Could China become a democracy in the foreseeable future?

I'm interested to see what you guys think. In the past few decades, China's economy has become increasingly capitalist, to the point where it's basically communist in name only. A few months ago I read this article, which talks about how communist ideology is becoming irrevelant even within the communist party. Unrest is starting to grow in China, despite the government's best efforts to make the Chinese people think they live in a happy la-la land with a political system that is superior to Western style democracy.

So what do you think? Is it likely that China will someday become a democracy, and if so will it happen through revolution or will the Communist party bring about democracy through reform?

Taiwan already is a democracy... oh you mean the Mainland... it will happen, probably at the local levels first.

An educated population will slowly require it... if they think it will get them a better life... they just have to make sure they don't do it by selling all the public assets to the ruling party on its way out... not that any country would ever let that happen...

Girlfriend of me teaches English there, I don't think it will. China is a class-based society, you will die in the same class you were born. It's also an incredibly cruel society, you better not fall down as nobody will pick you up. Democracy takes trust and the Chinese don't trust anyone, why would they. Ugly place, harsh and pityless in a way we can't imagine

America is a classed based society. So is the UK. And France.

Russia is a "democracy".

They could become a democracy if they wanted to. But I imagine both the leaders and a large number of the populace wonder if it is such a good idea when they look and see the EU and USA imploding under debt mountains that their elected muppets instigated.

~:smoking:

simply no unless the party got totally new bueraucrats

The communist ideology is still very strong in China, if by communism we the systems and institutions surrounding one-party rule. The Chinese state is extremely inflexible, and takes a long time to react to what its citizens want, unlike democracies. In the West, crises of government often end up with the government being chucked out and replaced with a new one - given the lack of democratic competition in China, any similar crises of government has the potential to become a crisis of the regime.

Depends.

There are old fears about revolutions, and their disastrous effects in the short and medium term. The vast majority of people are currently just desperate to make money, and want the government to simply leave them alone (ie less corruption and interference).

But then there is the increasingly well educated and traveled and educated young urban middle&upper classes, who yearn for a fairer, less corrupt and more democratic country. They may have traveled to Taiwan and seen that things work much better than back home, what with the elections, criticism of leaders, free media and the like. This kills the lie that Chinese culture is somehow 'unsuited to democracy', which the CCP is obviously keen to promote.

Then there are the poor urban workers and rural dwellers who have gotten the raw end of the deal, who have their land stolen by corrupt local officials. A 'village' in guangdong (20k residents) is currently in open revolt, having driven out the local officials and law enforcement, after dodgy land dealings and the mysterious death in custody of one of their negotiators.

There is no doubt that there is increasing discontent with the CCP, despite the massive amounts of $ spent on domestic security (much more than the defence budget apparently), propaganda and censorship. The main problem is that the CCP is above the law, and so only polices itself when it feels like it (or when a faction needs to hurt another faction). Since it is unlikely that the CCP will voluntarily open up the system to real democratic competition, things will probably get much worse before they get better... Though the CCP may, in a desperate attempt to save itself, open up things, but I'd say that is less likely that a messy revolution. The flashy displays by the rich (subtle gold painted luxury cars and the like), outrageous demands that people in the wrong make because their father/uncle/friend is a local official (thank goodness for youtube!), and the yawning cavern of wealth inequality (getting worse all the time) are nudging the country toward a major change in governance of some sort. If I was in the CCP I would be a bit nervous, and would send my family overseas with my ill gotten gains.

It's no wonder that those with money are very eager to emigrate to the US, Canada, Australia etc, as in China you can lose your fortune as fast as you gained it - by annoying the wrong official. And revolutions can be messy, when there are massive wealth gaps...

So, in summary, I'd say democracy is not likely in the short term. But the medium to long term quite possible, though the road may be long and extremely messy. Let's just hope that no one starts letting off nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think the end-result of modern technology and comforts is "Democracy" as we know it in the USA and most (nearly all?) of Europe. You just can't have an educated middle-class and not have democracy, eventually.

What the end result of democracy is... we'll find out, but I suspect it is just as messy as what came before democracy.

---

One could not describe Nazi Germany as being backward in terms of technical development and it's working class never mind the middle class were capable of reading and writing.

I find the theory of More Education and Rising Living Standards = Democracy to be lacking somewhat, I understand it's quite a popular assumtion and it appears to hold true till you really examine it.

Basically we are democratic in Europe, North America along with OZ and NZ because of nearly 2000 years of trial and error along with a dash of revolution and evolution for good measure if you ask me.

The majority of Irelands populace was illiterate well into the 20th century most who did attend school would have left at about 13 until well into the late 1950s.

Why then did Irelands revolution end a constitutional monarchy and install a democratic republic if as seems to be the case it does not fit the rising education theory.

If we take for example the Arab Spring while on the face of it looks like a great example of educated populace ousting a dictatorship the reality is anything but.

To me the Arab Spring seems to have come down to factions within the various ruling elites withdrawing consent for the continuation of the same, hence the army is still in REAL control of Eygpt.

That gives us a good clue for Ireland because by late 19th to early 20th century there was a significant faction in the elite that was now Catholic and ready to withdraw it's consent of continued British occupation.

Therefore if we take the example of China we can be fairly certain it will be factions within the CCP that make any moves to open or close.

On one side will be those who want to isolate to equalize the wealth disparity to mute protest and on the other those who favour more trade and freer business (and not neccesarily democracy).

While to us more trade and freer business seems more sensible we have to remember that what matters to the CCP is the CCP and not China, if protest grows more frequent then isolationism will gain momentum over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

All valid points. Having been to the middle east, I guess one could hardly call them uneducated. The average citizen of Bagdhad has a cell-phone and internet access.

I do think China will be the test, though. It would require a massive re-evaluation of the 'western' world view if China came out and did something completely different and succeeded in a way that we couldn't deny.

---

maybe the problem is we place too much emphasis certain things being immutable with democracy ie you eat big macs therefore you have accepted free trade therefore you must be on the road to democracy.

maybe there eating big macs because they like them and not because they accept the inherent processes involved in creating a society that is capable of inventing a big mac.

We talking real democracy or Russia style?

the 2nd one..sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think the end-result of modern technology and comforts is "Democracy" as we know it in the USA and most (nearly all?) of Europe. You just can't have an educated middle-class and not have democracy, eventually.

What the end result of democracy is... we'll find out, but I suspect it is just as messy as what came before democracy.

---

Aha! Democratization is a very interesting subject, mainly because what you might expect to happen actually doesn't. Namely - an increase in wealth does not increase the chances of the collapse of a dictatorship. Przeworski showed in Democracy and Development that regime collapses peak when per capita income is about $2,000 (1985), regardless of whether the state is democratic or a dictatorship. What increased wealth does do is secure the regime, particularly in democracies. For example, there has only ever been one example of a democratic collapse in a nation with a per capita income of over $9,000 (1985), and that was Argentina in the 1970s. Furthermore, increased wealth increases the chances that, if a regime collapse occurs, that the state transitions to a democracy. Once per capita income is above $6,000 (1985), collapses are six times as likely to finish with a democracy left standing as opposed to a dictatorship.

There are a couple of things that make collapses more likely though - chief among them is economic recession in poor countries. This means that this thread is looking at the issue backwards - the Chinese won't demand a change in Chinese government so long as they're getting richer, but only once they start getting poorer. As they get richer, they're more likely to demand a democracy, but that's a different question.

Quote:

---

You just can't have an educated middle-class and not have democracy, eventually.

---

Singapore in particular springs to mind, but so do Pakistan, Russia, Iran etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Singapore in particular springs to mind, but so do Pakistan, Russia, Iran etc.

---

Not to mention South Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

simply no unless the party got totally new bueraucrats

---

I think Chinas Technocrats trump elected lawyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think Chinas Technocrats trump elected lawyers.

---

I'd wager that, too. For one thing China has a lot less patience with filibusters and a lot more respect for actually knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

A true difference in the character of the nation, or a romanticized guess based on dissatisfaction with the current state of non-chinese affairs? I wouldn't blame you for the latter, but I don't know that there is any nation that can be characterized as having a great respect for knowledge outside of anectodal scenarios.

---

There's a distinctly different background in education between the Chinese elite and the USA one, for instance. More science/engineering and less lawyers or MBA types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't think there's a greater respect for knowledge, just a different political situation.

---

Maybe in the sense that the Chinese political system inherently discards people which don't have a clue and don't learn? In that they simply fail to make the grade for office?

Seen Chinese pride themselves on their anti-intellectualism yet? Pride themselves on C grades?

By contrast the antics of the USA types sees us with the elite discarding technological objections against SOPA, and gave rise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

No seriously: you get a similar thing with Germans. Their elite feels a need for that degree, and they pride themselves on having one. The downside of that is of course illustrated nicely in the case of mr. "Zu Googleberg".

China has in the long term had a very high value in education. The communists did wipe out their middle class and educators. Something I think they've regretted ever since.

Taiwan has a public holiday in recognition of Teachers... Confucious values have a very high respect for scholarship. Strangely enough by bein too bound to traditional teaching has had bad consequences for China. As the same values made them become quite insular. After all if you think you know everything and don't test that knowledge you become anti learning, exploration and science all suffer.

Yup. Actually since the days of the Han dynasty office and education have generally been tied, by way of central examinations (open to male candidates of all social strata, by the way); until the days of the nationalists.

But just to highlight this; mr. D. Castro, a proponent of SOPA, apparently wrote the following in a paper aimed to defend SOPA against its critics:

While technology should shape policy, it should not determine policy. The U.S. policies on the Internet should not be determined by the ideological points of view of a few network engineers in the IETF. Policymakers routinely ask the private sector to design systems to meet new technical standards so as to achieve a specific policy outcome.

Just the simple fact that he expects to get away with that speaks volumes.