It is hard to deny the rapid growth and modernisation that the communist government of China has brought about in the last 50 years. The fast paced modernisation of the country has brought it forward as a true global player and changed the lives of many Chinese citizens for the better, however at the cost of many personal freedoms and beliefs. Many accuse the Chinese government of cultural genocide and appalling human rights violations, cryinging for political reforms.

My question is this: At this stage in China's development would a democratic government necessarily be the best option for the future of the country?

they can't do it right now. if they had a democracy, would all the people be willing ot participate? i doubt it...if they really cared that much they would've shown signs. but that's just my opinion

China isn't ready for a democratic government and i highly doubt it ever will be, at least not within our generation. China's undergoing drastic reforms, and having a democratic government at a time like this would only hinder the progress and create unnecessary confusions. Although people in China may understand democracy's basic ideas and prefer a democratic government, do you really think it will work out? It didn't work under the KMT ninety years ago and it's going to take a miracle for the CCP to openly admit communism failed and embrace democracy. Democracy isn't a miracle drug; it took the Americans themselves more than 200 years to get the hang of it. Democracy will come....eventually...but i doubt any of us will live to see it.

My opinion, for a massive populated country, there is a need for communism.

China will be a mess under Democracy. Look at India for inspiration.

Better at being a Republic instead.

I agree, what China needs right now is a highly centralized government.

Read Nam Quoc Son Ha's post, i mean, i gotta agree with him this time.

Color, its not as if he was the first one to come up with that idea, its pretty clear and obvious

no need to agree with him

A federation of provinces would work, where each province elects one representative who proceeds to elect a president. Power is shared between individual provinces and a centralized government.

Information about different government types can be found in the CIA factbook.

Problem is I don't think the CCP is ready to relinquish so much power to individual provinces.

Hong Kong is a good example.

well if china had gone this far with it's current political policy why not? except you do have to give in to the needs of the people, like fair treatment and civil rights, i mean they're suppose to be "communists" for crying out loud, the least they can do is be more equal. but then again there could never really be a communist society especially with china's size.

That's not true . India proves the efficiency of democracy. Yes india is poorer than china, but india has to face with much more difficult challenges like war of religions, demography, poverty , system of cast. And it's a big success. If there wasn't democracy india would have collapsed . Yes democracy succeed to help low cast people to fight peacefully for their rights. Democracy succed to avoid war of religion between muslim and hindouist. Democracy succeed to keep the unity of india: india has never been an unified nation or empire as china until the end of colonisation. India people even don't speak the same language maybe english. However there is no separatism.

Regarding separatism. Does Kasmir ring a bell?

I don't think you can even call the governing body of China as being Communists anymore. It is definitely turn into something else.

They still keep the communist "name" though.

I think they will eventually change that and there will probably be some kinds of reforms WITHIN the party, coming from young and idealistic politicians.

China is becoming more and more liberal despite the government's efforts. Most BEI DA professors actually advocate two party system.

During my trip to China, it has definitely became a capitalistic society, at least in the cities that my mother and I visited. People now rides mopeds instead of bikes. But I did saw one example of governmental censorship.

I was watching the news on my cousin's TV. They were airing a news broadcast from Hong Kong. The moment the news said something bad about China's government, the screen went blank and all we got was a test pattern. My cousin said it happens all the time, the moment the news turn negative....they yank it off the air. They must have someone out there monitoring what is going on.

I have to admit that it was quite...amusing.

You see, HK people is not completely agree with the whole turning powers over thing before and after 1997.
So now, what i am thinking of, is that PRC is thinking of ways to control and make them to "Bow"!!!!!!

Kasmir is more a conflict between pakistan and india. Separatist are controlled by pakistan.

Let's differentiate two things here:

Democracy/Communism is a form of government. Capitalism is a form of economics, siome have been distorted by the two. China is a hybrid, a Communist, hardline government with an iron grip control with a quasi capitalist economy *though rejected by the EU and USA governments*.

Good description, fuji.

"A dictatorship intercepting capitalist cash flows to retain power"

India is an artificial entity. There are more than 200 different languages (language, not dialect) in India. In the old colonial days, people couldn't communicate with each other so English was introduced as the official language.

Have you read Dani Rubrik, the Harvard trade economist who uses Freedom House criteria for describing politcal regimes? He proves that democratic nations pay workers considerably higher wages than do autocracies. For a given level of manufacturing productivity, Rudrik’s research on 93 nations determined, factory workers in “free” countries make 30 percent more than those in “partly free” countries and 60 percent more than workers in “unfree” nations.

It is a capitalist myth, his work suggests, that wages are set simply and purely by the global “free market”: governmental authoritarianism pays out a significant profit dividend to local and international capital and relative democracy pays out an equally significant wage dividend to workers fortunate enough to live in states with comparatively minimal repression.

Especially telling is Rudrik’s comparison between China and India, two massive developing states with significantly contrasting political systems. Relatively democratic India, he found, produced an annual average output of $3,118 per manufacturing worker. Indian factory workers received an annual average wage of $1,192. With a similar annual output of $2,885 per worker, by contrast, authoritarian China paid its factory workers just $498 a year during the same period—a difference that helps explain why China rather than India is a particularly cherished U.S. zone for future and ongoing investment and “trade.”

and in some parts of china, each village has their own "language"from what i remember. i heard once China has 200 dialects too

I think you meant dialects, not languages.

No democracy right now.
That would be a huge shock to the Chinese society.
Better to slowly move towards democracy, once China is more developed it can than have democracy, I'd say 30 years at the earliest.

I favour a democracy where only normal citizens can vote not including retards and mentally unstable people.

Most Chinese(99%) can speak ok mandarin plus thier own local dialects. :genius:

freedom is not everything... money are the most important things..

A fully fledged democracy a la USA's will definitely be inappropriate for China. Democracies are only fit for countries with a majority of educated population, sizeable wealth and limited to say x<400 million people.

Having said that, if India can surpass China in 20 - 50 years in living standards, then it will prove to the world that a Democratic government is superior than a Communist one.

One question for Doan Du, how exactly is China a dictatorship? It's not really run by Mr. Hu Jintao, more like the CCP machine. Mao was a dictatorship, Deng to an extent but Hu? I don't think so. He has to get approval from his powerful fellow CCP comrades before making anything offcial. Mao ran the show and so did Deng to an extent during their reigns.

the gov is rich, the citizens are poor as $hit. -_-"
they're getting all the money from the citizens in order to afford modernization O_O
i definitely prefer capitalism. but chinese ppl are raging $hitheads and by switching to communism, it might provoke chaos O_O

anyhow, the gov stole all the background knowledge for modernization from the west.

also i agree that uneducated countrymen should not have the right to participate in gov. they wont know what they're doing X_X

錢乃身外之物...money's IS NOT everything

Most people in China think like you right now. But once the overall population becomes more well off, people will start to think for themselves and feel the need to demand for freedom. Taiwan went through a similar phase. After the 228 Incident and the implementation of martial law by the KMT, people were afraid of 白色恐怖 thus refrainded from voicing any anti-government opinions. But as the economy took off, more and more people began to challenge the KMT's infringment of human rights despite the danger of being jailed or murdered. Many of these freedom fighters did end up dead but without these people to lead the way, the Taiwanese people would not be enjoying the freedom they have now.

Communism is the best for China. Massive population, we don't want to end up like India!

I meant China has maintained a dictatorial-type structure. China has outlawed all political parties except the Communist Party. Hu is up there to represent only the CCP interest, not his personal interest.

communist not that bad..
if u don't do anything against government.. u can live more freely than live in USA

chinese government don't care what u eatting.. american government does.. they are try to limiting the fast food.

in China.. u can buy drinks at any age... in USA u can't

Let's say you live in Beijing and your house is on the planned construction site for a new arena that will be used during the 2008 Olympics. Without giving you any prior notice, a government agent comes along and stamps a red 拆 on your door. Then the guy tells you that you have to vacate your home within two weeks and that you'll be relocated to another part of town. How would you like communism then?

There is more to life than just eating & drinking.

In any event, don't you want a government for all Chinese instead of one for only those few Chinese who agree with the CCP? Don't you want transparency in government instead of secrecy, especially in the area of taxation, spending, budgeting and the likes?

Why yes, yes I do

But I do think a real one man one vote democracy is too much for China to handle right now. The population is too large and the infrastructure simply isnt there.

Representative democracy and separation of power between centralized and local government is the way to go. :genius:

The basic question of whether a representative democracy (republic) would work in China in large measure depends on whether the Chinese people have good common sense and sustainable values.

It is not necessary for a majority to be college educated. Their vote will choose among many qualified candidates (and some not so qualified). With a free press, the average citizen will have a reasonable idea of who makes sense and whether things are working or not. If not, they will change leadership.

Sustainable values incorporates a willingness to approve not only the quick fix for a problem but to question whether such a policy will work in the intermediate and long term. Sustainable values also means, among other things, respecting the rights of others generally and specifically the rights of the ultimate minority...a single person. If the majority or government persecutes an individual, every person knows he could be next.

On the other hand, society as a whole has certain rights. It is the balancing of society's right to make the system work against the rights of the individual that is the ongoing challenge in defining the social contract.

Government is force! "Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
This fear of government is why federalism was incorporated in th US model.

Under federalism, authority is divided among various government entities: the national, state, county, city, school district, etc. It provides for government to be closer to the people. It is less efficient, but it does prevent dictatorship.

China has the opportunity to study what has worked in many nations and come up with it's own model. I look forward to seeing the plan and how well it works.

I do believe in the people of China; I therefore believe that they can become a great republic...hopefully sooner rather than later.

Well said! A toast to that

One word: population.
- China has far too many people, and given China's almost zero amount of experience with democracy, I doubt it'd be the best thing for the people...now. Plus, with a single, centralised government, it'd be a lot easier to control and weather down any social disorder that might come about. Example - Tiananmen. As much as I hated Deng for sending tanks and soldiers to gun down weaponless students, I reckon the CCP felt it was necessary not to allow any "disruption" for China to achieve rapid industrialisation and catch up with the rest of the industrialised world. You'd have to understand that the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution" brought so much devastation and hardship to China, that the country lost decades in trying to rebuild itself after the shambles of WWII.

Second word: industrialisation.
- China's economy is so red-hot right now (an average of 8% growth p.annum), any major change in both its economic and political sector would be far too risky. The government isn't doing much wrong with the economy now. They've heavily restricted imports, and have been buying US debts and bonds to help keep the yuan low, which in turn makes Chinese products more price competitive. For example, in the car industry, imports are not allowed so the only way non-Chinese brands can operate in China is to form a "joint-venture" with local Chinese manufacturers. What's more, in these "joint-ventures" (which also occurs in other industries, such as IT, finance and electronics) foreign-brands are restricted in their stake ownership - they cannot own more than 50% of these ventures, so anything they invest (technology, manufacturing, R&D, design, etc.) must be shared with the Chinese brands. So the government has done a lot to help develop and protect Chinese companies who are now just infants in global competition.

Third word: wealth.
- If your country's economy was growing at one of the world's highest pace, unemployment is below global average and prospect of new jobs and money is extremely high, would you want to risk losing all these healthy scenarios by changing the entire system (that helped to create these benefits)?

IMO - it's possible for China to have a democracy. It's possible, even with a population of over a billion, to have a government that truly reflects what the majority of the public want. But currently (on the surface at least) the country is powerful and healthy, and so there's no need or want for a democracy...yet.

The government has also better watch the environment. There is a perpetual haze that hangs over Canton (I don't know what its call right now, some Mandarin gibberish) as the result of factories. Unlike the US, I don't think China has any regulations against pollution.

And I do mean a PERPETUAL haze. I was there for three days and the sky NEVER cleared and my mother got sick from the air.

If power had been dispersed to the people through some form of democracy post WWII, isn't it reasonable to believe that massive 'centalized' planning errors (mentioned above) would have been avoided and China would be years ahead of where she is now?

Now, we are seeing centralized planners trying to overcome errors of the past while probably making errors which will compromise the future.
Example: Industrial pollution which will lower productivity, increase health care costs, and take a human toll.

One of the problems I see with centralized planners is that they tend to focus on one or two objectives and do not see many consequences of their policies, in part, because they become too insulated from society.