Is China too big for Democracy?

This is something I hear from time to time: that China is so big, its population so widespread, that it cannot be supported by democracy. What do you think? How does India compare, being a democracy with only slightly less population? Should it stay as controlled as it is at the moment? What is best for China and its citizens?

All that impartiality aside, I don't like the term, being used so often as it is to defend the current regime (often by its own citizens and fans, which feels a bit like defeatism or an excuse not to rebel against and change things). But I'm happy to be challenged on this.

This is an interesting topic.

However, this is not a thread about how China is gonna invade someone, nor is this a thread about how well some other countries could manage against a Chinese invasion, nor is this a thread about how much the Great Firewall and the government of China sucks, nor is this a thread about Tibet.

(I'm trying to prevent all the likely derails right here.)

Stick to the topic and we'll have an interesting discussion. Thank you.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

My short answer will be "no", but that's because I see that size (population wise) is less of a factor and it is more the cultural reasons that stops China from having a democracy at the moment.

There is no such thing as "too big for democracy". It's all just a matter of scaling. The claim is really absurd: Going by that logic, if China were to be divided in a dozen states, each of them could be democratic, but together they could not be? How does that make sense?

The same is by the way true of elements of direct democracy, since I always hear it only works in Switzerland because Switzerland is too small. Again, that's just a matter of scaling, and the same is true for democracy in general. There is no "too big".

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

That's kinda self contradicting isn't it?

From here, I'm just going to assume that by 'too big' I mean very overpopulated. China is the nation with the most population on Earth, and going by the past and the present records on what nation runs on what system, yes, it is simply too large to be governed by democracy fluidly. I mean, look at USA. What's being democratic for?

But my point isn't to say that 'too big' = 'unsuitable to be democratic', because democracy as a system is flawed in 3 ways

1) Bribery based corruption is tremendously hard to defeat once it sets into the system. Case: My own country Malaysia, Taiwan, possibly Russia. Two of which are actually small compared to China

2) Governing terms are too short (4 to 5 years), meaning one ruler can wreak as much havoc as possible and step down possibly unscathed with lack of proof to nail him/her. And, even IF red handed, the damage is done

3) It is simply not a governing system to use when the people's cultural and moral levels can't sustain from misuse of power. Using democracy before citizens reaching a suitable level of crime rates, courtesy and education rank, will not guarantee that the system can produce rulers that know how to look after the profits of the people

We have to look at two things here: other nations that are not running on democracy, and nations that are running on democracy but like on shit. Simply put, why is China unsuitable for democracy? My answer is a question on its own: what does an AVERAGE Chinese think, behave and believe in?

An average Chinese hasn't seen enough history in industrial development. The most one had seen was the Big Step Forward, and I need not to tell you how it ended up. Culturally, the less sensible and very mythical roots are still set in deep. This naturally causes problems for people around them. For another example, we all know that food industry is serious business: yet why are they thinking up ways to poison their own people?

Currently I see 2 negative mindsets among the average Chinese that needs to be rid of before democratic order can be propagated (and only THEN we can see China moving into Democracy on its own: it can't be forced)

1) Every man for himself mentality

2) Money is everything mentality

I see a lot of Western people here criticize on how China is 'intimidating' for running on communism, but still, even WITH gunshot penalty, ranked officials of China still commit to bribery and lavishing. What would happen if China takes up democracy around now of all times?

edited 14th Apr '12 1:53:57 AM by Cassie

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

I agree with Octo, if there was such a thing as "too big for democracy" how could we get a democratic World Government?

Longer terms would hopefully make people think more on long term.

I wholeheartedly agree these need to die in fire. Doesn't mean democracy can't be started before they're gone.

edited 14th Apr '12 2:11:16 AM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

But that's counter-causal logic. After all, nothing says we can.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

@Cassie: I think you might have a Perfect Solution Fallacy going here. If there's a good chance that a flawed democracy would be better for China than its current system, then that should be tried, especially as there's a good chance that a flawed democracy would improve until they reach a higher standard. It's much easier to see a way up with a democratic system than one based on plutocracy.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I'm merely stating that China on its own current solution course is a great indicator that democracy, when weighed against China's current system, is tilting towards failure. Maybe I'll change my mind when more of China's considerably more enlightened next generation rise into population, but ironically the society there is also affected by the increase of aged people

No solution is perfect when it comes to ruling, but to bring my point home: you would not want culturally insufficient people start using power they're not prepared to wield

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

And who decides if someone is "culturally insufficient"? If you wait until you're "ready" for democracy there will always be someone who says "no, not yet".

Democracy has to be learned (and still is, everywhere in the world) and the only way to do that is by doing. But how are you going to do that if you say "they are not ready"?

Also, as a question to more understand your viewpoint, you are in Malaysia? Are you regularly in the PRC, did you live there at some point or do you have some other direct experience aside from ancestry?

edited 14th Apr '12 4:18:12 AM by 3of4

"You can reply to this Message!"

I actually will say that these are reasons that there's not a big push for democracy in China at the moment. If they think the current government is doing fine/well enough and they don't have to worry about their next meal why would they wnt to change? However, those are not reasons why China houldn't have democracy.

Interestingly, it might be turned out to be a downward change since the more liberal faction is gaining power at the moment: not enough to make changes overnight but still.

I don't think that it's fair to say that China is "too big" for Democracy - India can manage it despite being a considerably less homogenus society.

Assuming that the system is organised in a sound manner, democracy in China would face cultural issues (steming from the fact that mainland China has never had a democracy) and almost certainly problems from corruption.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Well, India's got corruption problems, as do Taiwan.

Every government has corruption problems.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

And in fact dictatorshhips more so than democracies. That's a known and measured fact.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Actually, level of GDP per person in a country is a much better predictor of corruption levels than democracy is. If you control for national wealth, democracies are not necessarily any less corrupt than non-democracies are.

There are some wrinkles in this (countries with a long history of democracy — ie 50+ years — are less likely to be corrupt, and strong dictatorships are most likely to be corrupt), but in terms of transitional developing countries, there's not a lot of difference.

(I'm writing my dissertation on corruption issues, so forgive me for going off on this).

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

Well, yes, of course there is also a GD Ppc/corruption correlation, but my understanding was that there is also a correlation between political/social freedom and corruption. But then of course, this is also a correlation between freedom and GDP per capita, so it all works out again.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

To speak this in a tone fitting for this topic, I don't think China is any less corrupt than other nations out there, GDP or not. But because it is corrupt in the ranks and even close to the grassroots (cops that maul on people on their own, for example), democracy can't be put to practice anytime soon unless a moral overhaul is made

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

Well you gotta start somewhere. As long as you have a dictatorship, which by its very nature is not accountable to anybody, corruption will remain. Besides, what about India? Just as corrupt as China yet a stable enough democracy, and with some luck it will also be able to clean up corruption some with economic success.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Stop. China does NOT run on dictatorship. That sentence means that you are insinuating Hu Jing Tao is solely responsible for all the goods and bads he has done for China and parts of the world. THAT IS FALSE.

China is run by CPPCC and NDPC acting as carbon brushes against the rotating motor. Also, systems and policies are mutually exclusive. China may run on a communism-based system, but the policies are more liberal than some democratic system run nations

To clarify again, Hu Jing Tao is Chairman, while President is Wen Jia Bao. Both have different powers

edited 14th Apr '12 7:21:45 AM by Cassie

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

The system is still a dictatorship. Now, of course it's an oligarchic dictatorship instead of a single person dictatorship, but what does that matter? It doesn't matter at all.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

I'm leery about framing the discussion in terms of 'moral overhaul'. After all, a number of countries that are relatively clean today were much more corrupt in the past (look at British literature from the 18th and early 19th centuries, and you'll see how big a role bribery played in elections then), and I'm not sure they cleaned up due to a moral revolution. For me, a more plausible factor is the growth of a middle class — while poor citizens in a democracy may be swayed by the promise of patronage due to their situation, members of the middle class are more likely to demand that politicians are clean and effective. In addition, they are more likely to be able to participate in civil society organizations to serve as a watchdog and pressure politicians if necessary.

To get back to China, I think the big challenge here is that the middle class is unequally distributed throughout the country. If China only consisted of the coastal provinces, I would expect demands for greater freedom and democratization to increase as the country got richer and the middle class grew. On the other hand, given the coastal/central wealth divide in China, the middle class might not see its own interests as linked to the vast majority of the country. (From what I have heard, the middle class in China tends to not want full democracy, as they would be likely to lose their power. I'm not a China expert, so I could be wrong on this.) I'm not really sure how one gets around this problem.

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

It's not "too big". It's only slightly larger than India population wise and is smaller than Canada size wise, and both of them are Democracies.

I'm baaaaaaack

Question: "Is China too big for Democracy?"

Answer: Personally, no.

Clarification:

The problem is not so much "Too Big", but "Too New". China's history for thousands of years has largely been Imperial. In all that time, Philosophy, Institutions, Traditions, People's Belief/Religon, has been affected in some way or another, and the very concept of Democracy (as we would recognize) did not exsist.

However, since the concept of Democracy is now common knowledge, it will probably be experimented on in China for no better reason than curiosity to see what will happen.

Maybe in 100 years it will actually get the hang of Democracy.

America had 200 years of Democracy and supposedly its a form of government that is still a work in progress.

edited 14th Apr '12 8:16:54 AM by Natasel

This is such a patronizing and condescending attitude. Every nation in the world that actually has (unlike the USA) some history, has been non-democratic for the majority of it.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic