets or interests, as time went by, they will look for the agents of them to speak for them, there will be more conventionalized rule or regulation to maintain the social order, which is the result of the activities in the market for hundreds of years. During this period, people invented vote because of the modern relations of production brought up by the industrialization. Also in this period, western countries amended the constitutions many times to defend the power of capitalists by restricting the power of the King. Finally they put the power of government into the cage. Vote is the final form of balanced relation of the government and the market to me. Vote is not a natural thing, it's the outcome of social development between different parties. Western countries have this condition, but China not. Chinese government is very aggressive, this is good at the beginning, as the private sector grows strong, they will demand more power, to alter the current rule that is against their interest, which requires government's compromise. China's real industrialization only started since 1978, several decades of time is short compared to hundreds years of West's development. China need another 30 years to make our country more justice, under the rule of constitution, not by the authorization.

Looking around, even Japan only allowed vote in 1920s, 60 years after its economy reform. At the very beginning phase, South Korea rise very quicky because of government's direct engagement in the economy like China is doing. After their economy is strong enough with a strong middle class, they began the political reform, all the Asian countries did the same.

I got my master's degree in Austin, TX and worked there for a while, now I'm back to China. Since it's a short time, I basically know how the western society is like, I see all the people followed rule consciously, because the cost of against the rule is high, everyone behaves in their own yard without harming other's interest tacitly. I know this is exactly what China really need, not just the vote, a piece of paper, the thing behind the vote is really hard to tell.

Excellent analysis , Edison!

 

[Zsari]

I don't think it's necessary for China to welcome back the KMT specifically, as long as it eventually reaches a point where an opposition party (or equivalent entity) can serve as a check on the CCP. Singapore is technically a democracy, but in reality, it's a single-party authoritarian state. My understanding is that the ruling party has been gradually losing popularity, however, and so it's not unimaginable that an opposition party will eventually take power. The same process happened in Japan with the LDP and the DPJ (although the DPJ was rather incompetent the first time around). I think as long as it's a gradual process, China will get there. And from all appearances, that sort of gradual transition seems to be what China has been achieving in the past 30 years, so I would say there is a better than 50% chance that China will someday have a loyal opposition party.

But that's the internal political structure of China. I'm not certain that the external relations will be improved by a democratic China, or even an authoritarian China, but with KMT as the authoritarian party instead of the CCP. I mentioned earlier that democracy could actually increase tensions, with the government pandering to the most base and extreme predilections of the populace, which today is total dominance of the SCS. What could change that?

1) The demographic change that is occurring in China could change the priorities of the population from expansion to an internal focus (possible)

2) The increasing wealth of the populace could make it more risk-averse, and thus conflict-averse (possible)

3) Diplomatic relations could suddenly improve (doubtful), causing the populace to feel more friendly towards China's neighbors (doubtful)

4) Some internal catalyst would change China's priorities to an internal focus (e.g. "mass events" that spiral out of control, terrorism, etc.) (unlikely)

Other than that, I suspect it's going to be a rough couple of decades for the countries surrounding the SCS. To be honest, China has been able to do whatever it wants so far, and its deceitful moves in the Scarborough Shoal (offering a mutual stand-down with the Philippines, staying even after the Philippines withdrew) provide a model to be used in the Spratley and Paracel islands. Who will stop China in the SCS? Not the US, we have our own problems elsewhere that no one wants to help us with.

Anyway, to return to your scenario, I view it as an unlikely outcome at this point in time, but never say never.

Historical tension does not originate from the CCP, nor would it go away with the CCP, and as I've pointed out already all of the territorial disputes predates that of PRC, so taking CCP out of the equation would not change anything. Matter fact if you look at the Diaoyu island dispute, the group in HK that routinely send out protesters to mark claim over the island are from the anti-CCP camp, and are today restrained by the Chinese government so as not to create another diplomatic incident. Due to succession process in China, the new administration derives its legitimacy from the previous one, thus it's policy has remained far more consistent than under democratic election where its possible to see a 180 degree turnaround when a new administration take power. The so call trust is but a fallacy.

As you have stated prior, a democratic China would be far more nationalistic and irrational than the current CCP leadership, anyone who think China would giving up its territorial claim without the CCP is delusional. I suspect the true motive is that one hopes with far less capable party like the KMT added to the constraint of a democratic system, China would be in a weaker state which in term would given others in the region an upper hand.