Chinese general - "Embrace American democracy"

[lionking]

A courageous and seemingly influential Chinese general has urged his country's leadership to become more liberal and adopt an American-style system.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/chinese-general-backs-the-american-dream-20100811-11zsr.html

A CHINESE general has warned his conservative Communist Party masters and People's Liberation Army colleagues that China can either embrace American-style democracy or accept Soviet-style collapse.
While officers of similar rank have been rattling their sabres against US aircraft carriers in the Yellow and South China seas, General Liu Yazhou says China's rise depends on adopting America's system of government rather than challenging its presence off China's eastern coast.

Is this a positive sign of things to come, or a maverick tilting at windmills?

 

[richardm]

Wow. It'll be interesting to see how this works out for him; I'd have thought statements like that would be very heavily frowned upon by the establishment. Scope for a coup if they try to remove him, perhaps?

 

[DC]

I hope he stays healthy.

 

[nvidiot]

I hope he stays healthy.

I doubt he will. I would love to be wrong though.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Interesting times for the Chinese. I have a relative that does business in China and has been steadily doing so for many years. He has mentioned that each time he visits the country is more and more liberal. These are minor changes and none that can be pointed at as saying "they now have western style liberties." That is a long way off and requiring rather radical changes. What he finds most telling is that criticizing the government was once a practice done by very few in personal living spaces where no outsiders could overhear. Now it is something done in public at restaurants as long as no one expresses too deeply an upset or proposes a course of action. In his opinion the government has taken the stance that it is okay to express dissent, just not in public fora such as the internet or before an organized crowd. Or in other words, it is okay to complain to your friends but not okay to start a public discussion. The Communist Party appears intent on creating a semblance of liberty without giving up actual control. Give the people enough to "feel" unharrassed and free to do what they personally want and no one will complain when the true firebrands disappear or receive punishment. My Chinese immigrant friends seemed to express the proper attitude when in China is "If I keep out of the government's business it will keep out of mine."

It will be interesting to see how the government handles this general. This is not necessarily a dangerous statement for one of his standing to make. If it ends being dangerous the Communist Party could be losing quite a bit of ground they have made with keeping the populace complacent with the current regime set up. More than likely I expect a PR campaign to mitigate his influence and his comments.

 

[lionking]

It will be interesting to see how the government handles this general. This is not necessarily a dangerous statement for one of his standing to make. If it ends being dangerous the Communist Party could be losing quite a bit of ground they have made with keeping the populace complacent with the current regime set up. More than likely I expect a PR campaign to mitigate his influence and his comments.

The fact that General Liu has had such publicity would suggest that the Chinese government won't come down too hard.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

In terms of the economy etc I think the Chinese are happy to be ultra-liberal. I don't think they particularly care too much about people having more freedoms either. However, there are too many Party officials in postions of power and influence making too much money and having too good a life to relinquish their own little fiefdoms.

In the sense that a US style democracy would still allow backhanders, bribes and slush funds to flow into the hands of the right people I don't think they would mind too much implementing that.

 

[Bikewer]

From my daily prolonged dose of NPR-listening, I think Last Of The Fraggles has it pretty much right.
Most all the interviews with Chinese citizens I've listened to over the last year or so indicate that individual and business freedom is indeed increasing at a remarkable rate. However, say nothing against the government. Nothing to threaten "stability", which seems to be written very large in the government mind.
As well, the endemic corruption is part and parcel of the culture. There are no checks and balances. This leads to localized abuses of power that only infrequently come to light.
The program "The World" detailed one such example some months ago... A local Communist Party leader, who happened to own a water-bottling plant, ordered the free community well filled in with concrete, forcing the villagers to buy his water.
This situation went on for some time until word got to the regional authorities, who did in fact come down rather hard on the jerk.
By all accounts, this sort of thing is fairly common and there is simply no one to report the abuses to.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

You know 'American democracy' has sunk to odious levels when Chinese generals are advocating its adoption. Wow.

 

[marksman]

Embrace it? You mean like in a sleeper hold?

 

[Number Six]

Just for cultural reasons I would think that China would be more suited to Japanese-style democracy than American-style democracy. The US is more individual oriented while Asia is more society oriented. I don't know if our kind of political nastiness would go well over there.

Then again, isn't it Taiwan where the occasional fistfight breaks out on the floor of their Parliment or whatever it's called?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Given Chinese holdings of U.S.Government securities, I suspect he means "capitalism" rather than "democracy".

 

[Damien Evans]

Just for cultural reasons I would think that China would be more suited to Japanese-style democracy than American-style democracy. The US is more individual oriented while Asia is more society oriented. I don't know if our kind of political nastiness would go well over there.

Then again, isn't it Taiwan where the occasional fistfight breaks out on the floor of their Parliment or whatever it's called?

Taiwan and Malaysia

 

[Soapy Sam]

Let's hope they don't have the right to bear arms then.

 

[Virus]

If the world embraced democracy we could virtually abolish war and famine. Wars don't happen between democracies and famines don't happen in democracies. Liberal democracy is superior to all other systems.

 

[Denver]

It seems mostly, at least initially, a financial issue. They are swinging the economy more toward a liberal system (maybe even toward capitalism), but keeping the government communist. I think if the USSR had done this, they'd still be around.

However, I suspect in the long run that a more liberal economic system must eventually clash with any government it supports. This is normally a good thing, keeping both systems on their toes. But with a more control-oriented government, there will likely be ugly results. Hopefully, not right away, and not for this general.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

A Chinese democracy may not be that fun for the international system. There seems to be a lot of pretty militant nationalism in China. I've never lived in China (Wolfman where you at?) but from what I've read there are analysts who think that the nationalist sentiment exists in the population and the government does its best to placate it without letting it get out of hand, and there are analysts who think the nationalist sentiment is fomented by the government whenever it's expedient for them.

If it's the former case, a democratic China might become much more hardline internationally.

Anyways, some of this general's writings are available online. He takes a fairly Realist tack on international relations.


Virus:

Fitzgibbon pointed out the war of 1812. Canada had elections back then, so did the US. The US gov't also turned a blind eye to the Fenian raids on Canada in the 1860s. More recently, there was the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia (both countries hold elections at some level). The US has also sponsored proxy armies to fight wars in democratic countries and promoted the overthrow of democratic governments. While these might not constitute war they are definitely very hostile actions. Of course everything is contingent on how you define 'democracy' and how you define 'war'. The democratic peace theory, IMO, is oversold.

Ditto your famine thesis. Millions have starved in India in the latter half of the twentieth century.

 

[Virus]

Fitzgibbon pointed out the war of 1812.

Britain wasn't a democracy until 1828. Canada wasn't a nation until 1867.

Canada had elections back then, so did the US. The US gov't also turned a blind eye to the Fenian raids on Canada in the 1860s.

Turning a blind eye isn't really war is it?

More recently, there was the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia (both countries hold elections at some level).

Neither of those are democracies.

Eritrea is an authoritarian state, run by the People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ).[12] Other political groups are not allowed to organise, although the non-implemented Constitution of 1997 provides for the existence of multi-party politics. The National Assembly has 150 seats, of which 75 are occupied by the PFDJ. National elections have been periodically scheduled and cancelled; none have ever been held in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea

According to The Economist in its Democracy Index, Ethiopia is a "hybrid regime" situated between a "flawed democracy" and an "authoritarian regime".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia

The US has also sponsored proxy armies to fight wars in democratic countries and promoted the overthrow of democratic governments.

Those were soviet-backed communist governments that were going to become Soviet satellites. The US was at war with communism.

Ditto your famine thesis. Millions have starved in India in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Famines ended in 1947, when India gained independence.

Even if we granted those examples, it would still be true that war between democracies is so rare that the Peace Dividend idea remains valid.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Like I said, it depends on where you draw the line on 'democracy' and 'war'. I said the theory was over-sold, not that there was absolutely nothing to it.

Those were soviet-backed communist governments that were going to become Soviet satellites. The US was at war with communism.

Ah, so the US hasn't declared war on pro-US democracies. But then again, it hasn't declared war on pro-US dictatorships either.

As for E&E, I agree that they may not be as democratic as the US or Canada or New Zealand, but they are more democratic than places that have no elections at all.

What about the Israel-Gaza war? Hamas was elected, no?

And millions of people have starved to death in India. Severe famine has been averted once or twice by a giant influx of foreign food aid. This says much less about democracy's role in preventing the famines than you make out.

 

[Virus]

Ah, so the US hasn't declared war on pro-US democracies. But then again, it hasn't declared war on pro-US dictatorships either.

The theory says nothing about which dictatorships will war with democracies. Only that in all modern wars, at least one of the belligerents is a dictatorship. Given that dictatorships are the ones that start them, it's no surprise that the US wars with anti-US dictatorships.

As for E&E, I agree that they may not be as democratic as the US or Canada or New Zealand, but they are more democratic than places that have no elections at all.

Yeah, but we're talking about functional democracies.

What about the Israel-Gaza war? Hamas was elected, no?

Gaza is a dysfunctional democracy at best. The election brought on a civil war. Elections have been postponed indefinitely.

And millions of people have starved to death in India. Severe famine has been averted once or twice by a giant influx of foreign food aid. This says much less about democracy's role in preventing the famines than you make out.

Millions have not starved to death since independence. Bihar is considered a "near-miss" in 1967. A drought in Maharushta 1970 lead to 70,000 excess deaths. So that's one famine, and the death was not "millions of people" as you claimed.