Chinese Politics

Baby steps.

“They want democracy to belong to the party, not to belong to people who oppose the party,” said one retired party official who declined to be identified because top leaders sometimes punish people for discussing elite politics. “If the party can define what democracy is, then it will not be as dangerous.” . . .

So that's where the Republican model for one-party rule comes from: Commies!

The question is whether the Chinese political model will turn out to be fairly successful, like Singapore's, or more of a failure, like Mexico's.

Mexico was, by the disastrous standards of the middle of the 20th Century, a reasonably well-governed country from the founding of the PRI monopoly in 1928 -- compare Mexico to China and Mexico is far more peaceful, prosperous, and non-insane. China now is somewhat following the old PRI model with term limits for the top boss. And the PRI did not rule out all politics. They prefered to absorb opposition through bribery and deal-cutting, reserving murder and torture for the few. The PRI was a lot like the Chicago Democratic Party machine, preferring to win elections honestly and stealing them only when necessary.

But the PRI eventually got more and more corrupt and dysfunctional, hitting a new low during the Salinas regime, which apparently resorted to assassinations of rivals. Will China follow the same path?

We should of course encourage, and where possible, support any and all political openings in China. Not only should the US government be supportive but so should US companies doing business there. Alas, such an opportunity presented itself when the Chinese government proposed a series of labor reforms that would bring greater democracy, labor rights, and labor standards to the many, many factories producing goods for export. Sadly, but not surprisingly, US companies, through the US Chamber of Commerce, has opposed these reforms and it appears they will be successful in altering if not killing the reforms. We can't simply ring out hands at the slow pace of democratization. We have to insist that multinationals doing business there and sell Chinese products here to be an agent of change, not a defender of the status quo.

it's clear that Xiaoping’s reforms

I'm sure you know this, but that should be "Deng's reforms" unless you want to imply you're on a given-name basis with the guy.

The scary thing about the prospect of more democracy in China is that young Chinese people are ridiculously nationalistic, even jingoistic, on certain subjects, e.g. the status of Taiwan, Tibet, naval buildup, etc. At least that's my experience of quite a few urban college student-types there. As you've often said, Matt, more democracy does not necessarily lead to more U.S.-friendly or -favored policies.

Ryan - nationalism is indeed a huge potential problem in international relations, but why are Americans in particular so eager to bring up the "Chinese nationalism" bogeyman? From my discussions with Chinese, I don't really feel that it is stronger in China than in many other countries, and certainly not than in the US.

Why is it that we always discuss Chinese nationalism? Why is it that it is almost impossible to find the terms "American nationalism" or American jingoism" in US newspaper? We are supposed to pretend it doesn't exist? The US has a lot more nationalism in its politics than most western democracies, but never even acknowledges its existence. Seems like a taboo topic in our media.

I think nationalism is a big problem in many places, but could we please stop hurling stones out of the giant glasshouse we are in? If in the coming decades, there are tensions or worse between China and the US, will it necessarily be because of China's emerging nationalism, or maybe (also) because of our strong existing one? I am not advocating being naive about China, but let's think a little before blaming Chinese nationalism.

TS, American nationalism is certainly a problem, specifically on the right where any criticism of US foreign policy is viewed as traitorous.

But in China there are certain key issues where you'd be hard-pressed to find any Chinese to (admit to) dissent. Such as: Taiwan is part of China. (Ask them why, exactly, and few can give you a good reason). China's government helps African people. China's investments are helping Tibetans and Inner Mongolians and Uighurs. Etc.

Obviously, few Chinese can afford to be outspoken in opposition to these issues because of the risk of incarceration, yet it's much easier to meet a Chinese advocating a free press than one advocating an independent Taiwan.

Few such controversial issues in the US are as monolithically accepted by the US population. And that accounts for the difference between Chinese and American forms of nationalism.

Matt - I don't disagree with most of what you say, though I also think there are various issues where almost all Americans seem to agree. (Because we do, we may not even notice. You mentioned one important one already.) As to Taiwan, .. .

I think one important difference between American and other nationalism is that Americans seem less aware of its existence, and that worries me a lot. Coming from Europe, at least there people talk about it a bit more, because of its terrible history. The US never had to learn these lessons (yet). Here, it seems we are very quick in diagnosing nationalism as a problem in all kinds of places, often correctly, but never talk about our own. Apparently we are above those things, just everybody in those other countries is irrational .. time to start the discussion?

One fear that I have about the US and China - call it the "Chinese mirror": imagine for a second that things go extremely well in China in the next decades and it becomes a rich and powerful democracy that mirrors the US in freedom, tolerance, etc, but also in its sense of mission, righteousness, and nationalism. And of course with its various particularities and interests that every country has. Will the US be able to live in peace with its mirror image? Right now, I am afraid the answer is negative, and this scares the hell out of me. I guess if we are "lucky" China will fall short on some or many of these measures and then we can pretend that it wasn't our fault when things went wrong.

When it comes to China in the next few decades, let's not assume it depends only on the Chinese side and how easy they are "to deal with" (a concern that seems to to permeate a lot of the media coverage, e.g., whether a democratic China "will be easier to deal with than ...", as they often say).

I meant: "As to Taiwan ... long discussion deleted in order not to get sidetracked into another complicated issue."

(The system seems to have deleted that remark from my comment - which makes sense given that I said I deleted it. Smart software.)

This is off topic. When in China I was haunted by the thought that American politics is to an amazing degree defined by the loss in Vietnam while in China ,politics seems barely effected by the vastly more traumatic events of the cultural revolution or the mass starvations of the Great Leap forward. The American Civil War, now 150 years in the past seems to have a larger influence on our politics than those disastrous events in China 40 years ago do on their politics.

European and Japanese cities were totally destroyed during WWII, killing millions and you can guess that in America the 3000 dead at the WTC and the one square block destroyed will have a bigger emotional pull on Americans in 60 years than the total destruction of whole cities has on the Germans and Japanese now.

What I am saying in essence is that Americans are babies, or maybe, we can dish it out but we can't take it. The whiniest babies of all are our tough guys. This weeks whining about the victims in Virginia is perhaps the purest example of that yet of how weak we have become.

When considering Bush's lust for bombing Iran it must be considered that the driving force behind it is the taking of those hostages 28 years ago and the desire to take revenge. It boggles the mind how weak we really are.

There's probably some truth to that rapier, but we also have to remember that anyone in China who wishes to talk openly about the Great Leap Forward has to tread extremely lightly. The Party doesn't allow much discussion of it. This is a bit harder to do with regard to the Cultural Revolution because so many members of China's business elite are former Red Guards. Red Guard restaurants have seen waves of popularity relating to the nostalgia for the Red Guard life among those who are now in their 50's and 60's.

Certain issues in China are simply not talked about, especially in the media. Teachers who dissent from the Party line on Taiwan feel they cannot discuss the issue in classes, even with international students, over fears of jailtime. When I was in China, it seemed at times that reading the New York Times gave me a better understanding of what was going on in different parts of the country than the average Chinese citizen could get from Chinese official sources. Few Chinese, especially of the younger generation(s), are aware of the picture of the Beijing man standing in front of the tank in 1989 or oppression of religious minorities out west. Some well-educated people I talked to sounded confused and afraid when they heard Americans say that North Korea had nuclear weapons, which I gather (but I cannot back this up) is not something that CCTV actively reports on. The average Chinese citizen still is angry, with much justification, at the Japanese for WWII. When we bombed the Belgrade embassy, riots broke out in front of our embassy in Beijing (and/or maybe it was our consulate(s)). When the government controls the flows of information, how a society remembers its past suffering changes course.

In the two years that I lived in China, I've found a range of opinions on issues like Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang.

While Chinese nationalism is frequently portrayed as dangerous, American nationalism and militarism is a lot more so these days.

"Few such controversial issues in the US are as monolithically accepted by the US population. And that accounts for the difference between Chinese and American forms of nationalism."

I recall when I was trying to explain to some friends in Beijing that in the debate over the invasion of Iraq, a large number of people opposed it because "the US can't be the world's police man". At first I couldn't find the right words in Chinese to express that a large section of the US population thought that we were helping the Iraqis by bombing them, the issue was if it was worth our effort. Then I realized that it wasn't an issue of language - the whole idea that bombing and invading other folks is a act of charity is just completely insane. In the world of US politics it is - while not universally agreed on - considered a perfectly rational belief.

The title should clearly be Chinese Democracy.

This reminds me of what you can say about Iran -- it is not a "full" democracy, but it is genuinely pluralist. The question is how and whether it moves into further democracy vs. hunkering down into authoritarianism. As so many people have pointed out, crude external pressure tends to lead toward the latter outcome.

Also, the discussion above between rapier, realityman, and justaguy is an excellent example of why this place has one of hte best comments sections on the web.

What do people think of the pessimistic view that the Chinese government is just making the proper noises to keep us happy and is mostly interested in keeping power like every other autocracy in history?

I certainly don't expect the free market to help things...here in America it's had a very corrupting effect on politics as people buy senators.

That's an interesting comment, rapier. The U.S. has been a pretty blessed country, it's hasn't experienced the sort of devestating wars or revolutions prevalent in other parts of the world. So it hasn't been humbled, not like other countries have been humbled. At the same time it's so powerful, militarily, economically, culturally...

I don't really know what to make of this, but it puts some things in perspective I think.

Re: European and Japanese cities were totally destroyed during WWII, killing millions and you can guess that in America the 3000 dead at the WTC and the one square block destroyed will have a bigger emotional pull on Americans in 60 years than the total destruction of whole cities has on the Germans and Japanese now.

I very much disagree. German and Japanese culture (not to mention their politics) have been permanently and profoundly changed by their defeat in WWII, and in Germany's case, by the guilt and shame of the Holocaust. To be sure, that will fade with time and the events pass out of living memory, but I expect that will the case with 9-11 too. But we are way too close to 9-11 to even begin to assess any permanent effect it may have on us.

I think what is remarkable about Chinese nationalism is that even across huge political divides, some of these national issues still touch a nerve. You could get the most pro-Taiwan reunification and pro-Taiwan independence people together (unlikely) and they will agree that "Tibet has always been a part of China" and "those nasty Russians took our land, dammit" sort of comments.

I think that American nationalism does not manifest itself in such purely territorial terms; I think that's why it feels a little weird.

"I think that American nationalism does not manifest itself in such purely territorial terms; I think that's why it feels a little weird."
Well, when is the last time that American land was taken over by a foreign power?

TS and Justaguy,

I agree with most facts you said about nationalism in general but have to point out that China's stint at it has taken particularly long. To the extent I am not sure if it exists yet as a defined and accepted idea by the subjects upon whom it's supposedly vested. This slow development is exhibited by the fact the Chinese cannot clearly define an idea of nation-state in the modern international sense - consequentially leading to antithetical treatment of minorities, other aliens and perhaps more interestingly the various overseas Chinese peoples.

Moreover, China's nationalism is more alarming than that of the US and perhaps most other states as well, with only countable few dictatorial states as the exception. This is caused by the fact that China as a political entity is systematically and institutionally devoted to gag all and any idea that does not conform with "the Order" at full throttle. The execution of this institutional constrain has been deservedly effective, an aspect undoubtedly linked to the strong and long existence of Chinese traditions - ironical the raison de'tre of which would be the existence of modern international values. I am of the opinion that China's brand of unchecked nationalism projects greater danger.

Sohbet Thanks you

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

Thanks !

very good sites.. thanks..

I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings. I congratulate you.

sex shop
thanks .