The Talk of China

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

by antonioevans • 14 years ago

27 14 14 years ago

te_chris• 14 years ago

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.

meric• 14 years ago

My Chinese friends tell me that China's only hope of reform is through Hong Kong's success as a democracy, and I (from Hong Kong) reply that Hong Kong's democracy is doomed by Beijing's influence through majority control of the legislature, that China reforming internally politically is Hong Kong's only hope; The party with the most funding and the most votes, "Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress", represents Beijing in Hong Kong.

No, there is no hope at all. China growing on the wrong set of axis will first lead to economical, and then eventually, political collapse. The only question is when. It probably won't be this year, or even next year.

shimon_e• 14 years ago

Most people are "meh" only those involved somehow care.

These are really small issues. If you were no one and got into a car crash no one would care. If you are the son of someone important to the federal government no one would be allowed read about it. If you are the son of someone important to local government then it will be all over the media as the censorship is the duty of the federal government.

seanmcdirmid3• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

seanmcdirmid3• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

ahi• 14 years ago

Tom Friedman isnt known for his great intellect. He is the voice of east coast middlebrow moderates. Consistently "meh".

anovikov2• 14 years ago

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• 14 years ago

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.

anovikov2• 14 years ago

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.

tokenadult• 14 years ago

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...

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• 14 years ago

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.

The Talk of China

Related Stories