Any political agenda is always going to be irrelevant for those who see themselves as in a comfortable position for the future ahead. That's the same the world over.

Of course huge swathes of the population who are already renting plush apartments and can afford to eat ice-cream, all the way up to your garden variety investment bankers, are not going to believe political change is a good thing.

Not until mortgage repayments can not be met, or more personal freedoms are taken away from the idealistic 'middle class', and elites. If there is no belief that bad things will happen, any political system will do just fine.

I believe it's the way western critics give advices to Chinese people and government that matters: ACCEPTABLE advices 建设性意见 can make a huge difference while unacceptable (usually by both the government and people) advices are either censored or ignored in China. It doesn't mean Chinese people are blindly nationalists and not willing to accept things good for our future generations. Hey, we love freedom of speech and democracy is even a significant part of Confucianism. However, the problem is that most articles written to criticize China are for satisfying western readers' view of China rather than to give acceptable advices to Chinese people. China's future depends on our own critics such as Nest's designer Ai WeiWei. See NYT's interview

http://olympics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/chinas-olympic-crossroads-birds-nest-designer-ai-weiwei-on-beijings-pretend-smile/

We need time to get there.

While I agree with Arthur, I think that we should all remember that the people who powered the overthrowing of the Qing and later the Nationalists were the Chinese farmers. So, regardless of what China's urban elites want or don't want, their fates might be decided by others.

"The task for democracy advocates is therefore not to lecture the Chinese on the inherent superiority of democracy, but to prove it by marshalling the evidence that it promotes stability and better satisfies social needs."

Well, any freshman college political science major should be able to give a forceful argument as to why democracy promotes stability, etc.

Tyranny (i.e., unaccountable power) leads to poor governance and corruption. Tyrants love unaccountability because with THE LIE anything is possible, except the TRUTH. With THE LIE, a nimcumpoop can be a sage. With THE LIE, a failed economic policy (e.g. the Great Leap Forward) can be a great success. With THE LIE, the invasion of Manchuria by the Japanese army can be the Liberation of the Chinese people.

The problem, of course, as Montesquieu said, is that tyranny (unaccountable power) inevitably leads to internal decay from within and collapse. It's inevitable....

@James: You talking 'bout China or the U.S.?? ;^)

[Further to my post above]

In other words, if you are a wise man, you'd never want to live in a tyranny (unaccountable power) because in a tyranny you are at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis nincumpoops.

Similarly, if you are a nincumpoop, then you'd never want to live in a democracy since you'd be at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis a wise person in a democracy. In fact, if you were a nimcumpoop (like a George Bush, Jr.), you'd want to create a tyranny (unaccountable power) so as to safeguard your position.

Thus, tyranny (unaccountable power) inevitably leads to dysfunctional leadership and internal decay.

India is all the evidence China needs of avoiding democratic gridlock in a developing economy.

Dror,

For the mythical power of china's peasants to have any real impact, they'll need another Mao to bring them together :-)

I agree with Arthur, but don't think the lack of interest in changing the system is only from the part of the middle class . Most farmers or urban poors want some moderate change but aren't very interested in democracy. If any, many of them want an even stronger government in Beijing, as they see the central governmant as the one protecting them from their corrupt local governments.

Rachel: In the last 150 years, there was one Mao and one Sun Yat Sen who managed to turn things on their head, and a few others who almost managed to do the same thing.

The government today has much more control than the Qing ever had, but on the other hand, the Chinese public has incredibly efficient means to organize and mobilize (mobile, internet), so... anything is possible.

I don't think that a violent uprising on a large scale is too probable, but it's definitely an option. The point is that these days there is no need for a large scale uprising, all it takes is some pressure on the government to continue the reforms and grant people more and more rights.

Democracy is useless without civil liberties. People first have to be free to voice their opinion, own their property, have access to information, etc. before you give them the right to vote. Otherwise - as we see in Russia, for example - it will be a big circus.

In any case, it should be noted that the main power behind the collapse of the Soviet Union was nationalism, the one ingrained in the people of each of the nations that constituted it. There were many problems and reasons, but it was nationalism that shattered the empire apart.

Based on that precedent, China is quite safe, but its "enemies" are not. For that reason, it's important for the world to be more lenient with the Chinese people, as it will show them that if the enemies are not really enemies, then all this rage and frustration should be pointed somewhere else. And then, there will be a big change.

Hunxuer, for your information I didn't see it relevant to think in terms of national sovereignty.

As the previous posters point out, tyrannies are destined to ultimate corruption, decay, and will fail one way or another.

Power (and corruption). A power occupying your great nation and mine.

Hunxuer: The points you allude to are the perfect example to why the US is so stable. Yes, it is possible for it to behave like a tyranny, but it has democratic mechanisms that allow the public to change things for the better quickly (within a few years) and without violence.

"but it has democratic mechanisms that allow the public to change things for the better quickly (within a few years) and without violence"

That mechanism failed the native Americans. Presently it's failing the only rightful Americans, whom the political system has labeled "illegal immigrants".

Anonymous, I corrected your post for you:

'Yes, it is possible for it to behave like a tyranny, but it has democratic mechanisms that allow the public to change things quickly (within a few years) and without violence.'

The authoritarian system is not bad at all the way Chinese implemented it. Middle class can join the ranks of ruling elites via intellectual strivings. Although this system still heavily favors elites, give time for it to perfect instead of ripping it down and implementing democracy through highly idealized rhetorics. The biggest problem I see for the system is corruption and more specifically the elites desire to keep the power in the family, thus making a skewed meritocracy.

I agree with abde. Corruption is a real problem.

It's unclear whether democracy can resolve it. India democratically elects its government and is no less corrupt.

Wealth and economic growth are the only drivers that appear to ameliorate corruption. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan were notoriously corrupt until per capita GDP reached middle class levels. And incidently, non of them were democracies until they become wealthy.

The same pattern exists in Western countries. Some will scream howls of denial but the US was far from democratic until well into the 20th century.

@JB: The "Anonymous" comment above was mine. For some reason it didn't register my name. It's fixed now. As for your comment: I'm the last person to justify the USA's treatment of Native Americans and immigrants. That said, our discussion was about the powers of democracies and their current citizens.

Who should be eligible to become a citizen is a different story, although it should be noted that it's still much more difficult to become a citizen in the PRC than it is in the US or any other country.

@Mike: what was wrong?

@abde: "The biggest problem I see for the system is corruption and more specifically the elites desire to keep the power in the family"

...And the best tools against corruption are an independent legal system, free press, and citizens that elect and replace officials.

@Dror

Please explain the failures of democracy in India. I don't want to bash India. I wish it all the success in the world. And I would love to see their democracy succeed.

Independent legal systems, a free press, and elected officials have not only failed in alieviating corruption in India, they've succeeded in restricting the economy.

From first hand experience, I can tell you that poverty is the greatest assault on human dignity. It breeds all kinds of other abuses.

China's authoritarianism isn't ideal but 400 million people brought out of poverty in 25 years. That's a powerful testament to the CCP's hardwon understanding of poverty alleviation.

And a pretty impressive human rights record. Might not be your definition of human rights, but the correct definition nonetheless.

@JB: Not a big expert on India, I'll have to look into it. India serves as compelling evidence as to why democracy doesn't work in large countries, but on the other hand "democracy" is just a concept, and it could be implemented in many different ways. Obviously, the Indian way is not working. Would it be any better not to have democracy there at all, in the long term - I think the answer is clearly no.

China's histroy is full of rulers who did good things for the people, but ended up turning on their own people or neighboring ones. That said, I agree with everything you said about the CPP and by no means do I think that China should become a democracy tomorrow. I do think that it should take slow and steady steps towards civil liberties, and eventually a full scale democracy. The Chinese people do not deserve anything less.

Western democracies are not perfect, and are very vulnerable - especially to people who don't respect their ground rules. In addition - and putting aside China's scope - there are many countries that grew out of extreme poverty and destruction in the past 60 years: Germany, Japan, Israel, South Korea, and more. Indeed, what all of them have in common is the help they received from the US and other western democracies, but it is also the fact that they chose to accept this help and make the most out of it.

The CCP have done better than their predecessors, but who knows how much better (or worse) things could have been with a different system?

And just in order to make things more interesting: Japan is not as populous as China, but it is definitely as densely populated, has fewer natural resources, and more natural disasters. 60 years ago Japanese society was made mainly of farmers who were as poor and superstitious as their Chinese neighbours. Today, it is among the leading countries in the world in terms of life-expectancy, GDP per capita, education, etc. etc. Why?

Uhhh... Japan is actually a perfect example.

Japan industrialized over 100 years ago under a militaristic authoritarian regime. It only became democratic after its defeat in WWII. It borrowed a page out of the Western playbook in its industrialization by colonizing much of Asia.

60 years ago, the Japanese were not poor superstitious farmers. They built aircraft carriers and made a grab for pacific domination.

@JB: Because it "borrowed a page out of the Western playbook in its industrialization" without borrowing a few others ideas, it ended up turning on itself and on everything around it. If Japan would have a free press and other civil rights at the beginning of this century, who knows how much trouble could have been saved?

And the majority of Japan's society did consist of farmers 60 years ago. Communist China also builds aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and will soon send people to the moon. Still, most of the people in China are farmers.

And to remind you, China also tried to industrialize a couple of times, long before the communists ever dreamed of taking control. There were people - Chinese people - in Beijing and Shanghai who drank red wine, drove cars, owned railroads and factories, and lived in fancy houses.

"what all of them have in common is the help they received from the US"

Thinking a little more about your post and this line caught my eye. I'm not going to get into whether this is even true.

What's more interesting is that it reveals your issues with China. China has achieved a degree of success without "US help". Over the past two decades, it has rejected the Washington Consensus and turned out to be prescient.

So what really bothers you is that China has succeeded by what you think is a rejection of your perceived generosity.

What I have a problem with is:

1) The US is not generous.
2) This kind self delusion leads to "generous" US solutions for Vietnam and Iraq

"If Japan would have a free press and other civil rights at the beginning of this century, who knows how much trouble could have been saved?"

Talking about turning on everything around it. How did the free press and other "democratic" insitutions prevent the genocide of the Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans or colonialism?

The truth is, Western democracy would not be possible without disgourging a violent culture into the American continent (and just about everywhere else), wiping out the natives, and making black people do all the work. Without that sorry chapter in western history, Europe would be an over populated continent just like China and India.

Don't flatter yourself. You have a lot to learn but fancy yourself a teacher.

@JB: I think you're way off track. I am not American, and am the last one to be bothered by the fact that China "made it" without them, mostly because I don't think China "made it" yet, and because America has actually played a major part in shaping China's course (unless you are one of those who proudly read about China's victory over the Japanese on China Daily every year?). America was also the only major power that avoided slicing a piece of China for itself (unlike the British, French, Germans, Russians, Japanese, and even Italians).

It is possible, you know, to think that democracy is a good thing AND to sympathise with China at the same time.

I actually only mentioned the point about US aid in my previous comment in order to point out that China did not enjoy that privilege.

Iraq and Vietnam do not cancel out the US contribution to developing Western (and lately Eastern) Europe, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.

@Dror

You're grasp of history is profoundly lacking. US did not develop Germany, Japan. They were already developed before WWII. The US can be said more to have pacified their military ambitions with US military occupation.

You say that Japan was a mainly country of farmers 60 years ago. Well guess what? So was the US 100 years ago, and the US had a 50 year start on industrialization over Japan.

@Others

It's been said that democracy doesn't lead to tyranny, but if you look at history closely, democracy always leads to demogoguery, which leads to tyranny, ie., Athens, Roman Republic, George Bush?? The current form of Western democracy is only 200 years old, and there has yet to be a period of world peace comparable to Pax Romana under this new form of government.

The key difference between China and the West is not so much a difference in political culture or culture in general is that the Chinese are HUNGRY and the West is fat and complacent.

I don't think the Communist party will collapse in the near future as history has shown that political revolutions are mostly affected by the middle class. (Remember that Mao was a rich
peasant.) The poor are too resource-poor by themselves to revolt, and the rich are not going to shoot themselves.

The current Chinese middleclass is content with the direction of the future. This might be surprising to Westerns, but the Russians seems to like their autocratic regime as well.

@JB: and as for your second comment: First, there's no need to be nasty. We're having a civilized discussion for fun. If you can't do it in a respectful manner, we can just forget about it and move on (I know that's it a lot to ask from a blog commenter, and an anonymous one at that, but I'm still giving it a chance).

No one is denying the terrible things done by Europeans (and their scions in America). That shows how cruel people can be. It doesn't, however, teach us much about the difference between forms of government, and China should be the last country to hide behind such an argument since it has not been any gentler in dealing with the natives of areas that it expanded into.

History is full of nations wiping out other nations for political and material gain, and most of these nations were not democracies. The difference is that democracies are able to learn from their own mistakes and correct themselves, even though it takes time and doesn't do a lot of good to those who are already dead.

Most of the countries in the world (democracies and non-democracies) are built on the ashes of other nations. The question is which ones are more likely to promote stability and which aren't. Yes, America went into Vietnam, but America also pulled out of Vietnam and voted for a different government. Yes, America went into Iraq, but America is also going to pull out of Iraq and vote for a different government. Every country makes mistakes.

However, can you imagine what the second half of the 20th century would look like without the US?
(I'm sure you can, by the way, and that you'll tell me all about the lives that could have been saved in Hiroshima, Na Trang, Kabul, and Bagdad).

Hitler in control of one side of Europe, Stalin in control of the other, the Japanese empire spread all the way from Australia, through the Malay Peninsula and all over east Asia, with the British and the French sharing the spoils in between.

Damn, I can't believe you're forcing me to say so many nice things about the US! I guess my real point is - things are not that clear cut, and as humans, we have to choose between very flawed solution. The question is which one is the least bad. I think that giving people basic freedoms and the ability to control their own fate (as far as that's possible) is the better option.

@Foobar: I am well aware of the histories of Japan and Germany. My point was that they had to rebuild themselves from scratch and managed to do so quite well while accepting major financial and political support from the US. That's a fact. And in "accepting" I mean that they were smart enough to take it and make the most of it.

You only need to look at the state of Eastern Germany in 1990 to see what would have happened to the Western Germany without American support. Just to remind you that at the end of WWII, even in England people were starving to death and the government was rationing bread. The situation in Germany was much worse.

The US "pacified their military ambitions" by providing them with financial support, and withdrawing as soon as possible after making sure that they can walk on their own. Unfortunately, Bush thought he could (and should) do the same thing in Iraq. Looks like he was wrong.

And as for your comment that the US was also mostly an agricultural society 100 years ago, I can't see how that goes to refute my argument? I only fortifies my claim by showing what level of prosperity the citizens in the US managed to reach compared to their brothers in China.

@Foobar: and regarding your points about olden democracies and the fact that "The current Chinese middleclass is content with the direction of the future the Russians seems to like their autocratic regime as well":

As I mentioned above, letting people vote is the last step. In order to be able to choose (as much as possible) between what's good and what's less good, citizens first need to have the freedom to express and discuss their views, unlimited access to information, a free press, and an independent legal system to protect them.

Both China and Russia don't have any of the above, so speculating on what their citizens want or don't want is not very effective. Privileged classes existed under each of the Chinese dynasties. All of them suffered the same fate.

The point I was trying to make is that democracy is a result of economic development and security, not the reverse as you would like to believe.

The west achieved economic development and security by practicing extremely undemocratic policies. The resulting wealth then paved the way for the democracy you now enjoy... and incidentally that I enjoy.

When China's GDP reachs ~USD10-15K/head, it will have all the democratic bells and whistles - like Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. But to jump the gun would consign it to India's fate.

Your statement "[China] has not been any gentler in dealing with the natives of areas that it expanded into" is just not true. Tibetans have not been systematically eradicated with remnants forced into concentration camps.

"What if" historical parlour games might be fun but wholly unproductive. Let's pick a different starting point. What if there was no European colonialism? The Cherokee, Sioux, and Iroquois could be thriving democracies.

This is not to say that China's only hope for democracy is to invade Africa, wipe out the natives, and disgourge half its population there. It might just work... at least for China (not for Africans). But luckily for Africans, and everyone else, technology has probably advanced enough that developing nations can skip that phase on the road to wealth.

Westerners get all defensive when I present my argument (FYI, I'm Chinese-American-African) like I'm accusing them of some heinous historical crime. I am not at all. Nobody chooses to be born so even if you're Hitler's spawn, you're still innocent. What I am accusing westerners of is willful ignorance and basking in unearned privilege.

@JB: I hear you. Both of us agree that democracy in China is not a good idea at the moment. It is something that has to follow economic and legal development and only come into fruition once these two provide the fertile ground for it to truly flourish. However, economic development also depends on the rule of law, property rights, intellectual property rights, free press (initially to keep business in check, and then to keep government in check), and more. It's never to early to start putting such civil rights into place. As for full on democracy, it could wait.

And as for your comment about Chinese treatment of Tibetans - I was not only talking about the last 60 years, but about all the nations that no longer exist due to China's consolidation into a unified kingdom/empire/republic. In any case, I don't think China needs to apologize for any of this, since this is the way of the world.

Ok le?

And by the way, I am an Israeli Jew of Eastern/Central European descent so I definitely don't carry any guilt related to what England, Germany, and France did in the past 200 years. (although I'm sure you'll have a lot to say about my country is doing these days, and we can argue about that some other time!).

Who will keep business in Check?

Surely not Mr.T.Blair (now working at Goldman Sachs Investment Group). Mr.V.Putin? I wonder what his salary will be this year after stepping down.

Sorry to butt in from the sidelines, but this seems to be the fundamental question to ask? Seems to me, splitting hairs between political factions was at one time relevant, but is now less so.

The premise of the argument, that the elites are fighting against democracy has a few gaping holes. First, the party is indeed moving towards intra party democracy, where decisions are no longer made by a few men, but by negotiation among hundreds within the party. China no longer has an all powerful figure that dictates policy, but rather sharing power agreements among several leaders. Second, for the first time in history China had a peaceful transition of power with president Hu; and he is expected to pass that power to the next guy. This is truly remarkable for China and certainly is a step from the party to more stability and rotation of leaders. This in turn will do more to keep power diffused. Third, although the "elites" are not asking for democracy, they are asking for other things that come with it, government transparency and accountability, an independent judiciary and a freer press. Finally, the next generation of leaders looks much more open and interesting, as well as openly concerned about the importance of public opinion and the need for valves that can ease the tensions within society. China won't be a democracy any time soon, but its political system no longer is what it was a few years ago and it probably won't remain what it is today.

Ben - you summed it up nicely.

@Ben:

"for the first time in history China had a peaceful transition of power with president Hu; and he is expected to pass that power to the next guy."

Am I missing something? Isn't this the 2nd peaceful leadership transition?
1- Mao->Deng
2- Deng->Hu

@Thomas:
"1- Mao->Deng
2- Deng->Hu"

What do you mean?
Mao never passed his responsibilities to Deng Xiaoping. Deng took over them gradually by outmanoeuvring his opponents after Mao passed away.

Hu received the responsibilities of Jiang Zemin (not Deng). Jiang Zemin took over the country after Zhao Ziyang was purged, following the events of June 1989.

So, in both Jiang and Deng's case, their ascendancy was not a pre-planned, peaceful transition, but a result of purges and power plays within the party.

By the way, does anyone have any idea what happened to Jiang's "Three Represents". There were still traces of them in the media and the streets until a couple of years ago, and now it's as if they never existed (not that anyone every understood what he meant...).

@Dror, very well said!