Could Beijing be the worst Olympics ever?

[chauism]

A democracy unlike an authoritarian system has checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. If anything the Chinese system makes it more likely that a genocidal manic could take over in China, and have the respect and adoration of his people as he launches wars of conquest. The chances in places like America or India are significantly less for that happening because here unlike there we don't follow our leaders blindly and without protest.

One thing I would like to point out that in this article the author state that Chinese people are more aggressive on many issue than the government, including Taiwan and Tibet, and who often seem more anti-American.
In a democratic society one would definitely exploit those sentiment to rise to power, won't you agree? Good thing is that India is never on the short list.
China Shouldn’t Be Inscrutable

There is also a very lengthy article written by Evan Osnos for the New Yorker addresses this issue.
Angry Youth

Nineteen years after the crackdown on student-led protests in Tiananmen Square, China’s young élite rose again this spring—not in pursuit of liberal democracy but in defense of sovereignty and prosperity.

 

[plarq]

Yes, you bloody foreign passport holders could never feel the cornered lives of petty Chinese citizens like me...

 

[chauism]

Yes, you bloody foreign passport holders could never feel the cornered lives of petty Chinese citizens like me...

Why do you think that if you have a foreign passport as long as it is not a diplomatic one, you will be treat any different? The only benefit I can think of is that you have your Embassy to help you in case there is something major. At large account, they don't.

 

[plarq]

A foreign passport saves you from local illegal prosecution unless you're a real anti-government activist, in that case, you'll be deported instead of jailed. So yes, a foreign passport gives you equality, more equal than other Chinese citizens. Heck, even HK and Taiwan counts as better replacement than puny Chinese ID card.

Nationalists and racists in China often misinterpret that phenomenon as "being soft on foreigners", "unpatriotic","late Qing Dynsaty", "Dowager Cixi". My explanation is, while China disregards her own citizens' civil rights, she had already signed several UN Charters on those issues. Violating foreign personnels' rights is a huge blow and a diplomatic event.

 

[chauism]

A foreign passport saves you from local illegal prosecution unless you're a real anti-government activist, in that case, you'll be deported instead of jailed. So yes, a foreign passport gives you equality, more equal than other Chinese citizens. Heck, even HK and Taiwan counts as better replacement than puny Chinese ID card.

Nationalists and racists in China often misinterpret that phenomenon as "being soft on foreigners", "unpatriotic","late Qing Dynsaty", "Dowager Cixi". My explanation is, while China disregards her own citizens' civil rights, she had already signed several UN Charters on those issues. Violating foreign personnels' rights is a huge blow and a diplomatic event.

That means you have to be involved in something in the first place to be accused of. So, as long as you are not stepping on the tail of the government, and law abiding, You won't easily be charged with something. However if you do, as you mentioned, you will still get prosecuted, then you are going to be deported instead of going to jail. Sadly it happened to one of my friends, but it's was his fault, he almost killed some Russian dude in a bar fight over some hookers.

 

[plarq]

So it still helps with a foreign passport, you agree?

By stepping on government's tail, it can be anything or nothing at all. For example, someone lives in a house where the local government plans to build an apartment building, but doesn't want to pay up the redemption fee. Wrong space and wrong time, you see?

You don't need to be a democratic movement activist or a foreign agent to get the government's foot on you, just random this and that could land your ass in jail, if unlucky.

 

[aelf]

Your hypothesis is a hypothesis because it never happened. As such, as realistic and possible it may be, it is still the work of fantasy and needs evidence.

The last I checked there are two opposing hypotheses. Mine, which is that more freedom would be good for China. And yours, which is authoritarianism is good for China.

Need evidence? I'm sure you this is a game you are good at. You admitted yourself that it has not been tried. But whatever liberalization (not deregulation) has been done so far has produced good results, right? That's what you have always been maintaining. Seems really odd that you now want to defend the CCP for its authoritarianism. I guess the point is to defend the CCP, not to make sense

Yes, yes, yes, the past sucks. The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution all sucked. My parents and grandparents lived through that thank you very much and bear the scars. While they don't like the CCP, they remember the exact chaos of that period. It's a strong government which provides stability; sure it's authoritarian, but does that really matter as long as people are living well and there are no mobs?

During the Nazi regime, the Germans 'lived well'. Enough said.

Strong government =/= authoritarian government. I say that for the millionth time here.

Of course, I forgot they didn't have the fortune to be living abroad during those terrible times! I'm sure the mainland Chinese must hate the CCP for the last twenty years of improvement! Yes, sixty million people died and those were terrible times. They're the past, let it go and see the present and the future. It's a lot brighter than those dark days.

Of course. So you need to move away from authoritarianism of the past to make it brighter, right? You are defeating your own argument.

Hating the CCP for their past history will achieve nothing but more bickering and bad relations on both side. Enjoy the Olympics and the spectacle. We live for the present and the future, let go of the past.

People don't simply forget massive crimes, and that's good, lest they become fashionably amoral like you.

Because I see things from a much less privileged position than the earlier Chinese diaspora who were able to leave before the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution if not even earlier, not to mention the hopelessly idealistic intelligentsia? And as such, am grateful that my parents were allowed to emigrate to the USA by Deng Xiaopeng's reforms? If that's the case, yeah I'm sad because I'm grateful for the changes that the CCP brought about, a part which directly allowed me to come to the USA.

Changes that curtailed authoritarianism to some extent. Again, you defeat yourself.

The Olympics is the PRC's time to shine, let them shine. Goodwill to all.

Well, do have fun.

Authoritarianism doesn't make life better, it just stops life from getting worse. Say what you want about our freedoms, applying them to the PRC will result in mass chaos and civil strife. Increased levels of wealth doesn't make people anymore educated, or understanding than they were before they got rich for the most part.

Why? Now, this is your hypothesis. Give evidence.

And did the CCP really fail at education or something? So much for the advantages of authoritarianism.

So, to sum it up, your argument becomes "authoritarianism failed, therefore we need authoritarianism to save us" That's when you are not busy contradicting yourself by saying that the CCP has made improvements by embracing some liberal ideas.

 

[aelf]

I did not say better, I am just saying tyranny can exist even in a democratic society unless it is an anarchy.

As for James Madison, I said before what stop authoritarian society to have bill of rights, and what stops democratic government not to abuse it.

Again, which is more likely to have a bill of rights? Come on, use your brains.

I said those two votes shouldn't weight the same, did not say outvote.

Well, so in a democracy with equal rights to suffrage, smart people have outvote ******s, right?

As a_propagandist said, you probably should support giving 5th grade vote as well.

As long as they are capable of making their own decisions responsibly, yes. Adults who are capable of running a household (not to talk about the results) fulfill that requirement.

If you think it is still the same government.

It is too similar.

If China is under a democratic government right now, the system will be abused in no time, not because it is the system's fault but rather than culture and other factors. Also people are too diverse to have a united strong government, and the country itself will just fall apart. Maybe this is what you really want to see. There is a saying that one Chinese is a dragon, and three Chinese together are worms. There is some truth to it. Even with such small place to manage, Taiwan is not really a showcase democracy to not only the Chinese. A lot of my Taiwanese friends aren't really proud of it.

Democracy can fail, but that is not to say you should not have democracy. What is needed is a strong government to uphold the rule of law with enough political resolve, but having checks and balances to ensure the people's rights are looked out for. It isn't easy, but what makes it more difficult than building a good society under authoritarianism? The fact that you can crush people in order to get your way? That does not make a good society.

And, like I said, which you seem to agree with, authoritarian tendencies is a self-fulfiling cultural prophecy. If you think you need it, you would need it. Enjoy your stay in the cell!

Oh, really!! What did you do there for you to get that impression? Almost all my American or European friends seem to have a lot of fun here in China and some of them don't want to leave. All they can think about is what business opportunity they can find, so they can have excuse for staying here. I think I should report them to the local authorities for them not being repressed enough.

In other words it is a good place to try and exploit people.

For the Chinese people I have to say on average they are not every environmentally conscious, so if it is a democratic government right now. Those measures will be taken in a much longer time.
Thanks for the advice though

You have no faith in education whatsoever, do you? And right now externalities are sadly rather neglected by the government, and the people suffer for it.

Then how come most people in the west believed their stories when you think that they are not influenced by the media.

Do Chinese people not believe their media at least to the same extent as Westerners?

 

[Fayadi]

You want to talk about the Tigers? Well, how about Japan, the predecessor of them all? And does your average Chinese life appeal more than the life of the average Japanese, South Korean and even Taiwanese? Is it even comparable?

Actually chauism is trying to highlight the success of Asian tigers with strong government as a tried-and-tested model for China. The 4 Asian tigers are Singapore,Taiwan,South Korea and Hong Kong. I would prefer to live in any of the Asian tigers any day over Japan. Japan although is very high up in their GDP per capita, it is growing quite slowly now and is simply not a very desirable place for one to open a business. In any case, Japan is largely dominated by Liberal Democratic Party in its history after 1950. It has elements of strong government too.

You believe that authoritarian does not equate to strong government. In most cases it is. The only time you see an authoritarian government not being strong in implementing policies is when a country is in chaos, civil unrest or civil war. Just like a democratic country in only time not being democratic when the President declares Martial Law. Chinese Communist Party can carry out any decision it want without much delay and opposition. This makes a strong government and this is why in my opinion serves China best. I share similar views on chauism on why this serve China best. I will not go into the details.

I believe different countries need different government system. The function of the government is to provide economic growth to its citizen and stable place to live. CCP is doing it quite well post 1990's. Delivering double digit economic growth for almost 3 decades since 1978 is an incredible achievement. Democracy government like in USA is good in its own merit. I just dislike the idea of imposing ideology on other people or culture. What would you think if all Muslim countries refuse to recognise a certain country just because they don't covert to Islam.

The notion of pin pointing out the flaws of Democracy or Authoritarianism leads no where. All human systems has flaws. We don't live in a perfect world people. What do I see when China turns democracy? It will be probably become a country like India, a government that took many years to build basic infrastructure. You need the consent of every individuals to make fundamental changes. How is that good for a country's economic competitiveness. It might be a good for a country with people whose past-time is debating. I am living in Shanghai now and this democracy development scares me. Shanghai government recently announced plan to build Shanghai-Hangzhou maglev railway ( a very cool train system that has speed of 450 km/h)but they are postponed to answer certain silly request by citizens who fears of non-existent magnetic radiation. A country needs economic infrastructure completed fast and wise decision needs to have their momentum maintained only if the government can quickly realize their plans and policies without spending too much time debated.

I am just having a pass-by in an old forum, probably will not make participate intensively as some of you because I am not good at debating.

Regards

 

[aelf]

Actually chauism is trying to highlight the success of Asian tigers with strong government as a tried-and-tested model for China. The 4 Asian tigers are Singapore,Taiwan,South Korea and Hong Kong. I would prefer to live in any of the Asian tigers any day over Japan. Japan although is very high up in their GDP per capita, it is growing quite slowly now and is simply not a very desirable place for one to open a business. In any case, Japan is largely dominated by Liberal Democratic Party in its history after 1950. It has elements of strong government too.

Of these, only Singapore is authoritarian. And the initial growth of South Korea has more to do with effective government alliance with business than authoritarianism per se.

You believe that authoritarian does not equate to strong government. In most cases it is. The only time you see an authoritarian government not being strong in implementing policies is when a country is in chaos, civil unrest or civil war. Just like a democratic country in only time not being democratic when the President declares Martial Law. Chinese Communist Party can carry out any decision it want without much delay and opposition. This makes a strong government and this is why in my opinion serves China best. I share similar views on chauism on why this serve China best. I will not go into the details.

Authoritarian governments have a track record of being unstable and even clearly weak. You want to argue on evidence, but the evidence doesn't serve you at all. The growth of the Asian economies have more to do with good economic policies than method of governance, and almost all of them adopt a freer system eventually, as authoritarian methods naturally give way to more liberal ones.

I believe different countries need different government system. The function of the government is to provide economic growth to its citizen and stable place to live. CCP is doing it quite well post 1990's. Delivering double digit economic growth for almost 3 decades since 1978 is an incredible achievement. Democracy government like in USA is good in its own merit. I just dislike the idea of imposing ideology on other people or culture. What would you think if all Muslim countries refuse to recognise a certain country just because they don't covert to Islam.

I don't think democracy is something that is fundamentally a bad thing at all. You'd have to explain why better if you think so. Of course the way it's carried out is the issue. I don't believe liberal democracy is for all, but I believe people deserve responsibility from the government, which is generally only feasible where people have a say in it, as part of the checks and balances on the government.

And I say again that economic growth has little to do with type of governance (but a lot to do with the quality of governance, of course). In fact, I would say that economic growth in China has so far been both a blessing and a curse. Too many people are neglected, and that is directly because they have so little power.

The notion of pin pointing out the flaws of Democracy or Authoritarianism leads no where. All human systems has flaws. We don't live in a perfect world people. What do I see when China turns democracy? It will be probably become a country like India, a government that took many years to build basic infrastructure. You need the consent of every individuals to make fundamental changes. How is that good for a country's economic competitiveness. It might be a good for a country with people whose past-time is debating. I am living in Shanghai now and this democracy development scares me. Shanghai government recently announced plan to build Shanghai-Hangzhou maglev railway ( a very cool train system that has speed of 450 km/h)but they are postponed to answer certain silly request by citizens who fears of non-existent magnetic radiation. A country needs economic infrastructure completed fast and wise decision needs to have their momentum maintained only if the government can quickly realize their plans and policies without spending too much time debated.

You don't seem to understand how governance works. Neither does chauism.

By the way, the authoritarian government has certainly made a mess out of education. Saying that the people therefore need to be protected by authoritarianism is a circular argument. I've pointed this out earlier.

 

[Ecofarm]

Keep fighting the good fight, Aelf.

 

[vader_tat]

LET's just get back to the Olympic issue! I have a lot to say about this too but I'm already tired of it because...

As a potential future southern-Chinese....
(assuming that the Greater China is coming. I'm a Thai. About 20% of our people is 2/3 or more Chinese, but not me. I'm a half ethnically-Thai/culturally-German. My last two ex are 3/4 Chinese though. )

I'd say this Olympic will VERY PROBABLY become a mess, at least politically.

-- How many has their government shelled out for their picture instead of the well-being of their people?? (I won't get into details because, as I said, I'm tired of it!)
-- Think of it as "their" oppoturnity?? HELL YES!! Just let's sit back and watch how the "Dragon" with the total lousy "Head" will take that so-called "oppoturnity".
-- Censorship and Self-glorification: how couldn't anyone be offended by it?? Westerners? Needless to say. Chinese? Just another reason to hate their govt. 4 Tigers Asians? Got pissed off being completely left out of the picture. South-east Asian? Got scared off of the new "Dragon" imperialism by that (and many more). Beijing-dweller? Probably their hardest time in the history beside Tiananmen Massacre.
(Me? My chances to flee to the Netherlands from the juntas got stripped off by this new pan-Asiatic imperialism. )

Spoiler :

Then again I have to confess that I do really have some degree of this "anti-Chinese" sentiment that I can't just shake off my head... Probably because my two years in Europe teaches me to speak German and French, and to comprehend Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Russian, Polish, Danish, Swedish, Finnish (=almost all European stuff in one pack). All while in the rest 16 years I can't get any jacksh*t from any of the Alien-Asian languages aside of Thai and Laotian (my mom's dialect ). In short, I do not consider myself to be an Asian anymore, because I'm just too different (and too similar to something else. )

Spoiler :

(Also: I'm a MARXIST Communist (Stalin and Mao are arses/asses!!), a dying breed of thought. )

That means that my opinions DOES NOT represent what the majority of the Asians think!

 

[aelf]

Keep fighting the good fight, Aelf.

Thanks. I may be pinkish, but at least I love democracy

 

[alex994]

The last I checked there are two opposing hypotheses. Mine, which is that more freedom would be good for China. And yours, which is authoritarianism is good for China.

Need evidence? I'm sure you this is a game you are good at. You admitted yourself that it has not been tried. But whatever liberalization (not deregulation) has been done so far has produced good results, right? That's what you have always been maintaining. Seems really odd that you now want to defend the CCP for its authoritarianism. I guess the point is to defend the CCP, not to make sense

I'm sorry, but authoritarianism is good for China is actually chauism's. My position is that the times are rosy and prosperous (for now) and starting political reforms now will not be potentially damaging. For evidence? See Taiwan and the 2004 election where Chen Shui-Bian got re-elected Mob riots? Angry demonstrators armed with steel pipes and tubing facing off against the police? Rumors that the President had himself shot or his aides arranged it to get support? Times that by sixty or a number around that to get the difference in population and you'll see where my fears (and many others) come from

During the Nazi regime, the Germans 'lived well'. Enough said.

Strong government =/= authoritarian government. I say that for the millionth time here.

Yes, that is certainly the case. But it's quite clear that the Chinese Central Government is both strong and an authoritarian government (though the ability of local officials to resist central decrees to an extent is rather interesting).

Again, the age old tactic of going back to Nazi Germany What about some of the (relatively to be used very loosely) benign dictators? Why not compare China to Franco's Spain? Connecting the PRC to Nazi Germany is purely a method to turn people (even more so) against the PRC by their feelings against Nazi Germany

Of course. So you need to move away from authoritarianism of the past to make it brighter, right? You are defeating your own argument.

Again, and this may surprise you aelf p) but I don't agree with everything chauism says I'm a fan of strong government, not authoritarianism. If a government is strong (regardless of it's ideology and structure), I will generally support it as it provides stability.

There's also something called self-interest. My grandparents and parents saw (as they had a rare opportunity to emigrate to the USA) that they could have better lives in the USA than in China. And FYI, their decision was made completely on economics and not politics. In fact, all Chinese emigrants I have ever met (I say most, not minding all those people who claim asylum just so they can come to the USA and the genuine ones) all come primarily for economic and educational opportunities. Not one of them said political freedom was an important thing, just a nice luxury. Economics + Education > Political Freedom.

People don't simply forget massive crimes, and that's good, lest they become fashionably amoral like you.

Again with the name-calling and the inability to forget and forgive; my own parents and grandparents survived the hell hole which was the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution but you don't see them hellbent on destroying the PRC and the CCP. Ironic that people not involved in the crimes care so much more for vengeance and retribution than the actual victims.

My grandparents, granduncles/aunts, parents, uncles, aunts, and other relations in China and now some more in the USA could live exactly as you do bashing the CCP for all their past crimes. They all recognize that the CCP has done terrible things in the past, but they live on because of the future and for their children. They're mostly from the rural countryside so they have two-three children with a few exceptions, so again I could be given a warped view of things.

Changes that curtailed authoritarianism to some extent. Again, you defeat yourself.

Again, my argument is not chauism's. Liberal economics is not liberal politics.

Why? Now, this is your hypothesis. Give evidence.

And did the CCP really fail at education or something? So much for the advantages of authoritarianism.

So, to sum it up, your argument becomes "authoritarianism failed, therefore we need authoritarianism to save us" That's when you are not busy contradicting yourself by saying that the CCP has made improvements by embracing some liberal ideas.

The CCP is not exactly keen on educating their people on political understanding and acceptance because it's not in their interest to do so, I thought you would have known that by now And the CCP is doing the best job she can, but it is kind of hard establishing schools all across the country and providing quality teachers for all of them considering all the problems (lack of good teachers, need of the students to pay for the expensive books, logistics and etc). I'm just saying bashing the CCP for everything it's done wrong in the past and not so much on what it's done right isn't helping anyone.

There is nothing wrong with embracing liberal ideas as long as they stay out of actual government reforms this early. Liberal economics is good, liberal politics is not.

@plarq, I admit I have some doubts in what you say. I have a massive amount of relatives both in China and in the USA (who have all recently immigrated here in the last five years from China). None of them have your feelings or beliefs about the CCP. From my personal experience, my second uncle had an old apartment in a building which was torn down in Guangzhou's Northern Residential District around eight to seven years ago. He was very well re-compensated and actually bought a newer and better apartment with the money. His case doesn't seem to be an isolated one in urban Guangdong province either. Maybe it's just because I know tons of people from Guangdong and it is isolated from the problems you talk about? I would love to know more if you could tell me

 

[alex994]

Thanks. I may be pinkish, but at least I love democracy

You really like bashing us don't you by insinuating we don't love democracy by arguing with you eh?

I love democracy, it's the greatest form of government. Yet with great rights come with great responsibilities, responsibilities I don't believe the majority of people in China (the rural regions basically) and not because they don't want to, but because they aren't able to accept.

Education is everything, the CCP is doing the best they can but education in the rural regions is mostly "inadequate" at best.

 

[Ecofarm]

Education is everything, the CCP is doing the best they can but education in the rural regions is mostly "inadequate" at best.

This betrays your bias as irrational. The CCP doesn't give a crap about the people. Wake up. It's not by the people, of the people or for the people.

I suppose you also think the Chinese people are not ready for the internet, so the CCP is doing them a favor by censoring it (as if that helps education!).

The CCP wants you to have one education... THEIRS. Quite pretending they want anything else.

Totalitarian apologists that base their support of tyranical regimes on the commoner's inability to deal with freedom make me sick. Get off your high-horse and join the human race.

 

[Fayadi]

Of these, only Singapore is authoritarian. And the initial growth of South Korea has more to do with effective government alliance with business than authoritarianism per se.

Hong Kong's government during the British era is headed by a British governor that is not elected by Hong Kong people but selected by London. Yes Taiwan and South Korea are democracies now but only in the 1980's. They were not democracies before the 80's. I do share the view with Lee Kuan Yew that certain government discipline is crucial for rapid progress. The China optimist believes that China will just be like South Korea or Taiwan, becoming full democracy when economy reaches certain stage. China is not ready to become democracy at this stage they argue. It is good and bad actually. I personally prefer the country is run like a corporate where the fittest is selected to be the top executive.

Authoritarian governments have a track record of being unstable and even clearly weak. You want to argue on evidence, but the evidence doesn't serve you at all. The growth of the Asian economies have more to do with good economic policies than method of governance, and almost all of them adopt a freer system eventually, as authoritarian methods naturally give way to more liberal ones.

Is Russia under Boris Yeltsin more stable than one under Putin? Russia economy grew by 7 times under his reign. In South East Asia, Singapore is the only country whose GDP has reached the the developed level. Lee Kuan Yew keeps on emphasizing the role of the government in achieving its success. There are authoritarian governments that have succeeded and failed. South Korea or Taiwan is certainly not unstable or weak during their pre-democratic era. Ok let me state my belief: As long as the government leaders is selected by their merit and capability to govern, it is okay to be authoritarian.

I don't think democracy is something that is fundamentally a bad thing at all. You'd have to explain why better if you think so. Of course the way it's carried out is the issue. I don't believe liberal democracy is for all, but I believe people deserve responsibility from the government, which is generally only feasible where people have a say in it, as part of the checks and balances on the government.

I do not think that democracy is bad just think it is not suitable for China. I strongly believe leaders in top echelon of the government like Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao are fine leaders that truly care for the country and is not power hungry. They have proven themselves to be competent. This comes from a person whose opinion is quite neutral. I studied in Singapore for my high school and the United States for my university. I was raised in Indonesia, an authoritarian country turns democracy and I am living in China now. I am certainly not a believer in democracy or authoritarian in its extreme form. Singapore has proven to be a good role model for China. Singapore has an authoritarian government that is not corrupt and cares for its people.

And I say again that economic growth has little to do with type of governance (but a lot to do with the quality of governance, of course).

All road leads to technocracy



Maybe I don't have much conflict with you fundamentally, but tell me why should China adopt western democracy but not Singapore system?

 

[DNK]

I'm going to have to agree with EcoFarm. I don't understand how people can be defending China's record or policies or approach to the Games. The OP, although perhaps biased (I really don't know), brought up a number of issues. I can't remember any Olympics in my memory that come close to this one in terms of government control and abusing the spirit of the games. Then again, just about every Games since I was born have taken place in fairly open Western liberal democracies.

Call me a China hater all you want, I certainly am not a huge fan of their government despite its "successes". Eco has posted most of what I'm referring to. I can only hope the networks at least take some time out to discuss the issues and controversies around the games. I don't think it would be appropriate to do throughout, as the coverage should be about the Games, but I feel it's important enough to deserve some coverage as China is severely undermining them. Perhaps some coverage of the years of dislocation and demolition in preparation for the Games? The human cost hasn't been nearly free.

 

[aelf]

I'm sorry, but authoritarianism is good for China is actually chauism's. My position is that the times are rosy and prosperous (for now) and starting political reforms now will not be potentially damaging. For evidence? See Taiwan and the 2004 election where Chen Shui-Bian got re-elected Mob riots? Angry demonstrators armed with steel pipes and tubing facing off against the police? Rumors that the President had himself shot or his aides arranged it to get support? Times that by sixty or a number around that to get the difference in population and you'll see where my fears (and many others) come from

I think the idea that democracy can only work in a prosperous place rather absurd in the first place. Whence do you get this conclusion? Like I've said many times, I agree liberal democracy might not be the way, but giving the people a say in the government is an important safeguard against abuse of power. How do you guarantee than an authoritarian government won't do that in the name of progress, such as in China itself in the past? I think the key thing is to have checks an balances, something which is difficult to guarantee in an undemocratic system.

Yes, that is certainly the case. But it's quite clear that the Chinese Central Government is both strong and an authoritarian government (though the ability of local officials to resist central decrees to an extent is rather interesting).

So you actually mean to say it's authoritarian but not that strong?

Again, the age old tactic of going back to Nazi Germany What about some of the (relatively to be used very loosely) benign dictators? Why not compare China to Franco's Spain? Connecting the PRC to Nazi Germany is purely a method to turn people (even more so) against the PRC by their feelings against Nazi Germany

I wasn't the first to bring up the Nazis. chauism did. In any case, I'm not comparing China to Nazi Germany directly. What I'm saying is a country can give the impression of doing well when the truth is far darker than that, with the example of Nazi Germany. I thought this is rather obvious.

Again, and this may surprise you aelf p) but I don't agree with everything chauism says I'm a fan of strong government, not authoritarianism. If a government is strong (regardless of it's ideology and structure), I will generally support it as it provides stability.

Then I'm happy to inform you that authoritarianism does not guarantee stability. In fact, history shows that it is more unstable than democracies. A crappy democracy might produce an Italy or Taiwan, but a crappy authoritarian government... Well, I'm sure I don't have to give you examples, right?

There's also something called self-interest. My grandparents and parents saw (as they had a rare opportunity to emigrate to the USA) that they could have better lives in the USA than in China. And FYI, their decision was made completely on economics and not politics. In fact, all Chinese emigrants I have ever met (I say most, not minding all those people who claim asylum just so they can come to the USA and the genuine ones) all come primarily for economic and educational opportunities. Not one of them said political freedom was an important thing, just a nice luxury. Economics + Education > Political Freedom.

Well, the problem is the first two cannot be guaranteed without the third.

Again with the name-calling and the inability to forget and forgive; my own parents and grandparents survived the hell hole which was the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution but you don't see them hellbent on destroying the PRC and the CCP. Ironic that people not involved in the crimes care so much more for vengeance and retribution than the actual victims.

There is such thing as fear. And I care because of my human side. Don't you have one? Or have economics blinded you?

My grandparents, granduncles/aunts, parents, uncles, aunts, and other relations in China and now some more in the USA could live exactly as you do bashing the CCP for all their past crimes. They all recognize that the CCP has done terrible things in the past, but they live on because of the future and for their children. They're mostly from the rural countryside so they have two-three children with a few exceptions, so again I could be given a warped view of things.

I'm not saying you should be a scuicide bomber to oppose the CCP. Sure, live your life, but keep pushing the unjust boundaries.

Again, my argument is not chauism's. Liberal economics is not liberal politics.

Well, I like liberal politics (but not too liberal) and non-liberal economics. Sue me.

The CCP is not exactly keen on educating their people on political understanding and acceptance because it's not in their interest to do so, I thought you would have known that by now And the CCP is doing the best job she can, but it is kind of hard establishing schools all across the country and providing quality teachers for all of them considering all the problems (lack of good teachers, need of the students to pay for the expensive books, logistics and etc). I'm just saying bashing the CCP for everything it's done wrong in the past and not so much on what it's done right isn't helping anyone.

Thanks for the admission. So the Chinese people will ever be ignorant on how to govern themselves and have to rely on the government being good, something which they can't really try to ensure.

And I don't think the CCP is doing a marvellous job. The last I checked schools collapsed in the earthquake due to shoddy construction while government buildings still stood. Obviously, corruption (an offshoot of the Party patronage system in China) and lack of funding is affecting education in very real ways.

There is nothing wrong with embracing liberal ideas as long as they stay out of actual government reforms this early. Liberal economics is good, liberal politics is not.

That is if you want to ignore the millions of people being exploited in the name of accumulation of wealth for a select group of people. How admirable.

You really like bashing us don't you by insinuating we don't love democracy by arguing with you eh?

I don't know how you derived this from what I said there.

I love democracy, it's the greatest form of government. Yet with great rights come with great responsibilities, responsibilities I don't believe the majority of people in China (the rural regions basically) and not because they don't want to, but because they aren't able to accept.

I never actually advocated perestroika and glasnost. Sure, change gradually, but at this rate it is hardly commendable. Well, maybe I'm not sure change would ever really come without some upheaval. Maybe the initial pains of democracy have to be borne in the process of developing a good, strong society. India will make it yet.

Hong Kong's government during the British era is headed by a British governor that is not elected by Hong Kong people but selected by London. Yes Taiwan and South Korea are democracies now but only in the 1980's. They were not democracies before the 80's. I do share the view with Lee Kuan Yew that certain government discipline is crucial for rapid progress. The China optimist believes that China will just be like South Korea or Taiwan, becoming full democracy when economy reaches certain stage. China is not ready to become democracy at this stage they argue. It is good and bad actually. I personally prefer the country is run like a corporate where the fittest is selected to be the top executive.

The Hong Kong system was more democratic under the UK than it is under China now.

Government discipline has nothing to do with authoritarianism. And every Asian Tiger except Singapore has adopted liberal policies quite naturally, authoritarian governments giving way to more democratic ones, without any real reference to economic growth. Even with a pretty strong economy Singapore can't let go of its system. Seems like the correlation between economic prosperity and democracy is unproven.

Is Russia under Boris Yeltsin more stable than one under Putin? Russia economy grew by 7 times under his reign. In South East Asia, Singapore is the only country whose GDP has reached the the developed level. Lee Kuan Yew keeps on emphasizing the role of the government in achieving its success. There are authoritarian governments that have succeeded and failed. South Korea or Taiwan is certainly not unstable or weak during their pre-democratic era. Ok let me state my belief: As long as the government leaders is selected by their merit and capability to govern, it is okay to be authoritarian.

How does authoritarianism guarantee that?

And I agree the role of government is important in economic growth. That's why I'm not an economic liberal.

I do not think that democracy is bad just think it is not suitable for China. I strongly believe leaders in top echelon of the government like Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao are fine leaders that truly care for the country and is not power hungry. They have proven themselves to be competent. This comes from a person whose opinion is quite neutral. I studied in Singapore for my high school and the United States for my university. I was raised in Indonesia, an authoritarian country turns democracy and I am living in China now. I am certainly not a believer in democracy or authoritarian in its extreme form. Singapore has proven to be a good role model for China. Singapore has an authoritarian government that is not corrupt and cares for its people.

First, Singapore is small. Second, Singapore is a strategic port. Third, Singapore was an immigrant society that had separate popular movements - the people didn't have a strong political consciousness, and the English-speaking Chinese elite won, predictably. What countries seek to emulate from Singapore are good policies. It would be folly to try and apply the system itself in China or anywhere else.

Furthermore, Singapore is not uncorrupt. It is highly nepotistic. However, it appears in general that the interests of the elite are in the same direction as that of the people, while problems are swept under the carpet. The size of Singapore is probably what makes it so easy to control and synchronise. And you should know how surreally Orwellian it is in reality, something which is very evident to people from the outside and actually rather stifling right now (for the economy as well).

All road leads to technocracy

Technocracy is like Communism - a concept that is very difficult to realise. Ideally democracies should be technocratic.

Maybe I don't have much conflict with you fundamentally, but tell me why should China adopt western democracy but not Singapore system?

I never said China should adopt Western democracy. However, the Singapore system would not be applicable to China because, as I've mentioned, it is too big to easily control in the same way. The elite is proportionally much smaller than that of Singapore, which would set things up for a class conflict much more easily. Moreover, while Singapore can argue that its economy is too small and therefore too delicate to be trusted to anyone but the 'experts', China's is much bigger and has a lot more room to manuever. There's just no similarity between the two situations, save the fact that both are heavily influenced by traditional Chinese culture (which partly explains the tendency towards authoritarianism).

 

[plarq]

So you guys are arguing big things while we suffer from fundamental ineffectiveness (You know the spelling of corruption?) and fundamental lack of law and order (can you spell police brutality?). So what is democracy? What is Beijing consciousness? What is Singaporean authoritarianism? All of them can't be applied here.