"We expect that in the near future, that is, around the 100th anniversary of the Revolution of 1911, China, the land which has endured under communism, will have a democratic and federated new China."

Don't hold your breath Chum.

David

Jin’s argument that China should be ready for democracy in 2011 is, I consider, unrealistic almost to the point of absurdity. While groups such as that Jin represents might be boiling over with political fervour the average student, shopkeeper, factory worker and housewife frankly, my dears, does not give a damn.

Those who do concern themselves with politics a little all agree that China is changing and needs further change – but at its own pace. Even here in China, no-one considers China a Communist regime any more: it considers itself (if it does relate to a political ideology at all), as the Government itself describes it, to be “Socialist with Chinese characteristics.”

Many even of my graduating University students in these times of job uncertainty, refuse to sit the Public Service Examinations because then they would have to join the Communist Party – something the young consider to be the province of the old timers.

I can only assume that Jin is either very young or very naïve himself – with his talk of Tibet as a previous “Shangri La” turned into a “hell on earth” – and has really not married his idealism up yet with reality.

The Chinese grumble and bitch and protest their Government just as all populations do when something personally effects them, but are far from being united in a cohesive national voice with a political ideology.

As Jin said – one third of the world lives in China. Socially that 1.6 billion people is collection of small family groups loyal only to The Family and disinterested in wider questions. Democracy at this stage – or in two years time - would lead to fragmentation on a scale difficult for outsiders to imagine and would result in China being plunged into civil strife and unrest it would be almost impossible to control.

Change has and is taking place – at a whirlwind pace in the past 30 years. It is because of this I think that trying to engineer a political revolution led from outside would be disastrous and, most importantly, a total failure.

"Socially that 1.6 billion people is collection of small family groups loyal only to The Family and disinterested in wider questions."

That is an interesting observation Romany. It probably applies more or less to most countries, except where the family members are in the military, engaged in trying to run someone elses patch.

David

There is another angle to this that our young firebrand seems to have overlooked.

Right now, democracy is not such a great advertisement for itself.

Promoting it as a benefit to a country that does not already possess the structures needed to support it, would challenge the most inventive Gruen Transfer panellist.

If you were to measure the implementation of democracy around the world, as opposed to simply invoke its Platonic ideal, you would find the reality to be a far cry from what is shown on the label.

It would also not be difficult to point out that a great deal of our present economic issues are the result of democratic governments' actions.

As Jin points out:

"Due to the enormous economic interests, and the surrender of the idea of liberty in the West, Western democracies are continually making strategic mistakes with disastrous long term ramifications."

This could raise a legitimate point in the eyes of an external observer: is democracy the most appropriate vehicle through which to make the tough decisions that need to be made?

To add weight, it is also realistic to ask whether the existing democratic governments around the world are actually practicing democracy in their decision-making processes. Are they, in fact, governing in a democratic fashion, or simply using the democratic trappings of free and fair elections to justify doing exactly as they please?

Some evidence of this might be in the number of campaign promises that are made, and broken.

If I was part of the ruling elite in China, I would have few concerns that democracy might suddenly break out like pig 'flu. The process in place seems to be remarkably resilient.

The Chinese need not hold their breath, VK3AUU.
After all, we've been buying their products of economic warfare for years.
A few more months and they'll let the prices hike at all those little dime stores here and everywhere.
Then while we squirm while looking for non existant product replacement they can afford a good belly laugh.

Democracy has nothing to do with China - nor does it exist here.
They know that. You don't.

VK

Yeah,I consider the family-thing is a far more interesting and enduring Chinese construct than any external regime. I have this theory that it was indeed this that led to the ready acceptance of the kind of Nationalism that morphed into Communism at the end of Dynastic rule.

Pericles - and I also agree with your comments about democracy. My life has been much freer of Government intervention in China than it was in Australia. The first time I went on leave back to Australia after my first year here, the oppressive weight of petty restrictions, laws and regulations (not to mention those cameras everywhere and the dogs and uniforms at the airports) gave me a surprising feeling of Big Brother is Watching and powerlessness that I don't feel here.

But hey, maybe that's simply because of the sheer weight of numbers here! Enforcing all that minor stuff that restricts so many areas of our lives in Australia would be absolutely impossible here.