New Leadership in China

Well, when I look at opinion polls, the populace appears much more bullish in several regards.

• I feel racism is overly prevalent in the country and would result in oppression of the minorities
• I feel they're very bullish about "One China" and not willing to stand with status quo, but again, physical realities are likely to prevent any real action
• I feel they're incredibly anti-Japan and that may lead to worsening relations, and would react far greater to Japanese war crime denials and historical revisionism
• I feel that the Chinese aren't likely to have a reserved non-interventionist attitude, that's mostly an elitist perspective in China. It seems, and I can't really prove this one so you can argue with me on it, that the Chinese populace feels if they can take, they will take it and it's only the government that thinks that it would be very bad long-term to act in such a manner.
• I appreciate the honesty in Chinese trade deals with Canada. They do exactly what they say they will do. The only way to get a bad deal is to ask for the wrong things from them. Dealing with the United States has been a constant string of trade disputes and law breaking. But I think this is only because the Chinese elite do it. If it were up to basic businessmen, they lie cheat and steal like everybody else.

edited 17th Feb '12 12:17:23 PM by breadloaf

@breadloaf: Let's assume for a second you're actually totally right. China functions much, much better in its current form of government than it would for a democracy.

Even under that assumption, do you hear what you're saying? Democracy is not a means to an end. Democracy in the modern world is a right.

I would be willing to engage in this debate with you, but it's off-topic. So I just want to double-check: you actually believe that China shouldn't be a democracy, right?

I was speaking about putting all the institutions of democracy in place before forming government through general elections. So the answer is that, yes I want China to be a democracy, but you don't make it one by handing out the vote.

Just look at Afghanistan.

Instead of Taliban, plain old elections put into power drug lords and warlords. Yay?

edited 17th Feb '12 2:39:50 PM by breadloaf

Eh. Democracy is a right, but that doesn't mean that it's always desirable in the immediate timeframe presented. If a country would do more poorly and be a bigger threat to other countries as a democracy than as a dictatorship or oligarchy, I wouldn't see the point in trying to force it to become a democracy, at least for the time being.

The real question is whether or not China is better off, for the moment, as an oligarchy or as a democracy.

China is not a failed state. I think the Chinese, by and large, could handle the responsibility. Right now, there is no opposition to government policy. If the government puts out nationalistic propaganda, there is no one with the legal right to argue against it. The result might be harder for us to deal with, but supporting authoritarian regimes because they are more predictable and "rational" has gotten us into a lot of trouble.

I'd prefer if China was a democracy, myself. But I'm not Chinese, I don't really know the culture, and I don't know what they want. So, I don't really know what to say, as to what should be done by the rest of the world—if anything—about it.

My experience with the Chinese tells me that they are often quite anti-war, which makes sense since Confucianism is very much a "mind your own business" philosophy (this is why the Ming Dynasty gave up the sea trade after just one emperor and why, in general, officials in the Imperial China are anti-military). So it will be very surprising to me if China starts to start wars with anybody when it goes democracy.

The result might be harder for us to deal with, but supporting authoritarian regimes because they are more predictable and "rational" has gotten us into a lot of trouble.

This. This so, so many times over.

See, there's the problem. You believe that either we should support dictatorships or install democracies.

We should not intervene in another country's political structure to support one paradigm or another.

We don't have to "intervene" somewhere in order to support democracy there. But claiming to support democracy while actually supporting authoritarian regimes has been the problem.

Yeeah, but I doubt that situation applies to China. Well at least I wouldn't think it applies.

It just seems like the old conservative guard of China is basically out the door at this point with Xi Jinping. Hu Jintao ran China as a technocracy, that's not likely to change under Jinping, but there is likely to be the continued market reforms.

I think what breadloaf is trying to say is that we should promote some kind of republicanism, protecting some basic rights, and one of them should be democracy.

Still, democratization itself has been very effective in creating positive reforms, so I don't see why we should deter it. I find citizens of China intelligent enough to enact those reforms when the nation is democratized. I also think that China should be a federal republic due to its huge size and its diverse constituents.

^ Yeah, although I normally don't call that republicanism. I'm not sure what I would classify it. I'm also not implying we deter anything, since I'm generally on the side of non-interventionism unless there are extreme circumstances, and the situation in China does not constitute any sort of "extreme" circumstance.

Slow transition from a one party system to democracy is the best possible outcome. Said process should take a century, and would ensure stability.

After all Britain, the US, and in reality all modern democracies evolved from "tyranic" rule not at once but slowly.

Take for example the US. Sure, it went from colony to democracy in a decade, but then once again, only white men with money who could read could vote, thus it wasnt really a democracy at first, which resembles China in which only members of the communist party have any sort of participation in goverment...

edited 20th Feb '12 7:27:05 AM by Baff

My response would be a flat "No."

However, I would then be forced to qualify my statement. Which would be a ridiculously massive time sink.

So "No comment."