

The Talk of China - antonioevans
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-talk-of-china.html

======
tokenadult
I speak Chinese, as disclosed on my user profile here. I have been reading the
official Chinese press since the end of the Cultural Revolution, just after
when Chiang Kai-shek (Jiang Jieshi) died and while Mao Tse-tung (Mao Zedong)
was still alive. Chinese people have aspirations for freedom just like people
in most parts of the world. Quite a few years ago, I heard a comment by a
Chinese journalist that if all the people of China had full access to
uncensored news, the Communist Party of China regime would last only a week.

Anyway, I've seen a culturally Chinese society living under a dictatorship
turn into a democracy with a free press and free and fair elections that can
turn a ruling party out of power. I've lived in Taiwan both under its
dictatorship (a three-year stay in the early 1980s) and as it transfered power
in a free election (another three-year stay, spanning the turn of the last
century). People I know personally were imprisoned for leading peaceful street
demonstrations on the way to Taiwan's democratization, but despite the
dictatorial regime's attempts to stop diversification of political power, the
people of Taiwan eventually gained an uncensored press, multiparty elections,
and complete freedom to express their opinions in speech and by voting.

The presence of Taiwan as an alternative model puts as much pressure on the
P.R.C. regime as the presence of West Germany put on the "Deutsche
Demokratische Republik" regime to the east. China still has huge gaps in the
common people's access to information. Provision of basic primary schooling,
of mass communication, and especially of telephony and travel has been so
backward in China for so long that according to an official Chinese government
survey,

[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/07/content_5812838...](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/07/content_5812838.htm)

barely more than half of the population in China is even conversant in the
national standard language. But word about official corruption and repression
of people speaking up about corruption does spread through China by personal
observation and word of mouth in dozens of dialects. That is enough to prompt
change. China has gone out of its way to study how dictatorships have clung to
power even in today's era of much freer flow of information, but if it desires
to be economically strong and to have "soft power" influence on the world,
China has no choice but to change its political system and press regulation to
be more open to pluralism.

~~~
jasonjei
I think that's a very good analogy, most people forget that Jiang Jieshi
(Chiang Kai-shek) was a ruthless dictator, perhaps not as bad as Mao Zedong,
but his son, Jiang Jingguo opened Taiwan up to democratization. I think it's
partly owed to the fact that ethnically-Chinese people are quite compliant to
generations of dynasties, and until they standup, the Com Dynasty will rule.

------
anovikov
I guess no society can keep itself developing beyond a certain point without
becoming a democracy. The point is simple: when the vast majority of
population starts taking for granted that they will never face starvation
(meaning: they never experienced real long-term hunger in their lifetime). For
Soviet Union, it came in the late 1970s - with median age about 30 years back
then, and last major famine with mass casualties in 1946, most people never
knew the fear of hunger. They naturally moved up the Maslow ladder, demanding
human rights and freedom, and while it took another 10 to 15 years to happen,
it was inevitable. For China, that moment is probably still in the future, as
far as i understand, mass hunger was still a norm in 1980s, so most people
remember it, and they rather obey the oppressive government.

~~~
tuananh
in my language we have a similar quote saying like when hunger isn't an issue
to worry about, there will be other demands, needs.

~~~
anovikov
Apart for this 'push' for democracy, there is also a 'pull': industrial
society has its limits (no industrial country is rich now, Germany is closest,
but it's already more of post-industrial these days), and post-industrial
societies are less about discipline (for which dictatorship is good), more
about flexibility, self-expression and creativity. How can an information
society exist with no freedom of speech? It is an oxymoron. And China rulers
cannot afford their development to get stuck: people want to move to cities,
so forcibly stopping urbanization risks rural revolt (of which China has a
long and bloody history, so they will take that threat seriously), and
maintaining the rate of urbanization requires quick economic growth, and at
some point, they will have to make concessions in the human rights field to
maintain it. Opening up information, on the other hands, quickly wipes
dictatorships: there is no way it can exist with everyone speaking openly,
Soviet Glasnost quickly led to collapse, for example.

------
te_chris
Can anyone with insight into Chinese politics comment on these observations?
They seem salient, but China to me is just such a mystery that I never really
know what to believe when I read press coverage about it.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
China only seems mysterious because it lacks an independent press. Everyone
knows the official line parroted by Xinhua and CCTV is often BS, but there is
really nothing to fill the gap. So everyone is reading tea leafs because there
are important questions that need answers. What happened to Xi Jinping and who
will replace him (if he really had a stroke)? What official is going to get
beat down b/c his son was hot rodding recklessly in a Ferrari? Will Beijing
introduce a property tax that will severely reorganize the property market?
Are they going to keep the pension cap at 12K RMB income or will they open it
up to be more progressive, virtually forcing all of us laowai to leave (since
no one believes we will be able to collect)? Its hard to understand what an
unfree press gives you until you've experienced it.

The Hu/Wen government has been very disappointing compared to their
predecessors. I mean, 10 years with basically no political or economic reform!
Perhaps this is because of the battling between reformists and
traditionalists, or perhaps all those officials have just been busy cashing in
for their kids (have to pay for those Ferraris somehow). And we have no idea
what Xi will do; more of the same? Change for the good? Change for the bad?
Its like if we elected a president in the states who had no past.

------
rwmj
The hard news parts are interesting. The commentary added seems to reflect
(US-biased) wishful thinking. It'd sure be nice if China transitioned
peacefully into a democratic egalitarian nation, but the evidence suggests
it's heading more towards a Russia-like klepto-oligarcy.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I'm not sure. We don't have a charismatic like Putin leading, law in China
seems much more defined than Russia. I believe the corruption will eventually
be cleaned up and we'll get a well run police state like Singapore.

~~~
twoodfin
If the corruption didn't exist, wouldn't Beijing have to invent it? I am under
the impression that one way the national government maintains the loyalty of
the people is by presenting itself as an adversary to endemic corruption in
the local governments.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That's a bit pessimistic. Actually, I don't think even the central government
thinks they can control the backlash that will eventually occur if things
continue like they are. Especially if there is just one recession/significant
economic downturn, or if the property bubble bursts. The government knows its
on very fragile footing now.

