open Democracy News Analysis - China’s modernisation: a unique path?, Li Datong - Comments

john.y on "China’s modernisation: a unique path?"

john.y — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:28:08 +0100

I have to respond to purucker1's comment.

"I find Li Datong's articles ... one-sided".
What is the good side of an unelected government that killed nearly 100 million Chinese people, is responsible for incalculable crimes in foreign policy (supporting North Korea and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, to name just two obvious examples), gave away Chinese territory (northern Mongolia) to the USSR to maintain itself in power, delayed China's economic modernization for 30 years, brutalized China's cultural heritage, and has become every bit as corrupt and predatory as the Kuomintang regime it deposed?

"To judge China [by Western] standards is like comparing apples with walnuts".
Why, exactly, should Chinese people be given less political rights than Westerners? Are Chinese people less intelligent than Westerners, less capable of judging the merits of government officials? Please enlighten us. And when you're finished explaining why Western people should have more rights than Chinese (i.e. why the anti-Asian racists are correct), explain why Chinese people in Taiwan, Hong Kong and overseas Chinese communities should have more rights than Chinese in mainland China. Does moving to Taiwan make a Chinese person smarter?

"It works to an extent in small numbers i.e. countries with maximum 500 million inhabitant but would be impossible to maintain with 1.4 billion people and a gigantic county side."
And why is that, exactly? Does the concept of majority rule break down mathematically when the population exceeds 500 million? Is it that much harder to process the ballots of 500,000,000 voters than to process the ballots of 499,999,999? And also, have you looked at a map lately? You might have noticed a quite large country next to yours which has managed to operate a functioning, stable democracy for decades with a population now far in excess of your magical "number of democratic doom". It's called India.

"Maybe intellectuals in China should try to think in that direction rather than trying to copy a system that would be destructive to a country that still has the greatest potential for the future on this planet."
I agree with you about China's future potential, but it seems to me that the biggest threat to that potential is the CCP's refusal to contemplate serious political reform, which is causing greater and greater political instability. I live in China, and I have never seen a country where the relationship between the government and the governed is more dysfunctional (the former fears the latter, the latter detest the former). If authoritarianism is working so well, why has every Asian government that used it either collapsed, or been violently overthrown? Why is corruption getting worse every year? Why are violent demonstrations becoming more and more numerous all the time?

Oh yeah: readers of this site should be aware that the Chinese government's internet censorship apparatus pays employees to make web postings reflecting the party line. They get paid 50 cents per post, hence are called the "50 cent brigade". purucker1, you sound like a 50 center to me.

ducafeli on "China’s modernisation: a unique path?"

ducafeli — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:32:22 +0000

With China rapidly modernizing its military, India needs to be wary of likely implications, which will impact the nation's security, Army chief Deepak Kapoor warned on Thursday.

"We need to take note of likely implications of China's military modernisation, improvement in infrastructure in Tibet Autonomous Region and other related issues, which could impact our security in the long run," Kapoor said in New Delhi.

Delivering the 'National Security Lecture' at the strategic affairs think tank Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), Kapoor said China, the largest and the most powerful neighbour, and a rapidly rising power, continued on the path of high economic growth, combined with rapid military modernisation.

In his lecture on "Changing Global Security Environment With Specific Reference to Our Region and its Impact on the Indian Army", he said, "We have differences related to the boundary question, which are being resolved by special representatives of both the governments."

Pointing out that regular visits at the highest level have further added to the dimensions of constructive engagement and mutual confidence in relationship between the two neighbours, the General said economic engagements and continued efforts to amicably resolve boundary issues had ensured peace along the border.

Later, to a query from reporters, Kapoor said Indian Army was not aware of any build up of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) in Tibet, as some reports suggested, for an adventure inside Indian territory after Beijing Olympics.

On recent reports of incursions by PLA in Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and other areas along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the Army chief reiterated the transgressions occured due to differing perceptions of LAC, and at times due to confusion among troops on ground, especially when units changed and new units got posted there.

"But that is why we have boundary negotiating teams that have been established by both India and China, which are having a constant dialogue on a regular basis," he said.

Stating that transgressions of a minor nature do not get resolved at either flag meetings, which are held periodically, or at meetings between interlocutors from both sides, Kapoor ruled out commencement of hostilities due to differing perceptions between troops on ground.

________________________

Submited by : Descargar Libros

oconnorjustin on "China’s modernisation: a unique path?"

oconnorjustin — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:36:56 +0000

Whilst democracy might be a common standard this has emerged over long periods and across a great deal of historical wreckage. In addition, we are still not sure what it is; except that parliamentary democracy and universal sufferage linked to an economy based on the power of capital no long excites anyone. This is not just westerners being careless with their inheritance - democracy as we have it is simply not capable of answering the questions we now face.

China should become democratic - sure. Does that mean universal sufferage and parliament - now? Right away? And should we do away with the growing power of capital or allow this to develop as it has done in the West? BUsiness as usual. These are just two of a series of profound questions that need to be answered. Li Datong's notion that China has been overtaken by the west since (at least) the 18th century and that therefore it just needs to dump its past and become like the west is just not an answer. The account of McCartney's visit is plain wrong. How does his description of poverty in China compare with England - or indeed Ireland - at that time? Read Kenneth Pomeranz for a systematic dismantling of the idea of China's economic backwardness and Europe's progressiveness. They were comparable in 1800 - and China's problems came from its failure to deal with its success (overpopulation) and from the very colonialism we are told holds out the path to the future. Will Hutton too thinks we just have to embrace western economic and political governance and all will be well - oh, except that America is betraying this and being is very naughty.

Might it be that the problems facing China are extremely complex and that the West too might need some serious political jolts in order to turn it away from its deeply destructive encounter with the environment and the rest of the world's society and economy and culture.

Let's have some more flexible vision. Li datong might want to dump his past (I feel like that about England sometimes) but this is something that should be done with great care. Be careful what you wish for. As for Open Democracy's china coverage - unless you bring in other voices (not pro and con the regime, something more interesting and useful) then the China section is set to become stale and useless.

Frank Wang on "China’s modernisation: a unique path?"

Frank Wang — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:20:52 +0000

Salute to Li Datong, the hero of China journalist, and thanks to Chris Allen's translation.
The Cycle of China. I agree with this opinion. China's history is a cyclic loops and repetitions, it moved forward and backward, from beginning to the end, and back to the beginning. If no luckily broken by modern civilization, it would whirlabout within the fatal loop forever, just like another independent ancient civilization -- Egypt, until it was rotten and weak enough to be destroyed and vanished on the Earth.
So it's very worrying that if China will suvive more centuries without political and ideological reforms.
Most common people outside China would not know the truth inside, they enjoyed the cheap products from China, no matter produced by slave labours there, they were paralysed by apparent friendship of the dictators, they opt for appeasement to avoid conflict like they did to Hitler seventy years ago, they are dreaming economic developent would change the politics automatically, though some wise men have found it's wrong, they neglect a growing new totalitarian regime, a threat to the whole democratic world.
China's future depend on our Chinese, we should strive for democracy by ourselves, we could seek help from foreign forces, but we should not pin our hope on them.
To purucker and other sceptics: Democracy is a common standard for all man kind, not for some nations, democracy is a series thoughts and practice, not only a government formation.

comment by a common Chinese inside China.

Brian H on "China’s modernisation: a unique path?"

Brian H — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:31:16 +0000

purucker1; You might want to look at Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's work on regime types, which uses the concepts of "inner coalition" and "Selectorate" size to predict behavior and survival. Here's a link to a discussion I posted: http://ca.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-UW_hLlUzaa92CW8FakzK.dc-?cq=1&p=12 In a way, the bottom line is that you don't get what you don't reward. I am often reminded of the Soviet-era workers' quip, "The State pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work."

purucker1 on "China’s modernisation: a unique path?"

purucker1 — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:58:39 +0000

Having studied Chinas History and traveled extensively through the countryside I have found all of Li Datong`s articles rather one-sited. To judge China on the terms of European or USA standards is like comparing apples with walnuts.I understand that he is a fan of our so called Democracy which might seem to him an ideal form of government. It works to an extent in small numbers i.e. countries with maximum 500 million inhabitant but would be impossible to maintain with 1.4 billion people and a gigantic county side. If China should continue to be one country a new form of Government must be developed. Maybe intellectuals in China should try to think in that direction rather than trying to copy a system that would be destructive to a country that still has the greatest potential for the future on this planet.

China’s modernisation: a unique path?, Li Datong

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:22:39 +0000

A few days ago I was invited to dinner with a western diplomat. In the course of a discussion about China and its future, the diplomat raised a very interesting question:

Li Datong is a Chinese journalist and a former editor of Bingdian (Freezing Point), a weekly supplement of the China Youth Daily newspaper

Among Li Datong's recent articles in openDemocracy:

"The root of slave labour in China" (26 June 2007)

"Beijing baozi and public trust" (25 July 2007)

"The next land revolution?" (8 August 2007)

"Beijing's Olympics, China's politics" (22 August 2007)

"China's media change: talking with Angela Merkel" (6 September 2007)

"Shanghai: new history, old politics" (19 September 2007)

"China's leadership: the next generation" (3 October 2007)

"China's communist princelings" (17 October 2007)

"China's Youth League faction: incubus of power?" (31 October 2007)

"China's age of expression" (14 November 2007)

"I think a lot of the criticism of China in the western media is excessive and unreasonable. The critics are using western values to judge China. But what if China can find a new path to modernisation and development, totally different to that followed by the west?"

It seems to me that, in terms of economics, China has already discarded central planning in favour of a western-style market economy. Therefore, I interpreted the diplomat's question to be: can China follow a path to political development that is different to western-style democracy?

The Qianlong inheritance

Scholars from across the world have endlessly debated the issue of China's development since the first Opium war in 1840. The predominant "stimulus-response" view was that China itself lacked internal stimuli to promote change, and that all the transformations in recent Chinese history have only taken place as a response to economic, cultural and military incursions from abroad. However, more recently, some academics have begun to argue that even without foreign input, China would sooner or later have begun to modernise under its own impetus. Many of my academic friends hold this view.

I understand that these academic theories all have their own logic and reasoning, but, from my own layman's point of view, I don't believe China will ever manage to find its own uniquely "eastern" model of development. The past is the past, and there is no room for "what ifs". More than 2,000 years passed between the country first being unified under a central dictator in the Qin dynasty (starting in 221 bce) and the overthrow of the imperial system in 1911. In this period, what did China actually develop on its own? Virtually nothing. In the words of Hegel, China "has no history", but merely the cyclical rise and fall of various monarchs, out of which no progress can emerge.

True, Hegel never actually went to China. He made his observations based on second-hand accounts, so there may be inaccuracies in what he says. In recent history, the first case of someone going to China to make observations of behalf of his country was that of Lord Macartney in 1793. He made his journey when the Qing dynasty was at the height of its powers, under the Emperor Qianlong.

Macartney's mission ended in abject failure. The reason for this was said to be Macartney's refusal to perform the "three kneelings and nine prostrations" in front of Qianlong, but in fact the failure was due to Qianlong's imperial arrogance and ignorance, which resulted in his refusal to see foreign countries as equals.

Macartney's mission may not have succeeded, but he at least had a chance to carry out a detailed first-hand survey of this oriental empire. In Macartney's view, the Qing empire was a giant with "feet of clay" that could be knocked to the ground with the lightest of touches. He wrote that since the Manchus conquered China, not only had there been no improvement or progress, but in fact society had regressed. He bemoaned the fact that while Britain had been struggling daily for advancement in the fields of art and science, the Chinese were becoming half-savage. As far as Macartney was concerned, Chinese society was founded on an idiotic officialism which made the people "cowardly, filthy and cruel". He predicted that China would eventually regress to savage depravity and poverty - a prediction that history proved to be all too accurate.

The French historian Alain Peyrefitte, author of The Immobile Empire, once wrote: "In around August or September 1960, I set off from Hong Kong on my first exploratory trip to China. I was immediately shocked by how similar this society was to the one described by Macartney and his companions. One could say that the genes of every Chinese still contain all of the hereditary information of the Qianlong era."

The wall of power

Repetition, immobility, regression, and the hereditary information of an unchanging society - all of these are particular characteristics of autocratic China. China's leaders since the overthrow of imperial rule - whether Sun Yat-sen, Yuan Shikai, Chiang Kai-shek or Mao Zedong - have, without exception, been worthy successors to the imperial dictators. They all represent China's traditional internal stimuli.

Chinese academics see surprisingly similar motivations for the reform policies of the past thirty years, as for the reform period of the late Qing. They see that in both periods, China had reached a point where a continued failure to reform would mean losing even more ground on the west - a point where the country was on the verge of losing its security and status as a large power. The Tiananmen demonstrations of 1976 showed that people were angry enough to challenge Mao Zedong's absolute power. Reform stemmed from the fears of those in government that they were about to lose control. The basis of the reforms - "accepting western science and technology, rejecting the western political system" - was simply a modern twist on the slogans of the Qing reforms.

The reforms were aimed at consolidating power, rather than improving the welfare of the people. This truth is exposed every time the government uses military violence to crush peaceful protests. This is the true essence of Chinese political tradition.

Also on China's politics in openDemocracy:

Andreas Lorenz, "China's environmental suicide: a government minister speaks" (6 April 2005)

Lung Ying-tai, "A question of civility: an open letter to Hu Jintao" (15 February 2006)

David Wall, "The plan and the party" (29 March 2006)

Christopher R Hughes, "Chinese nationalism in the global era" (18 April 2006)

Kerry Brown, "China's top fifty: the China power list" (2 April 2007)

Kerry Brown, "China's party congress: getting serious" (5 October 2007)

The introduction of the market economy has released the Chinese people's previously-repressed desire for material wealth, and given them the means to attain it. China is more powerful than ever before. But rapidly-growing wealth is becoming concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy people, and this is causing social problems. Bureaucratic corruption has reached unprecedented levels, and in response, incidents of mass protest are becoming more frequent. The government is increasingly resorting to violence to deal with resentment at all levels of society.

In 2,000 years of Chinese political tradition, there has never been one enlightened sovereign who has been able to come up with policies leading to a long and peaceful reign. Violence from rulers is met with violence from the people, and dynasties fall after two or three hundred years, only to be replaced with something similar. I just don't believe that there is any internal stimulus that can release China from this cycle.

In the same way as Macartney carried out an in-depth survey of China, in the late Qing era Chinese ambassadors and officials stationed abroad made their own observations of Europe and America. They saw that economic and technological prowess stemmed from the political system, and in particular from constitutions which empowered the public. Sadly, officials who advocated learning from the west were branded traitors.

Things are slightly different today. China is now integrated to a large extent into the global economy, and as a World Trade Organisation member, has to act according to international standards. However, changes in China still only come about as a result of international pressure. If this pressure recedes, China will revert to its "traditions", and will be left with the worst kind of market economy - crony capitalism. Therefore, international pressure on political reform is essential to China's future development. Without it, China's rulers (whether emperors or the party) instinctively reach out for the familiar comforts of unlimited power.

A market economy combined with a democratic political system is now the only choice for countries looking for long-term peace and stability. It will be impossible for China to produce this under its own steam. The lesson of history is that in China, change only occurs as the product of intense pressure.

Average rating

(3 votes)