Competitive elections in China?
One central question often dominates discussions of China's future: will this country ever become an electoral democracy - with rival parties fighting for power at the ballot box?
The answer from the number two man in the Communist Party is simple: No.
In his speech to the annual session of the National People's Congress, Wu Bangguo said that China would "never simply copy the system of Western countries or introduce a system of multiple parties holding office in rotation".
A definitive statement then. No wiggle room whatsoever.
But other leaders have left the door ajar. In a television interview a few months ago, China's Premier Wen Jiabao was asked whether or not he could foresee competitive elections in China in 25 years' time. "It's hard for me to predict," he replied.
But now, the man who outranks Mr Wen in the Communist hierarchy has made it clear: no competitive elections in China. Ever. So long, of course, as the Communist Party remains in charge.
I’m 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~42~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Genuine democracy is not easy to achieve given China's current stage of development.
We would rather keep the current system, which is working although not perfectly, than having some fake democracy like many countries in the world have.
For China, judicial independence is much more important and needed than the ideology of democracy and the formality of competitive election
Complain about this comment
I just watched the indian /british movie slumdog millionaire, and then I re watched Dr. Zhivago and now these are the questions:
What election?
What should election bring?
what is the aim and responsibility of a government?
Given a choice, India, Russia, China, US or UK........ where would one like to live?
I thought of the last chapter of Animal farm.
Napoleon .... It happens right now.
Complain about this comment
The Chinese system has some advantages over democracy in the respect that the government can plan for the long term instead of simply to the end of their term.
Where the Chinese system falls down is severe corruption at all levels. Take Chen Xitong for example. He was only discovered and imprisoned as Jiang wanted him out of the way for his Beijing reform. Jiang had to find a reason to get him out and corruption was the most obvious. I wonder how many others are doing the same thing but lie undiscovered since they are on the right side of the leaders? I shouldn’t complain though as the receipts from their childrens' Masters studies in the UK are helping our poor economy.
Complain about this comment
Wen Jiabao used to be a protege of Zhao Ziyang, former secretary-general of CCP who was stripped of his titles and put under house arrest after showing symphathy to the Tiananmen square protests in 1989. Based on the link provided, the CNN interview seems to give a clear hint that Wen is a more liberal minded politician in China today. Sometimes its simply too powerless for these people to have any influence in the communist politics in the country, which is controlled mainly by more conservative people.
Complain about this comment
zickyyy: if u look at Wu Bangguo's speech, you can see that he openly criticised the system of having three independent branches of gov't as well. Unfortunately today its not merely the matter of democracy but anything relate to political/social reforms get condemned by these communist leaders.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the comment #1 about the greater importance of judicial independence. But I do not see why the CCP should choose to voluntarily limit its power and subject itself to external scrutiny by judges. Chinese public opion seems quite happy to blame a few local officials for corruption so why introduce a system which might threaten people closer to the top?.
Complain about this comment
System is system. However superior democracy appears to be, ultimately it is the execution that counts. Largely, that depends on the man and his team's ability to run the country.
G Bush was elected on different 'chards' that got to be decided by the supreme court. Who appointed the superme court. U guessed it. He was elected the 2nd time not on his performance but on his campaign team that knew how to manipulate and dominate the system, how to smear his weak and helpless opponent.
Taiwan has been practising domocracy for the past 2 decades. Apart from freedom of press, all branches of government are one big joke.
China may not practises democracy in the form of ballet box, total freedom of press( Even BBC imposes condition of moderation)etc, they do realizes the defects inherent in the system they adopts. They are making efforf to improve and fine-tune their system at a pace they see fit. Some elements of democracy are already put into place within the party.
So far, their collective leadership has showed that they are humble, accessible to the people, tackle the nation's problems head on. How many third world countries, some of them are democratic governments can be talked of in the same breath.
China is NOT a super power by a long shot, whatever the West may like to call it.
Complain about this comment
The motive of the West behind this 'democracy" campaign is suspicious. The harder the West press, the more I feel there is a catch under it.
Look at the behavior of the international media in these couple of days. They are not happy with 'no-violence" yet this year in Tibet. The way the western media hoaxing social unrest is simply disgusting. NGOs in the West timed to publish their report on China suppressing a couple of days ahead of the "anniversary". what a great coincidence!
No wonder Chinese don't trust the West.
Why should we follow the West's direction??
Do any third world countries with "democracy" do well?????
I once met a Brit, who told me that he wish Chinese people could live under democracy. I asked him why. He said in a democracy, China could let Tibet independent. I laughed and laughed. Why some people in the West are so naive while some others are so ill-natured? I told him, no potent Chinese government would ever let any part of China be independent. Finished.
Complain about this comment
#3 davidwhite44
In the 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index compiled by Transparency International, China (ranked at No. 72) beat Thailand (No. 80), India (No. 85). Indonesia (No. 126), and the Philippines (No. 141). All these Asian countries except China have multi-party elections.
Complain about this comment
"no competitive elections in China?"
The accurate judgement is: there will be competitive elections inside CCP, but not between CCP and other political parties. Is that clear?
According to many press releases from China, the China Communist Party, CCP, reiterate that the direction of the reform of the election system in China, is a gradual introduction of competitive election - margin voting, in CCP, of course.
Complain about this comment
It seems unlikely, as some said about the nationalists pre-1949, why would they give up power when at present they have the luxury of having it all to themselves?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
aeroarchie: I just had a look at the Corruption Perceptions Index. The idea is flawed. The data is based simply on perceptions, and not actual cases. As we know from this blog, Chinese nationals may think or know one thing, but when talking with foreigners, will say something completely different to save China's 'face'. I couldn't imagine a Chinese national admitting to me that corruption is a problem even though they go home and complain about it over dinner to their family.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Democracy is overrated.
We see parties bicker over petty differences, point their fingers at each other for policy faults, and gets nothing done. Once another party is put in charge, the first thing they do is to suspend and roll back all changes done by the previous gov't regardless of the effect they had on the country.
In the economic crisis, we see parties blaming each other for policies they set irresponsibly ages past, that no one bothered to correct. We see parties hurried to the rescue of big enterprises that invest heavily in the political business, leaving common individuals in the dust.
Is democracy the best form of government? No. Not by a long shot. Is it better than all other forms of goverment? In certain situations, certainly not in all situations. Does it fit China to a tee? No, it does not.
China needs foreign journalists and politicians to leave her alone. As sensational as the story can go, your buzz is simply buzz; it does not have any impact whatsoever on Chinese society. To the reverse effect, it is you who stir up nationalist sentiments and fervent fanaticism of the state. Stop looking at China through coloured goggles. Start recognizing her as what she is - simply another country with too many internal problems to deal with you finger pointers.
Flame away.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re:
13 davidwhite44
"I couldn't imagine a Chinese national admitting to me that corruption is a problem even though they go home and complain about it over dinner to their family."
You don't have to imagine but you can see now. I am Chinese and I never refuse to admit the corruption is a huge problem in China. And there are many other problems that might be even worse than corruption.
Also I wonder if they don't admit it in front you how did u manage to find out they complain about it over the dinner to their family? Your imagination?
The point aeroarchie is trying to make is that multi-party elections are not an absolute cure to corruptions, and to many other problems.
Complain about this comment
Just that Thailand, India et al score higher in Corruption Perceptions Index is not really an evidence to back One-party is any better than multiple-party competitions.
Since when have Chinese people/government started trusting reports from various kinds of international bodies e.g. Amnesty International anyway?
I can as well start talking about Gini index and say both Thailand and India have lower Gini indices (i.e. more even income distribution) than China and say multi-party competition is better.
As long as multi-party competition is not allowed in China, there won't be any real independent judicial system in place. These people are just so worried that if in any case the court ruled against the party, people will start questioning what entitles this particular party to rule the country.
It's very clear that these CCP leaders want the judicial system under the control of CCP. Fair enough, that means CCP can pretty much ignore the laws and do whatever they want and nothing you people can do about this.
Complain about this comment
The reasons the west want China to be a so-call 'democracy' (multi-party) are many. Caring about Chinese people, wanting them to have more power, freedom, money.... is definitely not one of them. That is so easy to understand, if you've been abroad for a few years and/or you understand them well.
In my opinion, the most simple one of the reasons is ... when you are divided, they can easily take advantage of you. If you are united and solid, it is a lot harder. That's why they love to have Dalai Lama and his boys around.
'Competitive election' means constant in-fighting. The party lost the power will spend the next 4 years trying anything and everything possible to tear down the other guy. China is not ready for that yet. It is not a 'super power' or any power, to be honest.
I don't believe China should have 'competitive election' until the west stop conspiring to bring it down. And, I don't believe that time will come soon. Or it ever comes.
By the way, one party can be very efficient, if they do it right (like the past 30 years reform). Of cause, it could be a disaster, if not done right, (like 'cultural revolution'). Then again, multi-party system is no different.
Complain about this comment
China has no imperative to adopt a western style democracy. Your generalising from an Anglo-western experience, believing it applies to all places and all times.
Complain about this comment
"never simply copy the system of Western countries or introduce a system of multiple parties holding office in rotation"
It says that it "never simply copies the western style democracy system with multiple party rotation", however it did not say it will never introduce an alternate multiple party system either. Therefore it may introduce a multiple party system with power sharing and never rotating, perhaps? China does allow multiple parties in their constitution, if I am not mistaken, albeit it is rather symbolic at the present time.
So where is the definitive "no" comes from?? Even English is not my native language, James, are we misinterpreting??
Furthermore, You even said:
"China's Premier Wen Jiabao was asked whether or not he could foresee competitive elections in China in 25 years' time. "It's hard for me to predict," he replied."
Perhaps they will once shock the world by finding something which is completely new?
After all, Chinese have invented the gun powders, the printing, the compass and the paper, which built the foundation for the human civilization.
Complain about this comment
I don't mind what system it is, one-party or multiple. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages. One-party system doesn't necessarily mean dictator and multi-party can't always be democratic either. The key point is that it can make its people richer and happier and the Chinese have so far done very well and much better than many governments worldwide.
Besides, I can't agree that China will "never simply copy the system of Western countries". We have own characteristics, historically, socially, politically, culturally, etc. and those systems working well in other countries may not work in China, so we have to find out a better and more suitable one by ourselves. Present system may not be the best but it works well and is always improving.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The BBC report on which this bog is based quotes Wu Bangguo as having said “China will not have democracy” – which is used as the story headline. This is wholly disingenuous.
Firstly, he did not say that. He said: “China must draw on the achievements of all cultures, including their political achievements, but shall never simply copy the system of Western countries…” There is a not very subtle and important distinction.
Secondly, any discussion on the subject of democracy in China that ignores the structures and processes involved in Village Committee democracy is pointless. Thanks to organisations like the BBC, most Westerners will be entirely ignorant of the fact, but China already has extensive democratic grass-roots structures. The electoral system for Village Committees is almost identical to UK Local Government – there is universal suffrage for all electors over the age of 18, and anyone can stand for election, regardless of Party affiliation.
Do not be misled by the name – “Village” Committees are not groups of half a dozen peasant farmers eking out a subsistence living. They can be responsible for communities of thousands of people and they administer substantial budgets. In the Beijing News on Monday CPPCC member Zhao Zhenxian urged that Village Committees in Sichuan should have the primary responsibility for auditing the expenditure of the 1 trillion yuan (about US $140 billion) that is to be used for post-earthquake reconstruction there.
How well village democracy works is a separate issue. I would guess that it works very well in some places and in others it is a hotbed of nepotism, graft, and carpetbagging – exactly as it is in the UK. But given that most Chinese who want to exercise it already have a democratic vote in a democratic process, the BBC’s claim that Wu said: “China will not have democracy” is doubly dishonest.
Complain about this comment
Why do we treat China as if its a woolly panda, when its a totalitarian regime.
Within my lifetime the communists under Mao starved an estimated 70 million people to death in the 1970's.
They also killed millions under the "Cultural Revolution".
More recently they have suppresed and killed thousands of Students (Tiannaman Square), Tibettan Monks (last years protests), and "Turcic" Muslims in Xinjiang.
Yet because they follow a 'capitalist economic model' we pretend that somehow they are being 'democratised', as if there is a connection between capitalism and democracy.
We should be making it difficult for the communists to operate by denying them markets in the west, and maybe there would then be real pressure for political changes.
Complain about this comment
I think what WenJiabao said "It's hard for me to predict." indicated "Chinese Nationalist Party (Guomindang) in Taiwan".
HuJintao also left some rooms: we are ready to discuss with ROC, even on the name of the country. Anyway, if China will eventuall ended to a Two-party system, the easiest way is to invite the Guomindang back. But now it is too early to say, and especially at this critical case.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Well, Singapore is NOT a democracy, but India is. But which one do you prefer when you choose between the two as the place to live in? What if China becomes Singapore--economically developed, environmentally great, but essentially a one-party state--one day? Are competitive elections that important?
I rarely hear people harshly criticizing Singapore.
And I would choose Singapore over India.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#27 ADKelly,
"thousands were killed at TianAnMen in 1989", can you name just 10?
How and where did you get your numbners??
About Cultural revolution and starvation in the 1960s, We Chinese don't care that much any more.
Why do non-Chinense people "care" that much?
Complain about this comment
# 21 tclim38
Couldn't agree with you more!!!
When China was a "democracy" in the 30s, we were chopped into pieces...every Western country plus Japan had a fair share.
No wonder they want us a democracy...
Complain about this comment
#27 ADKelly
If those who think the Chinese government is perfect are brainwashed by the Chinese media. Then what ADKelly said is exactly an example of those who are brainwashed by some western media such as BBC.
Complain about this comment
It is not surprising me that many mainland Chinese said that 'One Party is good, we like it!', 'Western countries want to divide and conqueror China'.
I do believe that they (Chinese who post in this blog) all think in this way.
Well, Chinese like to be 'governed' by some kind of monarchy that have absolute power. It's the culture, it's the education.
For the village committee, please tell me why the corruption is uncontrollable given a 'democratic election', and that the 'police' arrest and beat villagers when they protest, because their lands are purchased 'compulsorily'. Oh, I got the answer. It is because 'democracy' is not the solution for all problem.
Complain about this comment
James Reynolds:
One central question often dominates discussions of China's future: will this country ever become an electoral democracy - with rival parties fighting for power at the ballot box?
I hope that the people of China can have competitive elections in the nearby future...But, I have to agreed with the Number 2 official in the Communist Party; It will be happening anytime soon....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
@24
" The key point is that it can make its people richer and happier and the Chinese have so far done very well and much better than many governments worldwide."
-I realise this is a commonly held view by many Chinese but it's based around never having experienced democracy and 'trusting what you know'.
In the West we have a saying which reflects this:
'Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't'
It's understandable, but what if Person X thinks 'actually I think there's a better way of making China richer and happier - the CPC are getting it wrong' - what do they do? They may be right!
What if person Z thinks - what the Party is doing is unfair, or wrong? How do they express this?
Without competitive elections innovation and progress is actually stifled not encouraged.
If China had had competitive elections earlier then China could have progressed earlier instead of being stuck in ideologically-based policies that failed. Decades were wasted.
Problem is, with economic downturns and no democracy, who could stop the Party launching another Cultural Revolution?
It may never happen, but without the checks and balances a democracy should ideally have, China may in the future lose a Hu Jintao and end up with a Chinese Stalin. Who knows what could happen with only one Party?
Complain about this comment
@30
Some things matter more than just money.
And Singapore also has a poor human rights record, like China. Censorship is common, like China.
Singapore does have a multi-part system, Ong Teng Cheong was the first elected President in 1993 so Singapore does have some democracy, although not full democracy, so it is doing better than China in that regard.
India'a poverty would not be alleviated by having a one party state.
Complain about this comment
The more I read this blog, the more I am surprised to find hot blooded younger chinese remember well the chinese history 100 years ago, but not really well for things happened 20, 30 years ago. Perhaps the middle aged chinese all chose not to recall those terrible days and let the 20 year old chinese assumed things have all been good along.
To be fair, we have to admit errors been committed, terrible things have happened to comon chinese people, from imperialist outside 80 years ago and from communist inside 40 years ago.
That is why Zhivago is relevant.
20 years ago, there were common citizen / students killed and Beijing was under military rule in that period. We all witnessed the blood, flesh, fire, broken arms and legs. Asked the capital pepole's hospital, if they still kept any record. One need courage to admit wrong was done.
Complain about this comment
""thousands were killed at TianAnMen in 1989", can you name just 10?
How and where did you get your numbners??
About Cultural revolution and starvation in the 1960s, We Chinese don't care that much any more.
Why do non-Chinense people "care" that much?""
The Beijing government have the most state-of-art technology to suppress any discussion on 4June massacre. Anyone raised a topic in the Mainland forums, discussing the number of person killed in 4June massacre, is arrested unless he/she can remain anonymous in some way. So we can't collect the figures. Occasion reports of 'TianAnMen Mothers' being arrested or harassed are heard in Hong Kong, but probably not in Mainland. I am quite disappointed that someone would take this as a proof of 'nothing happened'.
Well, a book named 'gravestone' is published and can be bought in Hong Kong, talking about the starvation in 1960s, I really hope that any Chinese will read it before telling us he/she doesn't care.
I heard that Mainland Chinese can freely express their opinion on politics of foreign countries (except Taiwan, as it is not treated as another country), is it true?
No American would say to you 'You are not US citizen, why you care about US election so much?' Do you know why?
Complain about this comment
About Cultural revolution and starvation in the 1960s, We Chinese don't care that much any more.
Why do non-Chinense people "care" that much?""
---------------
whoever said this should be condemned by all Chinese people. Just look at how angry the chinese crowd was when the japanese PM visited Yasukuni Shrine. Because they dont want their descendants to forget about the past tragedies. Yet they say they dont care about the deeds by the communists? Is this double standard in action?
Just ask any Germans around you and see if they dont 'care' about the Nazis' rule?
Complain about this comment
Western style of democracy doesn't equal to democracy.
One party structure doesn't necessarily mean no competition of elections.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
Instead of interfering in the internal affairs of the People's Republic of China, you should tell the West including the Republicans and Democrats in America to hold free and fair elections.
Complain about this comment
#13 davidwhite44
"The CPI (Corruption Perceptions Index) - besides the World Bank corruption index - is the most commonly used measure for corruption in countries worldwide. Based on many different studies, it is known for its accuracy." (Source: Wikipedia)
Complain about this comment
#46
"Instead of interfering in the internal affairs of the People's Republic of China, you should tell the West including the Republicans and Democrats in America to hold free and fair elections."
You tell James to stop interfering in the internal affairs of China but then tell him he should interfere with the internal affairs of America!
Why can he interfere with America but not China?
Complain about this comment
I just rise some facts for your reference, from the personal experience as a native chinese.
#27. ADKelly
1. ' the communists under Mao starved an estimated 70 million people to death in the 1970's.'
---------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know from which source you this number is from. In 1970's the population of China is around 800 million, this estimation suggests almost one out of ten chinese were 'starved to death' at that time. As a reader in western, you may feel natural to accept this estimation without any doubt. But in China, every one will take this is as a joke, whether it is ill-intended or not.
For example, through family relatives, neighbours, friends, colleagues and so on, an ordinary chinese usualy knows the life stories of more than a thousand people. And, whether you wish to believe it or not, I have never heard a single case of "starved to death".
I come from a normal family, my farther is a college teacher and my mother is a construction engineer. My childhood (1980's) was spent in JiangXi, one of the poorest province in China. Especially, in the 1970's, my mother was working in a small village in JiangXi due to the movement 'up to the mountains, down to the villages'. Yes, she rememebers the time that living conditions was terrible and people had no much to eat. But (to the disappointment of god knows whom) still no one in the village had ever 'starved to death'. Ironically, it is just due to the absolute-even distribution system at that time, although most people at the age of my parents experienced shortage in 60's and 70's, 'death from hunger' has never been a story close to life.
No wonder, the life expectency dropped and infant mortality rate increased in China shortly after the failure of the 'great leap forward' movement in 1960's for 3 to 4 years, you can check the documents of UN to confirm that. But even in this period, the stats was still better than the average level of developing countries over the world at that time.
2. They also killed millions under the "Cultural Revolution".
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 'Cultural Revolution' is a disaster, we all accept this point, CCP officially admitted it as the worst deed in its history. Many honest people were killed during the time.
On the other hand, due to the same reason I mensioned above, the number 'millions', which suggests one death out of 100 people, is also pointless.
3. More recently they have suppresed and killed thousands of Students (Tiannaman Square)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here in west (at least in Germany where I am studying now), the event took place in Tiannaman Square in 1989 is officially called 'Tiananmen massacre', which tends to confirm the above statement.
I was a teenage boy in 1989 and was not there, so I cannot tell you much from my own experience. But fortunately, one of my best chinese friend that I got to know in Germany was a student of Qinghua University in 1989, and he was among the last group to be forced to leave Tiannaman Square in that night. When I asked him whether he has witnessed that someone was shot, he only said one word: 'No'.
I believe what he told me is really what he has seen in that night. He never hesitates to show his strong dislike to CCP. He favours the idea of multi-party politic as many people here do ( I can never reach agreement with him at this point :-) ). That is the reason why he stood to the last moment to his faith. On the other hand, he is an honest man, he take truth as more important than politic fanfares.
In that night, some students were really shot to death, but it was occasional and the real death is very limited. The estimation 'thousands' is another fairy tale story to meet the favour of western readers.
Sorry to all people here for my interrupting of the main topic, counting the death toll is not funny at all. I feel very interesred in reading your ideas, and for this reason, I cannot sit aside to see some faked data was taken as reality to make further discussions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@48
"
The 'Cultural Revolution' is a disaster, we all accept this point, CCP officially admitted it as the worst deed in its history. Many honest people were killed during the time."
-Shutuhh, so how does China prevent another potential Cultural Revolution happening in future?
China's economy is good now, but what if it turns bad again? Maybe the Party will want extra loyalty and create another CR.
Other countries have opponent political parties which can criticise the State and, hopefully stop something like a CR happening.
Other countries have bodies such as the judiciary which are independent from the State, and hopefully prevent abuses.
China does not have these things. Without them, you are vulnerable to another CR - it may seem far-fetched but it's possible.
Complain about this comment
Researches have shown that around 30 million people died 'prematurely' or 'excessively' due to famine around 1958 to 1961 in China. One of the major cause is the CCP government policy. If you are the staff or students of Universities, you probably gain access to various databases for thesis and paper. Try search the keyword 'famine in China 1958 - 1961'.
I don't like fake data, too. shutuhh, I really like your attitude of fact-finding.
Complain about this comment
#47
My reason for saying that Mr. Reynolds should talk about human rights in the West including the USA is that there are human rights violations in the West and USA. I talk from experience since I live in America.
Complain about this comment
@51 waitinghk
So your data reduced the estimation of ADKelly by half.
Still I do not know which 'research' or 'database' you are referring, but whatever it might be, I know it is ridiculous and pointless, according to the experience of myself, that i have posted.
Of cource it comes with the question, which side you tend to believe. I am nobody important so you may choose to follow your source of information. I am fine with that, it is eventually your own decision.
But beside simply picking one, there is more you can do if you wish to know the truth.
I am sorry to repeat the boring process again: 30 million counts for 1 death out of 25 chinese during the time you mentioned. This would effectively trigger a deep sorrow from almost every chinese family (you know we have large network of family relatives) if it was true.
Nowadays there are many chinese studying, working and living in Europe. If you wish, you can ask any chinese from mainland China (not people from Hongkong, Macau and Taiwan since they have no such experience), with some politeness, about this very question:
Do you concretely know anyone who 'died 'prematurely' or 'excessively' due to famine around 1958 to 1961 in China' ?
It won't take a long time to reach your own evaluation.
Complain about this comment
@50 Bloof
Thanks for your concern about China.
People in west tends to believe that their multi-party system can help to avoid social catastrophes, at least more easily to corrent them if it happened. You have mensioned the reasons, which are written in the textbooks on the history of democracy. But, a perfect description is not the necessary condition of a good result.
As examples, your democracy has not stopped or even cultivated the following events:
1. The first opium war against China Empire in 1840, in which HongKong was seceded to UK as one of the direct consequence.
2. The second optium war which, beside all catastrophes, destoried the royal summer palace in Beijing, and the loot have led to the recent report of James in his article 'Losing their heads'.
3. The Iraq war, which has not yet come to an end, and no one knows how it can come to an end.
Another example, I got to know a very nice Indian in University, of course he is confident on India's democracy system. But he frankly told me about his worry in some regions of India. There are local extrem Hinduism leaders, who are against almost all other religions and social groups, aiming at an exclusive Hinduism rule over the region, thus results in frequent riots and blocking of most social courses in local parliaments. According to his opinion, these people should really be 'banished from politics' for everyone's goodness, but due to the support of large grass-root Hindu groups, they always have their seats. This problem is nothing new. It has existed for decades, and still haunting over any development efforts of these regions.
In summary, I agree with the point of #21 tclim38: 'one party can be very efficient, if they do it right (like the past 30 years reform). Of course, it could be a disaster, if not done right, (like 'cultural revolution'). Then again, multi-party system is no different.'
Complain about this comment
#50 Bloofs
Theoretically, it's also possible for the National Socialist Party to regain power in Germany under another name through multi-party elections. Afterall, they were elected into office the last time.
Complain about this comment
#51 waitinghk
"Mastering Modern World History" authored by Norman Lowe (Macmillan) has the following to say about the "Great Leap Forward" introduced by Mao Tse-tung in 1958:
"At first it looked as though the Great Leap might be a failure: there was some opposition to the communes, a series of bad harvests (1959-61) and the withdrawal of all Russian aid following the break between the two; all this coupled with the lack of experience among the cadres caused hardship in the years 1959 to 1963. Even Mao's prestige suffered and he was forced to resign as Chairman of the People's Congress though he remained Chairman of the communist party. However, in the long term the importance of the Great Leap became clear: eventually both agricultural and industrial production increased substantially, and China was managing at least to feed its massive population without famine (which rarely happened under the KMT); the commune proved to be a remarkable successful innovation - much more than merely collective farms, they are perhaps the ideal solution to the problem of running a vast country while at the same time avoiding the over-centralisation that stifles initiative; the crucial decision had been taken that China would remain predominantly an agricultural country with small-scale industry scattered about the countryside; the economy would be labour-intensive (relying on massive numbers of workers instead of introducing labour-saving machines). Given the country's enormous population, this seems sensible, and so far China has avoided the growing unemployment problems of the highly industrialised western nations. Other benefits were the spread of education and welfare services and the improvement of the positions of women in society."
Complain about this comment
i believe that day will finally come.china will enjoy "the system of Western countries or introduce a system of multiple parties holding office in rotation". but i hope that will be a peaceful transition.
Complain about this comment
Researches have shown that around 30 million people died 'prematurely' or 'excessively' due to famine around 1958 to 1961 in China. One of the major cause is the CCP government policy. If you are the staff or students of Universities, you probably gain access to various databases for thesis and paper. Try search the keyword 'famine in China 1958 - 1961'.
I don't like fake data, too. shutuhh, I really like your attitude of fact-finding.
sure during great leap forward, Mao is responsible for SOME policies which resulted in famine, but none of the westerners remember what really happened during the 3 year period, and westerners blame all grain production lose to Mao is ingenuine.
The policies that Mao is responsible are:
1. the great sparrow campaign, which encourages killing of sparrows, because they eat seeds, cause disruption to farms, etc. which ultimatly led to huge Locus swarm. Mao then found sparrows eats more insects than seeds, but nobody would have known that killing sparrows will lead to locus swarm, just like nobody would have know that capitalism leads to banks collapses in the past. Besides Mao had good intention when he initiated the campaign, so most people forgives him.
2. allocation of farmers to work on steel.
But I don't think he will do that if he had knew what will happen in the next 3 years.
what happened in 1958-1961
1.locus swarm
2.July 1959, the yellow river flooded east China, which drowned, starved, about 2 million people, the flood not only killed people, it also halted food production to that region, and that flood covers HUGE region,because it is the second longest in China and 6th longest in the world. it was one of the WORST natural disaster.
3.1960, 60% Northen half of China received NO rainfall AT ALL. and many other different scale of drought happening all over China.
now many westerner quickly took advantage of the death tolls from natural disasters, reduced grain production as result of natural disasters and filing it under "great leap forward" to sounds like Mao is responsible for all of these.
consider some starvation were even caused by trade embargos by the west, just because China is a communist state. only Soviet at the time exported some food to china. afterall, you westerners also played a role in this.
on the bright side, Communism really reduced the death toll from famine to a minimum. because all food source is distributed equally, no matter how rich you are, you still get same amount of food as poor.
so in the end, everyone was hungry, but very few were starving.
most chinese people still appreciete the work Mao has done to ensure people don't starve to death, includes my father and my mother, my grands etc.
sure they have the memories of the time they were so hungry, but most of them blames natural disaster and no outside help (just because China is communist)
Complain about this comment
James:
I think that in 25 years (for Competitive elections) in the remarks that were made....I think that the Chinese President has a valid point....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS