I don't pretend to have any expertise in regard to this question having only been here in China for one year. But from all I've seen, encountered and discussed I would tend to agree that democracy is not yet an option. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that at this stage, when there are those who still regard the opening and expansion as "experimental", it could possibly be a total disaster.

It would need a completey different mind-set from everything the Chinese people regard as their cultural heritage to turn them into politically-responsible beings.

The changes that have taken place since opening and expansion have been huge and all-embracing, in a way many Westerners cannot comprehend. Simply settling down to capitalism has brought with it huge dislocation amongst much of the population - it has all happened so fast.

There is also the fact that the average Chinese person connects the word "democracy" with America and is not impressed!

quite right, romany- and twice as right about australia.

in fact, there is a wider range of opinion in the politiburo of the chinese communist party than there is in the laboral party of australia. and the chinese vote rather more often than ozzies too.

but i'm hoping both countries will evolve to democracy someday. not holding my breath, mind.

The topic of "democracy" is one which most speakers at today's China, East Asia, Media, New Media Conference 2007 in Brisbane skirted around. I have to admit I was one of them. The previous draft of my notes had a definition of "electronic democracy" in it. I changed this to "Governance", in the version presented, as I did not want to embarrass the Chinese delegates: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/china_wireless.shtml

But talking to an expert in Chinese politics they explained that the term "e-Democracy" is not commonly used in China and while it would not cause offense, "governance" would be better understood.

Tomw - read the draft on the site you posted and was very excited by the concept suggested. Yes, I think that strategems such as this are of vital importance.

It has taken a long while for me to shed the eurocentric paradigms which one unconsciously adopts in the West and to realise the difference between Chinese world views and one's own. I think that the suggestions contained within the document you posted are a necessary tool for to-days Chinese youth.

We have had 2,000 years of unconscious inculcation of the terms of democracy and to expects any nation to understand the mindsets we have inherited within a scant twenty years is a fantastical notion.

It seems to me that "democracy" is shorthand for a whole range of processes, rights and responsibilities. Elections are amongst the least important of democratic institutions, much more significant are things like the rule of law, guarantees of personal freedoms (freedom of speech, religion, association, reproduction etc) and the separation of powers. Elections are important as a reminder to elected officials that they don't rule the people, they rule for the people (and therefore may be thrown out).

Jieh-Yung suggests that "if strengthening China is the overriding purpose ... then arguably democracy may be less effective then other political system." But, apparently, a market economy, massive spending on industrialisation, huge private wealth and the break-up of state enterprises (to the benefit primarily of the newly rich middle classes) are OK?

The last vestige left of Communist China is the Communist Party of China. They have entirely abandoned Marxism in favour of Western capitalism. But they haven't abandoned totalitarianism, because it keeps the ruling elite in power. Just like Singapore, which could certainly "afford" democracy, but is kept under the heel of the PAP, for the benefit of the Lee family and their cronies.

China is a very different from Australia, check out Geert Hofstede's analysis of a variety of social dimensions here http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php You might argue that the Chinese are so different that liberal democracy might not work for them. But it works in Greece, which is quite similar to China.

I am not sure I buy Jieh-Yung's analysis. I suspect the elephant in the room is Tibet.

Welcome Tomw. Have seen a few of your posts on Slashdot.

Johnj - I am unsure what you meant by "it works in Greece which is quite similar to China"? Were you being ironic? If so, I don't quite get the analogy. Perhaps you could expand a little?

Of course there isn't democracy in China, and anyone who links the economic prosperity to democracy is naive in the extreme.

China is getting richer primarily because it uses it's own people as slaves, paid nothing often, and very little most of the time.

It's gotten so bad in the government sector that Chinese workers, drawn in from rural areas largely, throw themselves off the Olympic sites they are building to inform the western world - I wonder why they aren't trying to inform the non-western world? Could it possibly be because the non-western world all use slavery, especially the middle-east?

It's also interesting that it's western companies in China that are behind the push for increased wages, labour standards!

It is truly astonishing how backward the non-west is, and westerners shouldn't shy away from this fact, as we have in the past thirty or so years.

Nations that use slavery shouldn't be allowed to trade. It's wrong that a culture as vile as theirs can gain in power due to suspect practices. I would suggest that force should be used, colonialism to be precise, to bring the savage non-western world into line.

The idea that China has nuclear weapons, the very pinnacle of western science, is intolerable.

General McArthur should have been listened to when he called for the bombing of mainland China in the 1950's during the Korean war, when the Red Army sent three million troops in to help their North Korean brothers.

Look around the planet and one can't deny that the ONLY places that are good are western countries. Our values are superior, and if we claim to care about the human family we ought to act now.

Next time you buy a product made in China, think about how you're supporting slavery...

Romany, my apologies if I was being opaque. Have a look at Hofstede's analysis, a bit of explanation is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Hofstede You'll see that Australia has most similarities with the USA, UK, NZ, Canada etc. These countries, with their combination of relatively low power distance, high individuality and relatively short-term orientation would seem to be the natural home of liberal democracy. Or alternately, liberal democracy is an artefact produced by these cultures, which may have limited applicability in different cultures.

My point about Greece was that it has low individualism and high power distance, like China. Greece has a liberal democracy as best I understand, suggesting that liberal democracy could work in China. Of course, the democratic institutions would inevitably be different in China.

The perceived danger in China is that Tibet and other areas (eg Mongolia) with racial/cultural differences from the Han Chinese will break away if a real democracy is installed. Perhaps so, but the oppression of opposition is ultimately counterproductive. The absurd campaign against Falun Gong in China shows where this type of thinking leads. The Chinese Communist Party displays a paranoia that may eventually destroy it. We can only hope that China could survive such an implosion.

Hofstede's data may contain some valuable truisms but one should be aware the data were collected in 1968 and 1972 inside IBM only as a Human Resources [Hermes] study. The questions posed in his survey do not directly address societal precepts. Moreover, he does not manage acculturation regarding country vis-a-vis society: The country, China, might be said to broadly represent "Chinese" society. The country, Sinapore, could be said to have three broad [unequal] societies, "Chinese", "Malay" and "Indian". Is IBM a typical company?

Historically, in China, the "Shang", that is, the merchant, artisan and entrepreneurial classes, were on the bottom Society's rung. If these groups are the new wealthy leveraging political power, said power, would be at odds with traditional Chinese society, and, at the same time, unlike Western society. Perhaps, a China Inc., wherein, we have a trading and commercial fascade via entrepots, externally, and, the retention of a vertical power ethos internally.

Deep histographies would have peaasant rebellions overturn Empires when the Emporeror lost the Mandate from heaven. However, the Republican, Mao and post-Mao ideologies have probably moved the People beyond this form of challenge. Much is in the hands of conservative leaders who on one hand wish stability and on the other rich. Further, China's Gini co-efficent reflects economic inequalities. Democracy will not be achieved at the expense wealth generation and real challenges to authority. There will be tension between wealth generation and sharing prosperity. However, the Government are likely to maintain a desire to improve the conditions of their kin, to the extent that the commerical well-being of the Shang and its guanxi [connections] can be contained.

Relatedly, the people voting for a centralised government would disrupt the overlordship of local mayors and similar regional leaders, with an interest in controlling the local workforce. The central government will not fuel fractionalism of these kind.

On balance, I would suggest China's continued good fortune depends on how it manages globalisation and finding the appropriate niche at the appropriate time

Thanks, Johnj, for getting back to me.

Before posting I had indeed looked up the link provided in your first post, but did find the subsequent explanation in your second link clarified things a bit.

However, the point of huge discrepancy between the China and Greece in the UAI sector is, I consider, of relatively huge importance - as is the fact that no data are marked in the LTO category for Greece. I also verified Oliver's point that the original data were assembled decades ago. This, of course, would not make such a large difference in the case of Greece, but puts China back in the Mao era.

I did note that some figures have been updated, but, judging by the fact that Hong Kong is still listed as a separate entity it does not seem as though new surveys have been conducted to reflect the changing face of China since opening and expansion.

Apart from such statistical information however, let's not regard Greece solely as the birthplace of democracy, but of the Sceptics, Cynics, Sophists, Epicureans, Stoics et al. In other words as a country with a long culture of robust philosophical debate, while China's Buddhist origins and Confucianism were only ever challenged - and almost eradicated - by a military dictatorship.

This, and the fact that Greece, due to geography, has always been one of the most cosmopolitan centres of the world; while China's knowledge of the world beyond its vast borders has been(and still is, generally) rudimentary in the extreme, make for tremendous discrepancies.

This latter makes China's situation unique at this time. The country and its society is constantly evolving and changing right now and so I agree with Oliver, that we need to consider what effects globalisation will subsequently bring. I personally consider that speculation concerning any political change in China is premature until opening and expansion has wrought all the changes that are inherent in such a revolutionary step.

Oliver and Romany, I can't disagree with the criticisms of Hofstede, but I'm not aware of any better tool for cross-cultural comparisons. Until someone comes up with one, I guess we're stuck with Hofstede....

Likewise, you both make shrewd points about the importance of localism in Chinese politics. It would be easy enough, though, to have a system of local voting for mayors (or whatever) who would act autonomously in their local area while representing the interests of their constituents in a general assembly. The infrastructure is already in place, but to function as a proper democracy the role of the Communist Party will have to be wound back.

"China's continued good fortune depends on how it manages globalisation and finding the appropriate niche at the appropriate time." This is true, but you could say precisely the same thing about Australia.

Romany,

As you may have discovered Hofstede's work hit the public domain in 1990. If memory serves there are some data outliners that might not fit well and should not be reported along with other more valid data.

Agree the future is a bit fuzzy. Perhaps, we will see internal oligarchies, quite controlling of employees; while putting on an act of outward trends towards Western values, when capital and technology transfer are in play?

The birth of a democracy often requires a disenchanted upper middle class. As Gore Vadal stated, the Revolutionary War [1776-1783] was about seccession masterminded by intellectuals, not the creation of a full democracy. In the US universal sufferage was very slow. Technically, the people do no elect the President: An electorial college does. "The People" were not the force behind America's quasi-democracy.

With the Magna Carta [1215], the Charter was forced on John I by the nobles, not the people.

[Regrading China, I do recognise that peasant rebellions had influence in the past. But since the the fall of the Qing dynasty, probably, peasant rebellion is less likely.]

Any push towards true democracy in China will require the emerging oligarchies to influence the power brokers in the Politic. This will only occur, if it is in the interest of the oligachs, and, if change is their interest, and, they have the power to bribe their way or otherwise flip the established system.

Moreover, civilizationalist, Caroll Quigley, notes, when power and wealth come together, there is a tendency to retain the staus quo not to change it. Herein, China is already a traditionalist society

Oliver, your point about revolution coming from the intellectual/elite is well taken. It could be said that both Charles 1 and Louis XVI parted company with their heads ultimately because of Locke, Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau and the host of intellectuals and philosophers of the period.

In China the Cultural Revolution still resounds in many institutions and there is a dearth of intellectualism which the current "One-Child" Policy continues to entrench. The only comparison with 17th Century England or 18th Century France in which revolutionary fervour brought about the birth of democracy would be the emergence of the middle class. And with their sights set so firmly of wealth acquisition, the burgeoning middle classes are, in general, not political.

Already the emergence of the middle class is beginning the same pattern historically observed in other countries: the rural, or "peasant" class are turning the urban drift to a stampede. I would consider it unlikely that any impetus for change therefore would come from this sector.

So with no intellectual underpinning; no push from the majority who are too busy with capitalism; and the dissatisfaction of the rural classes manifesting itself in a push to the cities for themselves or for the education of their children; I can't see any valid reason at the moment for China to do anything to change the status quo, either.

Johnj,

Thanks. Reworking Hofstede is a difficult task. It is expensive research, and generally the professional recruiters hired by universities don’t like working with the appropriate front-end qualifiers: The recruiters have to find an eligible candidate using generational ethnicity screening in preselection. There is some work on societal axioms moving through the academic system.

Romany,

Yep, we are agreed.

Correction:

As you may have discovered Hofstede's work hit the public domain in 1990. - My error. Oliver.

Should be 1980. Was thinking of S. Gordon Redding [1990].

Oliver, you said there was some work on societal axioms currently on-going. Is there anything available on the public domain - or at least in data bases open to the public? I would be very interested. Not my field, but I am a firm believer in cross-discipline research.