Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The inner workings of the Chinese political system - the one party state (actually made up of competing lobbies, and constantly changing) compared to the de-facto two party state (eg US):
The problem with democracy is having to constantly court the public vote, and thus take on it's allegiances and biases (from hierarchies to discrimination to corruption). Problematic democracy can also devolve into constant bickering and polarisation between parties, taking up a huge amount of resources, or worst see the rise of extremist viewpoints, and warmongering.
Also to keep the popularity short term goals must be promulgated, as opposed to long term policies. If one compares the rise of China with that of India, whose politicians complain they have to enact senseless short term actions in order to stay in power, its a glaring difference. While India enjoys it's civil rights this can get in the way of the 'greater good' (such as the abandonment of the nationwide highway circle due to protesting farmers demanding higher compensation) - and on the flip side China can go the other way where people are forced off the land, and although generously re-housed, lose their say in the matter, or get relegated to some far off suburb, but in the bigger picture manages to create huge infrastructure and jobs for the generations to come.
This isn't to say the Chinese system is always better for itself - both countries, as in many, are prone to corruption a trademark of democracy as well as the old Chinese culture of guanxi (favours between people and businesses), through which both sides can often resemble each other. Both sides use considerable propaganda, democracy favours media backing in 'independent' print and film to reinforce their agenda at the stroke of a cheque (**cough* Fox News, Associated Press, Rupert Murdoch), while the one party state generates theirs through endless public announcement and a heavily leashed press.
The one party system may be good for politicking behind its closed doors, using its resources more efficiently and getting action as well as long term goals completed - but it's just as prone to corruption and as seen in China - inequality, social injustice and extremism that can hound democracy back at their end. Also the one party system does not allow for minority viewpoints for good or bad.
In short the one party system is good for nation-building - getting things done quickly and avoiding civil bickering and division - but that treads a fine line between civil peace and all out mass protest (Tiananmen, 2007, Tibet) as millions are left voiceless. China's future remains uncertain as the nation-building will one day die down and it remains to be seen which political system will be adopted thereon.
On a civil level democracy can also be damaging if left unchecked by a nation's constitution, especially where one majority overtakes sizeable minorities time and time again through the democratic vote, whereby the minorities are forced to fight it out for representation and their share of the resources pie - and all often made worse by over-capitalism.
Capitalism promotes individualism (not to be confused with individuality, which the world has in spades from North Korea to Jamaica).
Witness what happens when countries under dictatorships or one party systems suddenly adopt to democracy. Sudan (that speaks 200 languages) immediate denigrated into 6 civil wars, still being fought out today after losing the yoke of colonialism. The fracturing of the Soviet Union and creation of the oligarch economy (a likely outcome for China if it followed the same route, with long indentured Tibet and Xinjiang getting independence or a war, not to mention 54 other national minorities). The religious conflict in Nigeria, from Biafra to today's Boko Haram. The 'Balkanisation' of Yugoslavia as the other minorities faced a Serbian nationalist time and time again for its leadership. Iraq's immediate fall into civil war and extremism, following on the heels of 1990s Afghanistan and Algeria - now being seen in Syria, Libya, Egypt.
In short a country needs to be ready for democracy - ensuring the rights of its minorities in a constitution, with freedom of religion and language set in stone, a healthy economy, a fair sharing of the economic pie, and education in politics.
Re: 'China's future remains uncertain as the nation-building will one day die down and it remains to be seen which political system will be adopted therein'
My take on China's future suggests that for a truly democratic political system to work in the country's future power must devolve from the top down to the bottom. Question is can China change without upheaval? Frankly, I do not think the transition will e smooth. Rather I think it will veer to the bloody. Past reactions by the leadership to its peoples' 'opinion' has met with bullets.
The system is all about the Party's 'control over political and civil functions in Chinese society.
I'd think that there is probably one element which will affect China's future and that is the Internet and the copious flow of global information. The Chinese reaction to the new technology is one of thinking it can control it by blocking it. Yet we may look back years hence from now to see that it was a response like the proverbial Dutch boy with a finger in the **** holding the sea at bay. Power is strong but it has its own problems when wielding it. The Chinese certainly will be tested on it for sure.
The inner workings of the Chinese political system - the one party state (actually made up of competing lobbies, and constantly changing) compared to the de-facto two party state (eg US):
Many supporters of authoritarian tendencies like Li frequently point out the economic merits and justifications for authoritarian government based on the need for economic development. They point to similar development models in South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore as shining examples of heavy-handed dictatorship turned democracy when the economy matures.
While I applaud many of his points, I've always found one loophole in this line of reasoning - that any political system must somehow guarantee sustained economic growth. Yes, economic performance is important, but it is only one of the many measurements of the quality of a political system. Legitimacy, transparency, and due process are equally if not more important, even though they can't be quantified as easily as a simple GDP growth rate.
While Li points out China's high GDP growth over the last 3 decades and attributes that to the authoritarian system, he also conveniently overlooked the fact that many democratic countries also experienced periods of high GDP growth decades ago - such as America and Western Europe in the post-war period, the West German Economic miracle (Wirtschaftswunder), along with England in the second industrial revolution of the early 1900s. Thus, we can draw the conclusion that economic performance does not solely depend on any political system, and that both democracy and authoritarian countries can deliver temporary periods of high growth and boosts to living standards (even the former USSR and Germany under Hitler produced some high albeit temporary growth).
I think the more important question is, what happens after a period of high growth? What happens when growth rate flattens, and the economy matures? Any political system can produce temporary periods of wealth and GDP growth under the right conditions and policies. The real challenge is how to sustainably maintain legitimacy, stability, transparency, and a sense of fairness in the post-growth period. That remains to be seen in today's China.
The problem with democracy is having to constantly court the public vote, and thus take on it's allegiances and biases (from hierarchies to discrimination to corruption). Problematic democracy can also devolve into constant bickering and polarisation between parties, taking up a huge amount of resources, or worst see the rise of extremist viewpoints, and warmongering.
Also to keep the popularity short term goals must be promulgated, as opposed to long term policies. If one compares the rise of China with that of India, whose politicians complain they have to enact senseless short term actions in order to stay in power, its a glaring difference. While India enjoys it's civil rights this can get in the way of the 'greater good' (such as the abandonment of the nationwide highway circle due to protesting farmers demanding higher compensation) - and on the flip side China can go the other way where people are forced off the land, and although generously re-housed, lose their say in the matter, or get relegated to some far off suburb, but in the bigger picture manages to create huge infrastructure and jobs for the generations to come.
This isn't to say the Chinese system is always better for itself - both countries, as in many, are prone to corruption a trademark of democracy as well as the old Chinese culture of guanxi (favours between people and businesses), through which both sides can often resemble each other. Both sides use considerable propaganda, democracy favours media backing in 'independent' print and film to reinforce their agenda at the stroke of a cheque (**cough* Fox News, Associated Press, Rupert Murdoch), while the one party state generates theirs through endless public announcement and a heavily leashed press.
The one party system may be good for politicking behind its closed doors, using its resources more efficiently and getting action as well as long term goals completed - but it's just as prone to corruption and as seen in China - inequality, social injustice and extremism that can hound democracy back at their end. Also the one party system does not allow for minority viewpoints for good or bad.
In short the one party system is good for nation-building - getting things done quickly and avoiding civil bickering and division - but that treads a fine line between civil peace and all out mass protest (Tiananmen, 2007, Tibet) as millions are left voiceless. China's future remains uncertain as the nation-building will one day die down and it remains to be seen which political system will be adopted thereon.
Or image the USA or Brazil or Canada or Russia as one country, oh wait...
But but but ... Quebec is splitting away from Canada. And Texas is going to form its own republic as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
