The Path to Democracy

[Genesis]

Is democracy right for China? Can a developing nation handle democracy? Will democracy stop progress? Will democracy be too divisive?

Too many of these questions has been brought up by experts and pundits alike, but the real question to me, is a transition to a different political system, should it be done organically or artificially? Should it happen naturally? Or through force, be it violent or otherwise? What are the consequences of that?

Not enough attention has been paid, in my mind, to the realities of a transition, rather, all the attention are paid to the end result of a said change.


I want to bring up several points, the role of the political commissars in the army and the police forces, the dissolution of state held companies, the handling of current government members, and new policies that must be enacted as a result of said transition.

One often mocked, yet rarely remembered fact is that the Chinese army and Police still have political commissars that have both official and defacto control over both forces. They are military men and not political tools like decades, before, but that doesn't change the fact their main role is more political than military.

I won't go as far as to say they will rebel, but their ranks go as high as LT. General, and you can't simply let these men go without giving them another position, simply letting them go would severely compromise the combat effectiveness of the troops, the morale of the army and most importantly, it may undermine the army in unforeseen ways, like military secrets, weapon secrets, and more.

They could also undermine the army effectiveness and their willingness to take orders, in an effort to get back into the game, all actions that would affect the Chinese security and society as a whole due to the high ranks and the understated fact about their abilities as a person, as no moron has ever made it to the rank of General, almost anywhere in the world, and less so in China, where the competition is usually more brutal than anywhere else.

I haven't even gone into how intelligence agencies will react, and the consequences of that.


Another big problem is the existence of the state owned companies. The Soviet Union never had the economic importance and size of China, nor did it have as open an economy as China has now. This creates two problems, one is the sheer scale of state owned companies that needs to be privatized and the second is the existence of a already powerful private sector.

Mixing the two would mean creating new giants that could potentially monopolize the market and create even more inequality and the slashing of millions of jobs, both would have serious effects upon both the Chinese society and foreign policy directions.

Obviously not all state owned companies would go private, but many would need to, like Steel, telecom, energy, and more, since a more free market is something that people expect to come with serious reform.

Lest we forget, there is also a foreign aspect to these companies, how would they act internationally? Especially the energy sector, and shipping sector, that have massive interests overseas.


If China is to go democratic, voting would need to take place, who would be the candidates? In theory, anyone. But could any of the current administration participate? Regardless of whether or not they are corrupt, they are of the current administration, and how many would feel comfortable to let the same people carry on, if something of a revolution did happen.

Even disregarding how the new administration must handle the millions of people, that are in office, how can China find that many people that have the experience, the backing, the charisma, and the ability to govern a nation of 1.3 billion.

This means some from the old administration will be left in tact, which could derail further reforms, and if none of them are used, then the Communist mistake of using farmers that knew nothing of anything to govern the country will repeat, and stagnation will surely follow, if we are lucky.


Lastly, the two child policy, the Hukou policy, the current distribution of wealth, and many policies that would appear unfair on all fronts, and its necessity is questioned, but the fact remains, if removed, there would be wide implications.

Living in New York and New Jersey is not that different, but living in Beijing and Xinjiang is as different as two separate countries. The Indian example already showed us what over population can do to a city, and it's not like Chinese cities are not crowded as it is.

The two child policy will have the least effect, as China is getting more developed, large amount of population are not looking to more children and in the rural villages, it's not like they follow it anyways.

With separation of federal and provincial powers, would the federal government still have the ability to take money from the richer provinces to give it to the poorer ones? Maybe, but definitely not right away, as that is hardly popular, and if Western voting is any indication, these population centers that also happen to be rich, are key in any election.

There are obviously many more that needs to be taken into account, like the continuation of infrastructure projects, dissolution of whole ministries, like the family planning one, and much more.


To cap, I'm not saying China should go one way or the other, I am simply asking the question that nobody seems to be interested in, how should China handle this transition? If like Hong Kong, China rises as well? (It won't, there's a billion reasons for that, but I don't want to talk about it here.)

Has anyone ever wondered, that since Chinese economic problems are hard to solve either way, what might appear easiest are foreign policy ones that China can do with even a depleted military, as the difference is that huge.

If I am to lean one way or the other, I must say a gradual change in state to private, a gradual change in the way officials are selected, and the way the army is maintained. Changes that are real and happening, but won't rip the social fabric in a million pieces and leave for the world and China to pick up.

There are a ton more that I can talk about, foreign policy, the current world order that is far more competitive than even 30 years ago,national prestige, foreign interventions, etc, etc. I'll leave it at this.


@LeveragedBuyout lol, you are the only person I will tag ever, since I know you won't answer if you don't.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

*I'm quite cynical towards our (the US) political system, you'll see this throughout my post.

This isn't the most in-depth commentary I can offer, but I tend to avoid such discussion in general and don't think I can muster the will to provide anything more substantial without wanting to bang my head into a wall either... so it will have to do. Also, I welcome feedback, but wont field questions.

China - My take on democracy:

Democracy isn't right for China, this doesn't mean I think their current government is either, it least not without an independent judiciary, that would set my support over-the-top. Democracies are difficult government to manage, even for those of us who have years of experience with them... we still screw ours up. Here's why I don't think Democracy is the right choice for China:

Size

Giving a voice to every American has left us with a political deadlock that can't seem to be broken. We have slightly over 300M people. Now imaging voting being done in China, with 1.3B people and with every seat in a congress and presidency being offered up for grabs. Can you image the deadlock? In the US we have two distinct polarization, in China I can't even fathom the number of parties that would have enough support to have a valid claim at being overlooked by the established or in power party. The US probably shouldn't be a democracy (I know we are actually a Republic!!! I Don't Need a Lecture!), our size just doesn't let it work efficiently, China can't go this route due to its size.

Speaking of Efficiency:

When everyone demands a voice, nothing gets done quickly, the US is a testament to this, though when we are annoyed by another nation we can move quickly. For all its faults, the Chinese government can get things done much more readily then ours can and with greater scale and effect. Yes, they like to move slowly, but that's a choice and not a necessity. In the US we have to move slowly or else someone is going to be pissed and slow down the process in Congress or the House. It happens. Democracies aren't efficient because everyone wants to have their say... that and sometimes a vote is so close its mind-boggling as to why it didn't pass (like a 4-5 split), then a recount, re-vote and more deadlock and finger-pointing is in order thus further complicating the process..

Centrality:

China favors a structured political system, democracies encourage people to have more power then the Chinese government would want them too. China's strength comes from its governments ability to make decisions without needing the support of its population. In the US we can't do something without inciting protests and then backtracking - with the exception of war. Sure, this happens in China to at a local level, but on a national scale, the government is still very structured.

Immaturity:

Democracy takes time and it takes failure to perfect, we haven't come close ourselves, but China has even less experience then we do. If implemented at a local level and then transitioned to a national scale it could work if the phased approach is carefully managed, assessed and tested, but that takes years, if not decades and people are too impatient to wait for reforms to be assessed. That time scale just isn't viable.

Transition:

One you make the transition to a Democracy, it's very hard to go back to a previous form of government without social unrest on a large scale. For a nation that likes peace, stability and security, China couldn't transition to a Democracy, decide it doesn't like it and then transition back.

Democracy isn't right for everyone, sometimes I think it isn't right for the US, and some nations need a strong central power. Iraq, Libya, Syria, take a look at them without a central authority and an immature democratic system. These nations are a mess. Democracy might be welcomed and demanded by some people, but I don't think it's right for China.

@Chinese-Dragon @Genesis @Nihonjin1051

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

There is only one answer for your question: China won't go to the 'democratic path' that you mentioned above.

The western democracy is just an excuse for the corporate lobby to control over your country and your government.

CPC isn't perfect. However, most Chinese citizens are still better off with them than with those failed experiments of the so-called 'democracy'.

 

[Genesis]

*I'm quite cynical towards our (the US) political system, you'll see this throughout my post.

This isn't the most in-depth commentary I can offer, but I tend to avoid such discussion in general and don't think I can muster the will to provide anything more substantial without wanting to bang my head into a wall either... so it will have to do. Also, I welcome feedback, but wont field questions.

China - My take on democracy:

Democracy isn't right for China, this doesn't mean I think their current government is either, it least not without an independent judiciary, that would set my support over-the-top. Democracies are difficult government to manage, even for those of us who have years of experience with them... we still screw ours up. Here's why I don't think Democracy is the right choice for China:

Size

Giving a voice to every American has left us with a political deadlock that can't seem to be broken. We have slightly over 300M people. Now imaging voting being done in China, with 1.3B people and with every seat in a congress and presidency being offered up for grabs. Can you image the deadlock? In the US we have two distinct polarization, in China I can't even fathom the number of parties that would have enough support to have a valid claim at being overlooked by the established or in power party. The US probably shouldn't be a democracy (I know we are actually a Republic!!! I Don't Need a Lecture!), our size just doesn't let it work efficiently, China can't go this route due to its size.

Speaking of Efficiency:

When everyone demands a voice, nothing gets done quickly, the US is a testament to this, though when we are annoyed by another nation we can move quickly. For all its faults, the Chinese government can get things done much more readily then ours can and with greater scale and effect. Yes, they like to move slowly, but that's a choice and not a necessity. In the US we have to move slowly or else someone is going to be pissed and slow down the process in Congress or the House. It happens. Democracies aren't efficient because everyone wants to have their say... that and sometimes a vote is so close its mind-boggling as to why it didn't pass (like a 4-5 split), then a recount, re-vote and more deadlock and finger-pointing is in order thus further complicating the process..

Centrality:

China favors a structured political system, democracies encourage people to have more power then the Chinese government would want them too. China's strength comes from its governments ability to make decisions without needing the support of its population. In the US we can't do something without inciting protests and then backtracking - with the exception of war. Sure, this happens in China to at a local level, but on a national scale, the government is still very structured.

Immaturity:

Democracy takes time and it takes failure to perfect, we haven't come close ourselves, but China has even less experience then we do. If implemented at a local level and then transitioned to a national scale it could work if the phased approach is carefully managed, assessed and tested, but that takes years, if not decades and people are too impatient to wait for reforms to be assessed. That time scale just isn't viable.

Transition:

One you make the transition to a Democracy, it's very hard to go back to a previous form of government without social unrest on a large scale. For a nation that likes peace, stability and security, China couldn't transition to a Democracy, decide it doesn't like it and then transition back.

Democracy isn't right for everyone, sometimes I think it isn't right for the US, and some nations need a strong central power. Iraq, Libya, Syria, take a look at them without a central authority and an immature democratic system. These nations are a mess. Democracy might be welcomed and demanded by some people, but I don't think it's right for China.

@Chinese-Dragon @Genesis @Nihonjin1051

The only feedback I can give is I wasn't talking democracy specifically, though some are targeted at it. Mostly what I'm saying is, if there is a sudden shift in direction for China, what would be the benefits and consequences.

Whether or not democracy will be good or not would be irrelevant, if we are struck by lighting before we are even sitting in a tree.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Is democracy right for China? Can a developing nation handle democracy? Will democracy stop progress? Will democracy be too divisive?

Too many of these questions has been brought up by experts and pundits alike, but the real question to me, is a transition to a different political system, should it be done organically or artificially? Should it happen naturally? Or through force, be it violent or otherwise? What are the consequences of that?

Not enough attention has been paid, in my mind, to the realities of a transition, rather, all the attention are paid to the end result of a said change.


I want to bring up several points, the role of the political commissars in the army and the police forces, the dissolution of state held companies, the handling of current government members, and new policies that must be enacted as a result of said transition.

One often mocked, yet rarely remembered fact is that the Chinese army and Police still have political commissars that have both official and defacto control over both forces. They are military men and not political tools like decades, before, but that doesn't change the fact their main role is more political than military.

I won't go as far as to say they will rebel, but their ranks go as high as LT. General, and you can't simply let these men go without giving them another position, simply letting them go would severely compromise the combat effectiveness of the troops, the morale of the army and most importantly, it may undermine the army in unforeseen ways, like military secrets, weapon secrets, and more.

They could also undermine the army effectiveness and their willingness to take orders, in an effort to get back into the game, all actions that would affect the Chinese security and society as a whole due to the high ranks and the understated fact about their abilities as a person, as no moron has ever made it to the rank of General, almost anywhere in the world, and less so in China, where the competition is usually more brutal than anywhere else.

I haven't even gone into how intelligence agencies will react, and the consequences of that.


Another big problem is the existence of the state owned companies. The Soviet Union never had the economic importance and size of China, nor did it have as open an economy as China has now. This creates two problems, one is the sheer scale of state owned companies that needs to be privatized and the second is the existence of a already powerful private sector.

Mixing the two would mean creating new giants that could potentially monopolize the market and create even more inequality and the slashing of millions of jobs, both would have serious effects upon both the Chinese society and foreign policy directions.

Obviously not all state owned companies would go private, but many would need to, like Steel, telecom, energy, and more, since a more free market is something that people expect to come with serious reform.

Lest we forget, there is also a foreign aspect to these companies, how would they act internationally? Especially the energy sector, and shipping sector, that have massive interests overseas.


If China is to go democratic, voting would need to take place, who would be the candidates? In theory, anyone. But could any of the current administration participate? Regardless of whether or not they are corrupt, they are of the current administration, and how many would feel comfortable to let the same people carry on, if something of a revolution did happen.

Even disregarding how the new administration must handle the millions of people, that are in office, how can China find that many people that have the experience, the backing, the charisma, and the ability to govern a nation of 1.3 billion.

This means some from the old administration will be left in tact, which could derail further reforms, and if none of them are used, then the Communist mistake of using farmers that knew nothing of anything to govern the country will repeat, and stagnation will surely follow, if we are lucky.


Lastly, the two child policy, the Hukou policy, the current distribution of wealth, and many policies that would appear unfair on all fronts, and its necessity is questioned, but the fact remains, if removed, there would be wide implications.

Living in New York and New Jersey is not that different, but living in Beijing and Xinjiang is as different as two separate countries. The Indian example already showed us what over population can do to a city, and it's not like Chinese cities are not crowded as it is.

The two child policy will have the least effect, as China is getting more developed, large amount of population are not looking to more children and in the rural villages, it's not like they follow it anyways.

With separation of federal and provincial powers, would the federal government still have the ability to take money from the richer provinces to give it to the poorer ones? Maybe, but definitely not right away, as that is hardly popular, and if Western voting is any indication, these population centers that also happen to be rich, are key in any election.

There are obviously many more that needs to be taken into account, like the continuation of infrastructure projects, dissolution of whole ministries, like the family planning one, and much more.


To cap, I'm not saying China should go one way or the other, I am simply asking the question that nobody seems to be interested in, how should China handle this transition? If like Hong Kong, China rises as well? (It won't, there's a billion reasons for that, but I don't want to talk about it here.)

Has anyone ever wondered, that since Chinese economic problems are hard to solve either way, what might appear easiest are foreign policy ones that China can do with even a depleted military, as the difference is that huge.

If I am to lean one way or the other, I must say a gradual change in state to private, a gradual change in the way officials are selected, and the way the army is maintained. Changes that are real and happening, but won't rip the social fabric in a million pieces and leave for the world and China to pick up.

There are a ton more that I can talk about, foreign policy, the current world order that is far more competitive than even 30 years ago,national prestige, foreign interventions, etc, etc. I'll leave it at this.


@LeveragedBuyout lol, you are the only person I will tag ever, since I know you won't answer if you don't.

I always appreciate your original posts, @Genesis , so thank you for including me in the conversation. I think you're approaching two separate topics here, so if you don't mind, I will divide them into the question of democracy, and the question of capitalism.

Democracy for China?
@SvenSvensonov already raised many excellent points, so I won't repeat them, but rather, approach from a different angle. To invoke @Chinese-Dragon 's oft-repeated wisdom, it's important not to get caught up in a dogmatic view of governance, but rather, use what works, and plan contingencies for when the current system breaks down.

Strengths and Weaknesses
This is the fundamental strength of democracy and the fundamental weakness of authoritarianism: democracy is designed with checks and balances, authoritarianism has no check on power. When leadership is enlightened, as Sven pointed out, authoritarian regimes can act decisively and quickly. This has served China extremely well over the past 30 years; but in the 30 years prior to that, it served China extremely poorly.

Democracy, on the other hand, can be messy and inefficient, as Sven observed, but it also provides a mechanism for constant, incremental adjustments based on the market of ideas. When one party fails, another can be elected. When both parties fail, a third can be created. And the market for votes crafts and guides the parties to embrace what is known as the "median voter theorem," or the preferences of the voter that straddles the center of discourse. The majority of the time, this means that democracy acts as a check on extremism and corruption, but because humans are emotional, it occasionally allows a Hitler to rise to power. Generally speaking, though, it seems to work better, over longer periods of time, than the alternative, because a majority over time is necessary to govern, and in an evolving immigrant society like the United States, that means the parties and politicians must change in line with the preferences of the people.

Democracy itself, though, is an ambiguous concept. Switzerland allows some form of direct democracy through referendums and is highly federalized; the United States has a representative democracy, not a direct one, and has a hybrid federal/centralized structure. The United Kingdom has a House of Lords, most of whom are appointed, and the remainder inherited their seats, and the parliament wields power in the UK far beyond what Congress wields in the US. All of these are considered democracies, even though they differ wildly in structure. Who is to say that China will not find its own "democracy with Chinese characteristics" that accommodates Chinese preferences, while also giving a voice to the people?

Ends, not Means
Moreover, we should be less concerned with the form of democracy than the substance. As I alluded to before, the important thing about democracy is what it does, not what it is. What does democracy do? It moderates politics, provides periodic opportunities to eliminate incompetent/corrupt/extreme politicians who are out of step with the mainstream, and most importantly, provides a support for the checks-and-balances system. Our legislature, executive, and even (to an extent) judiciary branch are all elected on staggered terms, and each must appeal to the population for a mandate at regular intervals. They are also designed to be adversarial, and jealously guard their own power, lest it be usurped by one or both of the other branches of government. Our states have tried (and mostly failed, unfortunately) to preserve their own powers vs. the central government, but that check was, once upon a time, an effective way to ensure that the government was responsive to the people by having powers devolved to be as close as possible to the localities affected. The two-tier system, of a central government with limited national powers, and a federal system of states with their own powers, is still the best compromise, in my opinion, and worked well in the United States until politicians and the judiciary conspired to dismantle it in the 20th century. Still should China construct a framework that achieves the same results, it's less important that it embrace democracy in name, when it is able to achieve the same ends in practice.

Finally, to your point about forcible vs. organic change of systems, I will always favor an evolutionary, organic change. South Korea was once an authoritarian military dictatorship, but embraced democracy as a necessary and timely next step when it was ready. The same for Taiwan, and in my view, the same can be said for Singapore. China will reach some "next stage" when it is ready, whether or not it's democracy, but it's important that the necessary institutions are in place for it to do so. A failed democracy would be far more destructive, and not only consume itself, but would probably create a far less competent authoritarian system in time, undoing all of the good that the previous authoritarian regime worked towards. I am optimistic, and have said many times here that I believe China will create a system modeled on Singapore's at some point, but it will take time.

Now, to the other topic you mentioned.

Capitalism and the Privatization of Industry in China
This is a recurring topic on PDF, so I apologize in advance for not covering it in depth here. I started a thread some months ago about this (China’s state enterprise reform could strengthen state and earlier, China’s Trilemma ), but the bottom line is that this is not a binary choice between state owned enterprises that serve the people, and privatized enterprises that coldly pursue profit. SOEs can address market failures, as they sometimes do in Europe and the US (yes, the United States also has important SOEs, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage market). But on the whole, China needs the efficiency of the private sector to ensure that it continues to allocate resources effectively and keep the economy (and living standards) growing.

There is no such thing as a market without government interference (it's called regulation), there is simply a spectrum along which a government can choose to interfere maximally (North Korea) or minimally (Hong Kong). China will choose what is right for itself, and indeed, the reform program currently in place is meant to move China along that spectrum, not revolutionize the economy.

Again, great topic. Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

 

[Genesis]

There is only one answer for your question: China won't go to the 'democratic path' that you mentioned above.

The western democracy is just an excuse for the corporate lobby to control over your country and your government.

CPC isn't perfect. However, most Chinese citizens are still better off with them than with those failed experiments of the so-called 'democracy'.

Whether China does go through this path isn't the topic, but I seen so many people commenting on this, I want to point out, how many have really thought it through, and came to the conclusion, everything will go smoothly, whatever that means.

As to CCP, that means almost nothing to me, I'm pro China, yea yea @Nihonjin1051 I said I'll be pro US from now, on, but the thing is, I lie sometimes.

I have no stakes in CCP, and want none, but since I am Chinese, I am thus pro China. Right now, CCP is doing ok, though I wouldn't go as far as to say they need to go, for the above reasons, which is the topic of this conversation.

 

[Galad]

Embracing western style fake democracy will be a mortal wound for China and its thousands of years old civilization.There is nothing democratic in the system established here in Bulgaria or in USA or any of the countries of so-called international community..Two parties or twenty it is same-none of them actually care for thos who supposedly voted them in power.End of the day politicians from right,center or left spectrum of politics are all the same-national interests and well-being of people are last of their priorities.Financial fraud,corruption,crimes,colliding between regulatory organs and corporations,revolving doors between goverments and bussiness,buying of politicians,covering up of crimes commited by so-called elites,destruction of society,destruction of most basic moral values,never-ending crusade against population ...these are just a small part of all the things done under guise of so-called "democracy" .China is doing right thing- proceeds ahead at its own pace,terms,accepting and implimenthing things fit to its old civilization and not paying attention to hypocritical,two-faced West.

 

[Aepsilons]

Whether China does go through this path isn't the topic, but I seen so many people commenting on this, I want to point out, how many have really thought it through, and came to the conclusion, everything will go smoothly, whatever that means.

As to CCP, that means almost nothing to me, I'm pro China, yea yea @Nihonjin1051 I said I'll be pro US from now, on, but the thing is, I lie sometimes.

I have no stakes in CCP, and want none, but since I am Chinese, I am thus pro China. Right now, CCP is doing ok, though I wouldn't go as far as to say they need to go, for the above reasons, which is the topic of this conversation.

That's a true Zhonggoren, spoken like a true blooded Zhonggoren ,loyalty and devotion should be to the nation, irrespective of what government is holding onto power. I will say this --- before China was "Communist", she had one of the greatest Imperial system ever seen, organized from the municipal level to the Emperor holding power, even before Western notion of democracy was exported , China already had an effective civil administration , a meritocratic system that ensures those who were qualified held power. It's simple truth that even before Mao was born, China already had a glorious political system that -- that more or less remained unchanged throuhout the Dynasties. If and when the CCP looses power, does that mean China and its collective identity will vanish? Of course not. China, her histories, her culture, her language, her people -- will remain. Government is there to suit the needs of the people, if it's current form fails to uphold the mandate, it will be replaced by the Chinese people. This is simple fact.

The question of what political system will China adopt -- is the question. Either she reverts to a Constitutional Monarchy, to a Republican form, or what have you -- it will have definite Chinese characteristics.

Zhongguo is ancient. Governments rise and fall and are mere stratal layers in its vast collective existence. We are after all referring to a civilization state that is over 5000 years old.

I support whatever system benefits China and the greater East Asian Region.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Embracing western style fake democracy will be a mortal wound for China and its thousands of years old civilization.There is nothing democratic in the system established here in Bulgaria or in USA or any of the countries of so-called international community..Two parties or twenty it is same-none of them actually care for thos who supposedly voted them in power.End of the day politicians from right,center or left spectrum of politics are all the same-national interests and well-being of people are last of their priorities.Financial fraud,corruption,crimes,colliding between regulatory organs and corporations,revolving doors between goverments and bussiness,buying of politicians,covering up of crimes commited by so-called elites,destruction of society,destruction of most basic moral values,never-ending crusade against population ...these are just a small part of all the things done under guise of so-called "democracy" .China is doing right thing- proceeds ahead at its own pace,terms,accepting and implimenthing things fit to its old civilization and not paying attention to hypocritical,two-faced West.

The democracy has become a meaningless word at the end.

Yet, I still can't believe that many Ukrainians are still so naive about the democracy.

How they can forget so fast about the failure of the recent orange revolution from 2004 to 2009?

 

[Genesis]

I always appreciate your original posts, @Genesis , so thank you for including me in the conversation. I think you're approaching two separate topics here, so if you don't mind, I will divide them into the question of democracy, and the question of capitalism.

Democracy for China?
@SvenSvensonov already raised many excellent points, so I won't repeat them, but rather, approach from a different angle. To invoke @Chinese-Dragon 's oft-repeated wisdom, it's important not to get caught up in a dogmatic view of governance, but rather, use what works, and plan contingencies for when the current system breaks down.

Strengths and Weaknesses
This is the fundamental strength of democracy and the fundamental weakness of authoritarianism: democracy is designed with checks and balances, authoritarianism has no check on power. When leadership is enlightened, as Sven pointed out, authoritarian regimes can act decisively and quickly. This has served China extremely well over the past 30 years; but in the 30 years prior to that, it served China extremely poorly.

We sort of differ on the checks and balances, America's democracy, though subtle, to me it has evolved greatly, from the times of Washington, to right now.

Though the constitution remains largely the same, correct me if I am wrong, US is no longer the same.

So in my mind, if the system is largely the same than the reason for this change isn't the system, per say, it's the people. American people are much richer than before, they are much more educated, and they hold much more tangible power.

China to me would be the same, regardless of the system, 1989 would not happen again, because the Chinese people have much more power to strike back. The soldiers are much more educated and connected to the people, the people are educated, and are much better off, they don't depend on the government anymore.

The recent death in Shanghai, it wasn't even the government and yet, the outrage is so, that the government must take every action.

Democracy, on the other hand, can be messy and inefficient, as Sven observed, but it also provides a mechanism for constant, incremental adjustments based on the market of ideas. When one party fails, another can be elected. When both parties fail, a third can be created. And the market for votes crafts and guides the parties to embrace what is known as the "median voter theorem," or the preferences of the voter that straddles the center of discourse. The majority of the time, this means that democracy acts as a check on extremism and corruption, but because humans are emotional, it occasionally allows a Hitler to rise to power. Generally speaking, though, it seems to work better, over longer periods of time, than the alternative, because a majority over time is necessary to govern, and in an evolving immigrant society like the United States, that means the parties and politicians must change in line with the preferences of the people.

That third party thing never works, because we have already forgotten the Bush years, Obama is now public enemy number one. Now I'm not judging them one way or the other, but it does seem just because we can find fault with both doesn't mean a third will rise.

Canada is a bit different, we have the NDP with Liberal and Conservatives, but NDP have never taken power, and I believe Canadian parties have far less hold on the country than the American ones do.

Democracy itself, though, is an ambiguous concept. Switzerland allows some form of direct democracy through referendums and is highly federalized; the United States has a representative democracy, not a direct one, and has a hybrid federal/centralized structure. The United Kingdom has a House of Lords, most of whom are appointed, and the remainder inherited their seats, and the parliament wields power in the UK far beyond what Congress wields in the US. All of these are considered democracies, even though they differ wildly in structure. Who is to say that China will not find its own "democracy with Chinese characteristics" that accommodates Chinese preferences, while also giving a voice to the people?

in a way we do have it, does Chinese government listen to the people? Recent reforms certainly suggest Xi didn't make decisions in his sleep, but there is no direct way for Chinese to voice their opinions.

Now here's what's interesting, China has reformed far more in the last year than US has in the last 20, yet, US as a more direct route to power and China has no route.

Which brings us back to the tangible power I was talking about, true people power, no given, but earned.

Ends, not Means
Moreover, we should be less concerned with the form of democracy than the substance. As I alluded to before, the important thing about democracy is what it does, not what it is. What does democracy do? It moderates politics, provides periodic opportunities to eliminate incompetent/corrupt/extreme politicians who are out of step with the mainstream, and most importantly, provides a support for the checks-and-balances system. Our legislature, executive, and even (to an extent) judiciary branch are all elected on staggered terms, and each must appeal to the population for a mandate at regular intervals. They are also designed to be adversarial, and jealously guard their own power, lest it be usurped by one or both of the other branches of government. Our states have tried (and mostly failed, unfortunately) to preserve their own powers vs. the central government, but that check was, once upon a time, an effective way to ensure that the government was responsive to the people by having powers devolved to be as close as possible to the localities affected. The two-tier system, of a central government with limited national powers, and a federal system of states with their own powers, is still the best compromise, in my opinion, and worked well in the United States until politicians and the judiciary conspired to dismantle it in the 20th century. Still should China construct a framework that achieves the same results, it's less important that it embrace democracy in name, when it is able to achieve the same ends in practice.

Finally, to your point about forcible vs. organic change of systems, I will always favor an evolutionary, organic change. South Korea was once an authoritarian military dictatorship, but embraced democracy as a necessary and timely next step when it was ready. The same for Taiwan, and in my view, the same can be said for Singapore. China will reach some "next stage" when it is ready, whether or not it's democracy, but it's important that the necessary institutions are in place for it to do so. A failed democracy would be far more destructive, and not only consume itself, but would probably create a far less competent authoritarian system in time, undoing all of the good that the previous authoritarian regime worked towards. I am optimistic, and have said many times here that I believe China will create a system modeled on Singapore's at some point, but it will take time.

Another point I would like to point to a failed democracy, a failed democracy today still has legitimacy, no one in India calls the Singh government illegal and must be destroyed, Congress likely will make a comeback next time around, I don't want to discuss why here, but the point is, the Chinese government always feel the heat, and in some ways feels they must perform, or else they be gone, gone.

The ancient rule for emperors is the carrot and the stick, and he always wants his officials to feel there is a blade against their necks. The CCP has put the blade there themselves with Deng, the visionary, and from now on, they can no longer get away from it, and the more they try, in improving the country, the blade actually gets closer.

Now, to the other topic you mentioned.

Capitalism and the Privatization of Industry in China
This is a recurring topic on PDF, so I apologize in advance for not covering it in depth here. I started a thread some months ago about this (China’s state enterprise reform could strengthen state and earlier, China’s Trilemma ), but the bottom line is that this is not a binary choice between state owned enterprises that serve the people, and privatized enterprises that coldly pursue profit. SOEs can address market failures, as they sometimes do in Europe and the US (yes, the United States also has important SOEs, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage market). But on the whole, China needs the efficiency of the private sector to ensure that it continues to allocate resources effectively and keep the economy (and living standards) growing.

There is no such thing as a market without government interference (it's called regulation), there is simply a spectrum along which a government can choose to interfere maximally (North Korea) or minimally (Hong Kong). China will choose what is right for itself, and indeed, the reform program currently in place is meant to move China along that spectrum, not revolutionize the economy.

Again, great topic. Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

I was more talking about how do you propose Chinese state companies be divided or go private? The final result if done right can be either or, but if done wrong, it's just bad.

I thought about saying something, but this is actually a big topic than I first envisioned, regarding state and private, I'll get back to it.

 

[BoQ77]

Democracy is not a Western standard.
It's internal demand.

Our people don't need freedom? social benefit ?

No. we all need, we need democracy.

 

[gambit]

Embracing western style fake democracy will be a mortal wound for China and its thousands of years old civilization.There is nothing democratic in the system established here in Bulgaria or in USA or any of the countries of so-called international community..Two parties or twenty it is same-none of them actually care for thos who supposedly voted them in power.End of the day politicians from right,center or left spectrum of politics are all the same-national interests and well-being of people are last of their priorities.Financial fraud,corruption,crimes,colliding between regulatory organs and corporations,revolving doors between goverments and bussiness,buying of politicians,covering up of crimes commited by so-called elites,destruction of society,destruction of most basic moral values,never-ending crusade against population ...these are just a small part of all the things done under guise of so-called "democracy" .China is doing right thing- proceeds ahead at its own pace,terms,accepting and implimenthing things fit to its old civilization and not paying attention to hypocritical,two-faced West.

Please spare US and this thread from your shallow cynicism that failed to pass off as thoughtful input. Cynicism have never solved a problem. At best, it gives the commentator a facade of intellectualism but not its substance. Cynicism is the first and usually last tool of the intellectually lazy.

 

[Aepsilons]

Please spare US and this thread from your shallow cynicism that failed to pass off as thoughtful input. Cynicism have never solved a problem. At best, it gives the commentator a facade of intellectualism but not its substance. Cynicism is the first and usually last tool of the intellectually lazy.

Our Bulgarian friend probably is a communist apologist and educated by propagandists during the Cold War.

I say, "Da Vai!"

 

[TaiShang]

Democracy is not a Western standard.
It's internal demand.

Our people don't need freedom? social benefit ?

No. we all need, we need democracy.

You are talking about social democracy, which has nothing to do with the popular (let me also say, Western) notion of democracy. Freedom from hunger, cold, foreign intervention etc. are forms of social democracy.

Then there is political democracy; that is representation in national affairs; direct or indirect, which relates to power politics.

The first aspect (social) is harder to achieve than the second (political). And especially if the second (political democracy) is somewhat inefficient, corrupt, or controlled heavily by a select number of interests, then you may end up with political democracy at the cost of the first (social) benefits of democracy.

Our Bulgarian friend probably is a communist apologist and educated by propagandists during the Cold War.

I say, "Da Vai!"

No. He is only being rational and historical.

 

[cnleio]

OKay. Chinese need Democracy & enjoy Democracy, but not West or American Democracy coz we r living in different political system, USSR believed & followed West Democracy method now they become the Russia.

In hosptial there's no one pill can treat all illnesses, so the West Democracy too.