The Man that Must Change China (recent Economist essay)

Users who are viewing this thread

Anthropoid

Sergeant Knight at Arms
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565210-xi-jinping-will-soon-be-named-china%E2%80%99s-next-president-he-must-be-ready-break

Curious to know what you guys views are on China's prospects over the next 10 years as it anoints is new National boss.

Not sure how much of this is okay to quote. I'll just pick out the key parts.

JUST after the 18th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, which starts in Beijing on November 8th, a short line of dark-suited men, and perhaps one woman, will step onto a red carpet in a room in the Great Hall of the People and meet the world’s press. At their head will be Xi Jinping, the newly anointed party chief, who in March will also take over as president of China. Behind him will file the new members of the Politburo Standing Committee, China’s supreme body. The smiles will be wooden, the backs ramrod straight. Yet the stage-management could hardly be more different from the tempestuous uncertainties of actually governing.

As ruler of the world’s new economic powerhouse, Mr Xi will follow his recent predecessors in trying to combine economic growth with political stability. Yet this task is proving increasingly difficult. A slowing economy, corruption and myriad social problems are causing growing frustration among China’s people and worry among its officials.

In coping with these tensions, Mr Xi can continue to clamp down on discontent, or he can start to loosen the party’s control. China’s future will be determined by the answer to this question: does Mr Xi have the courage and vision to see that assuring his country’s prosperity and stability in the future requires him to break with the past?
. . .

Until recently, the Chinese were getting richer so fast that most of them had better things to worry about than how they were governed. But today China faces a set of threats that an official journal describes as “interlocked like dog’s teeth” (see article). The poor chafe at inequality, corruption, environmental ruin and land-grabs by officials. The middle class fret about contaminated food and many protect their savings by sending money abroad and signing up for foreign passports (see article). The rich and powerful fight over the economy’s vast wealth. Scholars at a recent government conference summed it up well: China is “unstable at the grass roots, dejected at the middle strata and out of control at the top”.

Once, the party could bottle up dissent. But ordinary people today protest in public. They write books on previously taboo subjects (see article) and comment on everything in real time through China’s vibrant new social media. Complaints that would once have remained local are now debated nationwide. If China’s leaders mishandle the discontent, one senior economist warned in a secret report, it could cause “a chain reaction that results in social turmoil or violent revolution”.

But, you don’t need to think that China is on the brink of revolution to believe that it must use the next decade to change. The departing prime minister, Wen Jiabao, has more than once called China’s development “unbalanced, unco-ordinated and unsustainable”. Last week Qiushi , the party’s main theoretical journal, called on the government to “press ahead with restructuring of the political system”.
. . .

Mr Xi could start by giving a little more power to China’s people. Rural land, now collectively owned, should be privatised and given to the peasants; the judicial system should offer people an answer to their grievances; the household-registration, or hukou, system should be phased out to allow families of rural migrants access to properly funded health care and education in cities. At the same time, he should start to loosen the party’s grip. China’s cosseted state-owned banks should be exposed to the rigours of competition; financial markets should respond to economic signals, not official controls; a free press would be a vital ally in the battle against corruption.

Such a path would be too much for those on the Chinese “left”, who look scornfully at the West and insist on the Communist Party’s claim—its duty, even—to keep the monopoly of power. Even many on the liberal “right”, who call for change, would contemplate nothing more radical than Singapore-style one-party dominance. But Mr Xi should go much further. To restore his citizens’ faith in government, he also needs to venture deep into political reform.

That might sound implausible, but in the 1980s no less a man than Deng spoke of China having a directly elected central leadership after 2050—and he cannot have imagined the transformation that his country would go on to enjoy. Zhu Rongji, Mr Wen’s predecessor, said that competitive elections should be extended to higher levels, “the sooner the better”. Although the party has since made political change harder by restricting the growth of civil society, those who think it is impossible could look to Taiwan, which went through something similar, albeit under the anti-Communist Kuomintang.

Ultimately, this newspaper hopes, political reform would make the party answerable to the courts and, as the purest expression of this, free political prisoners. It would scrap party-membership requirements for official positions and abolish party committees in ministries. It would curb the power of the propaganda department to impose censorship and scrap the central military commission, which commits the People’s Liberation Army to defend the party, not just the country.

No doubt Mr Xi would balk at that. Even so, a great man would be bold

. . . .

The Chinese Communist Party has a powerful story to tell. Despite its many faults, it has created wealth and hope that an older generation would have found unimaginable. Bold reform would create a surge of popular goodwill towards the party from ordinary Chinese people.

Mr Xi comes at a crucial moment for China, when hardliners still deny the need for political change and insist that the state can put down dissent with force. For everyone else, too, Mr Xi’s choice will weigh heavily. The world has much more to fear from a weak, unstable China than from a strong one
 
fund the texan nationalists and watch america crumble into civil war and chaos, then do a Modern Warfare 3 and take over the world.

/thread
 
Nobody knows, really. There is plenty of hope for reform and projections, but the guys that call the shots won't tell us.
Unlike what your text implies, the Chinese President doesn't rule alone. He keeps the balance between different factions that may pull in different directions. He's not a goddamn almighty rockstar, k? :smile: And neither is Obama.
 
Meh, that's what you get when you expand too quickly. It's like the Chinese have forgotten some of the lessons of their own 5,000+yrs history as one of the world's most important state-formed (and state-forming) civilizations.

But forget about democracy in China. Democracy is a chimera; look at what goes on in the western world and all countries where the yanks are trying to enforce 'democracy'. Not to mention that the concept is largely incompatible with Chinese culture.

The new leadership needs to find a way to establish better control and smooth out whatever issues they have carefully. Because a country that develops so fast and is so accustomed to 'revolutionary' ideas is like a ticking time bomb.

Beny said:
fund the texan nationalists and watch america crumble into civil war and chaos, then do a Modern Warfare 3 and take over the world.

/thread
I like that idea. On paper, at least.
 
Uuuuh.
Someof those statements are a bit questioable.
Especially the whole 'Chinese not wanting a choice in the running of the country because they don't think that way'

The 5000+ yrs of history would dispute that, rebelions and splits don't happen if the people involved don't want a choice in the direction of said country.

Plus there has been a past instance of democracy in China, lrn 2 history.
 
Dude, democracy doesn't work right even in the countries that invented it. And no, democracy as it is today doesn't mean that people in 'democratic' countries actually have a significant say in how their country is being run. That's utopia. Constitution thumpers should stop their democracy-as-panacea bull**** and actually come up with the next thing that works. And no, it's not going to be a good solution for China. Historically, 'democracy now' has always had the habit of causing complications in any state that it's introduced into. The process of gradual liberalization (as in over the span of decades) that certain Asian states (including China) have been going through after WWII is much more prudent. It allows issues to become visible and allows time for practicable change given willingness from a government while maintaining certain levels of stability. The problem with the Chinese is their rapid economic overdevelopment after a period of internal warfare that in its scope matches all the great wars on the European continent before WWI. Any country that goes through that kind of **** will end up like the Chinese, and that's if it survives in the first place.

China doesn't need democracy. It needs to balance things out in order to maintain its internal stability. And its leaders (at least a good part of them) and intellectuals know it. It has even been said overtly - the existence of modern communist China depends on the continued belief of its people in its own viablity. So what their government needs to do is balance out the economic situation or it risks pulling a Soviet Union or somesuch. Of course, that's what the yanks want considering that China is THE potential competitor in their race for control of the world economy, so that's why they're pushing for Chinese democracy 'tomorrow'.

I'm not sure I want to think what's going to happen with us up here in Canada. Harper has been exporting the oil from the tar sands southwards and now I'm hearing talk about large tracts of land in Quebec being sold to the Chinese for exploitation.

Whatever first comrade Xi Jinping does, **** is going to go down is what I think. Apparently the man has very close ties with his own military and is much more active on the international scene than his predecessor, while Obama is no less ambitious than Bush jr., just more subtle and charismatic.
 
I hear what you are saying Ludial, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "democracy is a chimera." In present day Canada or U.S., one does not have to fear being disappeared in the middle of the night and dropped out of an airplane 35,000 over the ocean 300 miles out at sea (this doesn't presently happen in China, but it was used as a mean to suppress dissent in Argentina during the darkest days there and I always think of it as an epitome of how a police state can operate='clean,' efficient, plausible deniability, takes advantage of a small elite segment of the military and a technological capability that resistance lacks to perform a 'stability promoting process'; or locked up indefinitely with zero rights to contact with the outside world, zero rights to due process, etc. (something which does happen in China today).

In present day Canada/US/etc., as long as one is not a felon, one gets to participate in voting for a wide range of government officials and a lot of laws/policies as well. Its true that one vote is a small thing in a population of millions or hundreds of millsions but along with that right to vote:  As long as one does not hatemonger one can speak freely and thus potentially influence other voters. Right to assemble in public, right to a trial, right to due process, right of free travel, right to work, etc., etc.

I agree that the democracy is a flawedin the sense that, modern political parties seem to be little more than advocacy groups for their respective lobbyists and financial backers; the two parties frequently throw tantrums and hold the nation 'ransom' when they don't get their way, and their primary goals seem to be to fight with each other instead of actually working constructively for the greater good of the society as a whole . . . but I don't think those flaws are equivalent to saying that democracy in "the West" is illusory. It is defintely not ideal and maybe it is even worse than it has been in the past, but it is still a damn-sight better than autocracy.

As to 'cultural traditions' that might make some people 'unfamiliar' with democracy, or 'unable to do it right:' I have never bought that argument.

Democracy is fundamentally about individual rights, that means it is something that can be experienced emotionally and physically. It is about feeling safer, and better off. All mammals, much less all humans, are motivated to feel safer and better off.
 
For US-China comparison (since you insist on it), see what happens at the end of the year with the US "fiscal cliff". Think about how would China's leadership handle the same situation.
Which one is safer or simply better?
 
MadVader said:
For US-China comparison (since you insist on it), see what happens at the end of the year with the US "fiscal cliff". Think about how would China's leadership handle the same situation.
Which one is safer or simply better?

I don't know what the answers to these would be. What do you mean?

Are you suggesting that the U.S. is going to start locking people up when we hit the 'fiscal cliff?'  :mrgreen:

MadVader said:
For US-China comparison (since you insist on it)

What do you mean by that? Ludial is evidently from Canada and he mentioned a direct comparison of his home nation with China. As I am from the U.S. I mirrored his comparison with 'home' and I mentioned Canada/U.S./etc. so my intention is to compare China to the free world nations which would include a lot of them: Japan, Australia, most of Europe, etc. I don't see how highlighting some other democratic society would have been any better or worse? What is up with you and the U.S. anyway Vader?
 
Xi is a relatively unknown figure, even in the Party. However, he was placed into this position of power by the more politically conservative Jiang Zemin. The standing committee is also more of a politically conservative taste, with preference towards a nontransparent government. After Hu Jintao's long stance of rule based in harmony and (some) consensus for change.

So, I expect that economic factors will continue to take precedence, and expect very little in terms of political change.
 
Anthropoid said:
MadVader said:
For US-China comparison (since you insist on it), see what happens at the end of the year with the US "fiscal cliff". Think about how would China's leadership handle the same situation.
Which one is safer or simply better?

I don't know what the answers to these would be. What do you mean?

Are you suggesting that the U.S. is going to start locking people up when we hit the 'fiscal cliff?'  :mrgreen:
I think you know that irresponsible partisan politics can push a country off the cliff into a serious recession. Will it happen in the US soon? Judging by past behavior, it can. Can it happen in China? No.
There are advantages to China's political system, that's my point. Human rights only go so far, as most of the population is not affected at all. It's more of a blunt instrument used in American foreign policy to bash China and you are buying it.

Anthropoid said:
MadVader said:
For US-China comparison (since you insist on it)

What do you mean by that? Ludial is evidently from Canada and he mentioned a direct comparison of his home nation with China. As I am from the U.S. I mirrored his comparison with 'home' and I mentioned Canada/U.S./etc. so my intention is to compare China to the free world nations which would include a lot of them: Japan, Australia, most of Europe, etc. I don't see how highlighting some other democratic society would have been any better or worse? What is up with you and the U.S. anyway Vader?
I see. I get pissed when internet Americans assume superiority just because they live in a closed media world that tells them so every day on so many channels.
That's why it's very refreshing to see Americans with a more balanced worldview and greater knowledge of the world. Not you, though. :smile:
 
Democracies can make irresponsible decisions. So can autocracies. In the end it all comes down to a number factors related to people's priorities in how they pick their leaders (and yes, the Chinese do pick their leaders, it's just only around 5 percent of the population has any kind of say) and whether a society is perceived as on the way up (optimism and the desire to plan ahead on how best to spend future riches) orstatic or declining (pessimism and entrenched interests fighting over scraps without regard to long-term consequences).

I assume superiority because I quite simply am better informed than most people. :razz: On wednesday, for example, one of the speakers at the conference I was at was Jon Huntsman, former Ambassador to China.
 
Okay, fair enough.

I see what you are saying about the fiscal cliff. Yeah, you are correct that the autocratic society has a certain more  . . . um, 'resilience' to crises that a truly open society lacks because of the divisiveness.

Rule by committee, and emergent policy through consensus ARE distinctively more inefficient than rule by a small like-minded oligarchy.

But, there are long-term tradeoffs of autocracy as well. The Economist article is focusing largely on those long-term effects of China's rulers failing to provide the populace with the same degree of 'opportunity' that those of us in free societies enjoy. This is why there is a civil war in Syria right now. This is why Iran is at risk of a civil war in the near future, it was part of the reason for the war in Libya and the regime change in Egypt.

As for "closed media world" if you are reaching the conclusion that I am somehow representative of the 'typical American' news consumer I think you are probably wrong. I do not watch TV; I do not listen to the radio; i even make very limited use of internet 'news' sources; The Economist is my main source of 'news,' along with scholarly books and articles. Occasionally I'll read a Newsweek or a New York Times. At one point I was reading the Guardian pretty regularly.
 
I'm sorry you are not a typical media consumer. Those are easy to bash.

Anthropoid said:
Rule by committee, and emergent policy through consensus ARE distinctively more inefficient than rule by a small like-minded oligarchy.
That's a nice point. And probably highlights the future problems of this decade's committee too, that it would be too conservative and divided to push through policies quickly enough.
 
So it sounds like there is not really much disagreement with the core point of the Economist essay: China is not particularly free, and there is internal dissent as a result.

Having had a bit of contact with a very small number of younger folks (Univesity students) who were native born Chinese, I have to admit I'm not sure that it is that simple.

Even the most 'progressive,' and liberal Chinese individuals I have known seemed to regard the 'stability' that their society gains by virtue of less 'freedom' to be an overall good thing.

This makes me wonder about the soundness of the predicted future risks that the Economist outlines. I suspect that message belies some of that newspaper's inherent bias toward "Pure Free Market Advocacy."

Those who make it OUT of China to participate in Western education are likely to be a biased sample, but there was something about the underlying cultural sentiments I've picked up on in conversations that made me wonder if tolerance or even 'love' for the ruling regime is not rather widespread. To put it simply, I am not entirely convinced by the projected risks the essay outlines and cannot help but wonder if it isn't a bit of wishful thinking? It would seem to me that even with massive internal dissent, an autocracy can persist for many years, plodding forward if not thriving. Given that China's 'troubles' only seem to be emerging in recent years, it would seem that it could actually take a decade or more for internal tensions to turn into real trouble.

How much dissent does it really take to lead to armed revolt after all? Is the U.S. not pretty far along that spectrum itself? And what about the U.K.!? You've got territories considering referendums to carve themselves off from the Empire and within recent years mass rioting in the streets!

My personal bias is in a free society, one in which individuals have a maximum amount of choice and personal liberty and one in which each individual is afforded as much like a 'level playing field' as can be managed. On this basis alone, I disrespect the autocracy that China's leadership seems prone to perpetuate. But when it comes to the Economist 'predictions' that a failure for those leaders to change may bring grave consequences, I find that argument much less convincing.
 
Anthropoid said:
How much dissent does it really take to lead to armed revolt after all? Is the U.S. not pretty far along that spectrum itself? And what about the U.K.!?

Ah yes, the UK armed revolt. A few thousand angry farmers with their pitch-forks, students armed with their ideals (but, unfortunately, not their warm blankets and flasks of hot soup, even though they insist on protesting in mid-winter) and a few chavs angry that the brown people are allowed to walk down the same street as them.

You've got territories considering referendums to carve themselves off from the Empire

That's hardly anything new. The Queen's been giving countries back for ages. India was one of the biggies. And Australia's been voting on complete independence from the commonwealth for about 2700 years, but every time they vote, they vote no, because they're worried the Americans might try to claim them if they go it alone.

and within recent years mass rioting in the streets!

Well, to be honest, the rioting was almost entirely in the 13-25 age demographic, a large portion of the "rioters" were already known to the police, and when word got out on BBM that yes lads, tonight is a good night to go and nick a bunch of stuff from your local electronics store, the six or seven legitimate "rioters" were quickly overwhelmed by hundreds of opportunistic thieves, looters and associated junkies looking for a quick score.

It wasn't exactly "mass" rioting. If you want a proper British riot, you have to look back to the Peterloo Massacre, or the night when some guy named Guy tried to blow up the houses of parliament.

Riots these days are nothing like they used to be.  :neutral:


 
It's very hard to predict what Xi and pals would do. Second-guessing a secretive bunch and what they are going to do in a changing world in the next 10 years is VERY HARD.
He said they are going to tackle corruption. Let's see what that means.

As for the British riots, it's a serious problem. Their football fans are often seen singing slightly rude songs, which is a sure sign of the first swallows of the revolution. Whether the swallows are laden and where do they come from is an even more profound question that would define British history in the years to come.
 
It's not that hard to predict what he's gonna do. He was picked because he's so conventional, and thus predictable. No supporters of reform made the cut. Continue growing, change as little as possible. That's what we can predict. Whether that prediction is accurate, we'll have to wait and see.
 
@Britishs riot bollocks. No that wasn't a riot, it was thieves nicking 7.5kg bags of rice and other crap, that all stopped pretty soonish and never started again.

The old riots circa the reform acts of the 19th century were the best ones, they'd go on for 3 days involving 1,000's of people usually completely off their tits on alcohol (one riot in Bristol some rioters broke into the Mansion house they were protested outside of, they looted the wine cellar). Resulting in cavalry charges and commanders shot for being too lenient because they didn't slaughter all the rioters. They were also for a good cause not 'FREE STUFF'
 
@Anthropoid:
your argument about Americans being safe from the predations of their own government is void, by the way. We're talking about a country where Bush jr. was a president, the Homeland Security act (or whatever it's called) still exists, the Republicans are as crazy as they are and extremely popular, the DoD calls the shots when it comes to external American politics simply because they were given more resources than the State Department since before Clinton (and the DoD's influence keeps growing)... Your media tells you you're safe because somebody pays them to. Americans are no safer or freer than the Chinese. And democracy is not inherently better than the current system in China. What matters is the standard of life and level of development. It doesn't matter to which party a leader officially belongs, or part of what system he/she is, as long as that leader is doing a good job. And the whole world is looking on as the American economy shakes and begins to crumble while the loons who fight for the presidency get crazier and crazier. I'm really surprised Americans are still capable of believing in freedom and all the other bull**** American media is spewing.

It's not like the Chinese aren't brainwashed (and they aren't free, for that matter) but at least most of them have accepted that if the nation is to develop, everyone has to work towards that. And that there's a social contract for that purpose. The issues in China being that said social contract, for which many people have given their lives, is being abused by people who've discovered the attraction of quick money.

In the States, quick money became the primary way and purpose of their economy long ago, and now said economy is not viable anymore. Which is a concern in Canada, since Harper and his so-called conservatives are pushing the same bull**** here.
 
Back
Top Bottom