What do Chinese Make of Democracy?
Tonight I was watching a Chinese new show called ‘360.’ The broadcast was pretty interesting in that it went into a lot of detail about the recent Serbian election that seems to point toward Kosovo’s independence, and seems to take a deeper look at world issues. What the broadcast made me wonder is how China’s loabaixing see the coverage of democratic elections across the globe, while Beijing remains stuck in 1949 (1989?).
The popular notion among people in this country is that China is not ready for elections. That might be true to a certain degree. Most people would be skeptical that a ballot would be either secret or counted properly after a long history of government ’shenanigans’ (that’s a euphemism, folks). However, the Chinese media widely covers Taiwanese elections, even if they slant the stories, and they have full coverage of other important democracies as well. At some point must the average person not think, “Why the hell can’t we do this if Serbia can?” And then in their collective head they repeat, “Serbia! For Christ’s sake!”
Most people in China have the mindset that the Communist autocracy will indefinitely be the system, for better or worse, and there’s not much point in yelling about it. But it seems difficult for me to imagine that the average person doesn’t start to wonder, at some point, why so many, uh, not very impressive (again, euphemism) countries are able to have democratic elections, while China, the 21st century’s great hope, is still stuck in an embarrassingly backwards system.
Is it possible that Chinese simply see the country as such a unique case that all of the democratic movements around them don’t matter? Or is it a country that has accepted its fate as a modern, institutionalized dictatorship?
Share This
Larry responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 12:31 am →
1. Not now. May be in the future.
2. Democracy is difficult to achieve. We might as well concentrate on making money.
3. All democracies are fake, especially the US.
4. Chinese are not ready for it because they don’t understand what is democracy
5. Democracy leads to demonstrations, riots and destablize the country
6. China is the most democratic country in the world
beijinger responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 4:36 am →
Sorry, Josh. But I think you completely misread us. After following Taiwan politics for a while, we keep asking ourselves again and again in our head, “Why the hell do we want that?” Did you know after just 3 “presidential” elections in Taiwan, Guangdong has surpassed Taiwan economically? Taiwan used to be the leader of the 4 Asian tigers when it was under an authoritarian government, now they are the last. Not a very good example, isn’t it? Do I need to mention the ongoing chaos in Kenya and Pakistan? Why do we want that?
Josh responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 7:32 am →
@ Larry
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
CUBA is the most democratic country in the world. You’ve completely bought into the Chinese propaganda!
Josh responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 7:44 am →
@Beijinger
Give that you are presumably Chinese and posting on an English blog (and have a good sense of international politics) I’m guessing you are not the common man of China. However, I have to seriously question your logic.
One province in China is economically stronger than the average across Taiwan according to you anyway. Where did you get that data? (what about comparing Taipei to Guangdong, or the countries–I mean province vs. country?)
Even if your numbers are right, so what!? Taiwan was long economically far better than Mainland China, and even if it hadn’t been, money is not the only advantage of democracy. South Korea doesn’t have riots. And North Korea doesn’t have democracies. You cited Kenya, but that was the result of corrupt election. Look at the non-democratic countries in the area: Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe. Would Kenya be better off without elections?
Pakistan is a democracy? Last time I check the president seized power in a military coup. Why not cite all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, or North America. They all have flaws, but those systems look pretty good overall.
At least you’ve made it clear that not everyone draws the conclusion from watching Serbian elections as I would think they might.
onNet responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 8:40 am →
It is simple; China and it’s people can’t afford to elect a Bush.
Josh responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 9:13 am →
Dubya’s legacy:
People living in authoritarian dictatorships are worried about what democracy might bring.
Freedom is on the march.
richard responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am →
On Beijinger’s comment and Josh’s response. If you are concerned about the wellbeing of the population and their freedom from violence from their own government or a foreign one - simply survey the 20th century end to end. Count the number of people killed by their own governments in one versus multi-party states. When the sums are finished, count end to end the number of people killed in conflicts definitively initiated by one versus multi-party states. I think examples, may not actually help my case - but list the countries that perpetrated aggression against china and those that came to its aid over that period.
There have been and are single party sates that have exemplary records in both of these areas. It is, however, clear from history that the citizens or inhabitants of multi party states are at far less risk of violence from their government as are their neighbours.
Pointing this out does not prove a rule. There are myriad arguments that could be made regarding other historical factors and trends at play last century, and about the possible differences in structures within what I am describing as ‘one party states’. That is a big argument for it’s own time, but Beijinger’s pointing out a few current troubles without reference to the overall global experience is clearly flawed.
beijinger responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 11:07 am →
Josh,
I am Chinese, originally from Beijing, currently living in the states. My view reflects many of my friends’ back home, I also read a lot of Chinese blogs and forums, so I am confident that it’s the popular view.
The GDP data is here http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-12/11/content_755107.htm, the governor said so but it’s not final yet. You are right that Taiwan was long economically better than the mainland. Actually it’s exactly my point, why are they lagging behind now? It’s very simple, the two parties spend all their time trying to get the other side down instead of improving people’s bottom line. This is one of the problems of a multi-party system. Another similar example is the Philippines. I am not saying all democracies will come to that. China is doing relatively well right now, why should we take the risk at this point?
Democracy works well in well-off societies, but never in poor countries. Can you give me a single example that a poor country achieved modernization because of they adopted democracy? The answer is NONE! South Korea and Taiwan adopted democracy when their GDP per capita is around $7000 while Kenya did at a much lower level, the result couldn’t be more obvious. (here is a good debate on this related subject http://www.chinalawblog.com/2007/11/china_pollutionchina_dissing_i.html) It’s not rocket science, when you have a job to keep and a mortgage to pay, you are less likely to riot on the street. The root cause of Kenya’s problem is ethnic tension, the election was only the spark that ignited the fire. Don’t forget China is also a multiethnic country. Again, why should we take the risk at this point?
Pakistan is not a democracy, it’s under pressure from the US to adopt democracy. Look what happened there. Do I need to remind you what’s happening in Iraq? When they are not ready, they are NOT ready. Is China ready?
Finally, let’s not forget that democracy itself is not our goal, our goal is to find a system that can guarantee people’s rights and produce competent leaders. Who are we so arrogant to say that Western style democracy is the final answer for humanity? For the life of me I don’t believe that! Let the Chinese find their own way.
beijinger responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 11:23 am →
Richard,
Care to reassess your statistic on a per capita basis? I can play the number game too.
Josh responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am →
@Beijinger:
You make some decent points, but we’re way off from my original point. We somehow got into a debates about the merits of Chinese democracy. My original question was about whether Chinese people wonder why the country is not moving in that direction when they see the news about other moves toward the system.
Is there really such a vacuum of intellectual thinking that no one questions why the leadership seems to say that China is uniquely unprepared for democracy? Or are all of the explanations just a defense mechanism?
tianya responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 12:12 pm →
除了美国和西欧以外，请问亚洲其他国家有谁成功吗？不要和我们说日本（日本重来都是一党执政的，有政党轮替吗？）
看了台湾，菲律宾，印尼，拉美国家。。。嗯还有俄罗斯（对于这个从共产主义国家直接转换为西方国家所谓的民主国家所付出的代价，中国人可是记忆犹新!）这样的民主我们需要吗？不要问我们为什么只看到民主失败的一面，因为人只会注意失败的例子，因为成功的太少了。。。。
中国人为什么讨厌西方所谓的民主(有时甚至成了过街老鼠）。。。
http://cache.tianya.cn/pub/c/worldlook/1/165046.889.shtml
http://cache.tianya.cn/publicforum/Content/worldlook/1/152784.shtml
http://cache.tianya.cn/pub/c/worldlook/1/166866.213.shtml
http://cache.tianya.cn/pub/c/worldlook/1/146455.1336.shtml
希望你有耐心看完……^_^
Nick responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 3:14 pm →
@beijinger
Your assuming that the most desirable end is making money and this supercedes any social outcomes. We’ve seen Mainland China stride forward in leaps and bounds on the former, yet take a look what the recent weather did to the country.
“Source: China Daily” - nuff said.
richard responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 3:50 pm →
Beijinger,
I am asking you to do exactly that. Look at the percentages if you will. Please, play the numbers game and make my point for yourself.
I think there are many, and some very good, arguments stemming from and related to your point about democracy being a luxury. And this, would be one possible explanation of the numbers I am pointing out. The countries that in the last century did perpetrate genocides and large aggressive wars where by and large poor. Perhaps this overrode the positive effects of their being one party states, or perhaps, being poor led to both their being one party states and perpetrating such acts.
The numbers, I believe stand though. Per capita, look at the number of people killed or persecuted by one versus multi-party states. Whatever factors are that lead to this, surely we want to foster those that have lead in previous cases to the development of multi-party states. If, given the freedom to choose, and I do not consider a referendum or vote the _only_ method of choice, the Chinese or anyone else should go a different way once those conditions are in place…
eric responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 5:20 pm →
beijinger, i agree that democracy is a mean to an end and isn’t necessarily good for a country in of itself. in each of the countries you have mentioned and tianya had mentioned. the problems wasnt there was democracy, the problem was that there is great tension within the said country. Take Kenya for example, the economic/political subjugation of ethnic groups is the underlying problem. The violence that has been going on is hardly a manifestation of democracy.
In the Jan/Feb issue of “Foreign Affairs”, John Thornton, the director of Tsinghua University’s Global leadership program and the Chair of the Board of the Brookings Institute wrote an interesting piece of democracy in China. He made the point that democracy had been the exhortation of Chinese leader from Sun-Yet-Sam to Mao to Deng. The definition of democracy is China is different from that in the West. “When we talk about deomcracy, we usually refer to three key components, elections, judicial independence and supervision based on checks and balances.” Prime minister Wen was quoted as saying. By those measures, Thornton argued, China is already on the way to democracy. I concur with him on this point. However nascent and fragile the progress so far has been. These are steps in the right direction. Baby steps, true, but what else do you expect given the state that China is in?
@tianya
当民主混乱的时候，显然是没有人想要得。但大部分的民主都是有秩序的，对于大多数人有力的。你不可以把自己当作中国人的代表。也许有的人认为中国还不适合民主。还学要时间。但并不代表不想要民主。
canrun responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 8:07 pm →
Pretty good debate about this topic going on in the Guardian recently:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2251711,00.html
tianya responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm →
@tianya
当民主混乱的时候，显然是没有人想要得。但大部分的民主都是有秩序的，对于大多数人有力的。你不可以把自己当作中国人的代表。也许有的人认为中国还不适合民主。还学要时间。但并不代表不想要民主。
========================
那谁能保证中国实施民主之后一定会有秩序呢，谁又能保证实施民主之后中国一定会成为美国或是欧洲，而不是俄罗斯，伊拉克，肯尼亚？
我们现在比不上美国这些所谓的民主国家，但肯定好过俄罗斯，菲律宾。谁又能准确的说现在的中国以后一定不好呢？实施民主之后就能好呢？没人！！！！！！
在中国生活的是中国人，中国乱了之后，受苦的还是中国人，难道还是你们吗？
现在有谁在为非洲那些实施民主之后动乱的国家，受苦的非洲人负责？美国吗？欧洲吗？没有人！！！！！！
Falen responds:
Posted: February 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm →
Hey Josh, you make it sound as if the “loabaixing” is all watching the elections in the other with red-eyed envy. As if some guy is saying to himself “I want that!” All I can say is you are sadly mistaken because Chinese are not least bit sorry that they are not a democracy, especially watching the likes of India.
Sorry to say but this election and other election hardly count as achievement. A messed up place is still messed up after an election. Watching these “election” is amusing and a lot of Chinese are simply not impressed.
And wtf do you mean by loabaixing? You probably have some stereotypical mental image of some old man pushing cart with massive load of cardboards down the street or some random farmer in the middle of nowhere. People with internet access probably doesn’t qualify as loabaixing to you?
Josh responds:
Posted: February 6th, 2008 at 7:34 am →
@Falen,
You’re probably right that they don’t care about elections in most countries. It’s just hard to imagine watching an hour-long program on the Serbian elections and not wondering why it is so important, unless there is something special about elections. But that’s probably just because of where I was raised.
With regard to laobaixing, it’s not exactly like I invented the term, nor defined it. Yet I think it’s safe to say that ‘Beijinger’ who is fluent in English, living in the US, and following international politics does not qualify as the most typical laobaixing. Perhaps I am wrong.
mor responds:
Posted: February 6th, 2008 at 7:55 am →
“All I can say is you are sadly mistaken because Chinese are not least bit sorry that they are not a democracy, especially watching the likes of India.”
Falen, all I can say is that a lot of Chinese people would like to live in a democracy. If they have the right qualifications, if they have the choice, they move to America, Canada, Australia or European countries. Are they all wrong or is there something wrong with their own country?
Merlin responds:
Posted: February 6th, 2008 at 8:57 am →
@Mor then you should ask them if they want to move to india 。they want to move to americ just because those countries are not democracy, but richer. If china become richer,stronger,they will move back.
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: February 6th, 2008 at 5:15 pm →
“It’s very simple, the two parties spend all their time trying to get the other side down instead of improving people’s bottom line.”
@Beijinger and others
How does the average Taiwanese person’s overall quality of life compare to the average Guangdongese/Chinese?
Turkey seems to enjoy a pretty stable democracy despite not having a very high GDP, that GDP stuff is just another weak excuse by scared old men in Beijing.
cc responds:
Posted: February 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm →
Is this the real Kebab? You must be fake as “Kebab” now tries to use a bit reasoning in his comment. Insane! Where are your signature phrases?
“How does the average Taiwanese person’s overall quality of life compare to the average Guangdongese/Chinese?”
Perhaps better, so what? Taiwan achieved its economic success mostly under an authoritarian rule, So did Korea(S). Economics are not the only part of life, but very important especially for economies at a low level. Singapore is authoritarian, how do you compare the overall quality of life of a Singaporean with an Indian’s, democratic Indian’s?
The conclusion is that there is no conclusion!
Singaporeans on average have better life than Indians, this does not necessarily mean authoritarian rule is better than democracy. By the same token, average life in Taiwan is better than the one on the Mainland, this is not a sufficient evidence to suggest that democracy is always better than authoritarian rule .
The discussion of a political system must be put into context, often into many contexts. The use of a blanket covering statement, such as “democratic is better than authoritarian, and every nation should have democracy, etc.” is “too simple, too naive” at least, provided that the speaker(s) does not have a hidden agenda.
Sugar is sweet, but you could kill a diabetic with that stuff.
nanheyangrouchuan responds:
Posted: February 16th, 2008 at 1:28 am →
There’s only one “kebab”, no substitutes exist, chinese copiers aren’t that good.
S. Korea and Taiwan weren’t dictatorships for the sake of economic development, they were military ruled countries because they had (and have) horrible neighbors who want to destroy them simply out of a lust for power, that is the key reason for them having those authoritarian governments.
As for Singapore, it got its head start as British colony, the current administration simply took over an established, successful international port and trade city. And it would take real effort to screw that up.
Hehe responds:
Posted: February 18th, 2008 at 7:27 am →
So, you are effectively saying that “democracy” is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for economic growth.