Jackie Chan: China Has A Problem With Its “Suzhi”

http://www.paulmidler.com/jackie-chan-china-has-a-problem-with-its-suzhi/

by si2 • 17 years ago

38 32 17 years ago

thras• 17 years ago

Is he right? There are places in the world where democracy doesn't work very well. I'd say that this is the sort of question that deserves actual thought instead of the regular "Democracy Uber Alles!" platitudes that we get so often.

(Yes, I know what Churchill said about democracy. However, Churchill would have said the same thing about absolute Monarchy if it were still around. He was that sort of guy.)

mnemonicsloth2• 17 years ago

This is a hot research topic right now in the social sciences. The general theme is that democratic institutions (transparency, professionalism, corruption-resistance) are probably more important at first than actual democracy.

http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Guns-Votes-Democracy-Dangerous/dp...

The "Asian Tiger" economies -- South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan -- all started ramping up their growth under extremely authoritarian governments which then liberalized once they had reached a certain level of prosperity.

biohacker422• 17 years ago

I don't know how much research this requires, as someone who had a front seat for the conversion of Eastern Europe to democracy it all seems obvious to me.

OBVIOUSLY you need law and order to get democracy. Democracy is the pinnacle of a working society not the root cause of it.

Now,people will often mistake the results of lawlessness and corruption as the reason peoples X just ain't made for democracy and freedom.

I hope I don't have to explain how stupid that is. It is just as stupid at the theory that democracy would flourish in Afghanistan and Iraq with little to no effort, like magic!

gyeh• 17 years ago

Sorry for being nit-picky, but Singapore still vigilantly holds on to certain authoritarian practices (not to say some liberalization didn't happen).

It is important to note that many people in China look to Singapore to be the ideal political economic model.

This would be a very amusing scaling problem...

bokonist3• 17 years ago

Not just the Asian tigers - pretty much every country in the world established rule of law, property rights, contract law, and the other foundations of economic growth under authoritarian governments.

bokonist3• 17 years ago

Yes, I know what Churchill said about democracy.

Funny enough, Churchill did not say what people think he said about democracy. He said, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;" In other words, he was para-phrasing his opponents. Churchill was actually giving a speech defending the existence of the House of Lords! ( http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105chu... )

And while Churchill's misquote is famous, few have heard of Gibbon's quote:

--------------------------

OF the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate, without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master. In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us that, in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous, part of the people.

----------------------------------------

In other words, the principle of hereditary rule may be ridiculous, but it's the best way to keep the monsters out of power. And note, after Gibbon wrote this quote, many European countries proceeded to cast away their monarchs and elect monsters ( Robespierre, Napoleon, the Bolsheviks, Hitler, etc).

Tichy• 17 years ago

Which places are those? Also, not ll democracies are equal, maybe sometimes the system simply has flaws. For example, in Germany Hitler managed to rise to power even though his party did not even have the majority at the beginning. Since then, rules where introduced with the aim to prevent the same thing from happening again (I remember from school that for example a minimum share of votes became required to prevent too much fragmentation).

jibiki• 17 years ago

In my experience, Chinese people tend to be more critical in general (and correspondingly less affected by criticism.) Maybe that's a massive overgeneralization, but if you transplant this taxi driver to the United States, he would have the same complaints about Americans.

gommm• 17 years ago

I'm not sure if it's being more critical or just being more honest (or less tactful) when talking to or about people.

I think people everywhere in the world are also critical of others but don't show it because it's not politically correct or tactful or whatever reason...

A bit OT, but I find it rather interesting how much the definition of being tactful when talking about people changes according to countries... In Japan for example, it's considered a bit tactless to point out your mistake in Japanese whereas in France or in China, they are much more likely to correct you whenever you make a mistake without considering that as being impolite.

jerryji• 17 years ago

Managing a country is just like parenting --

A child should not be given absolute freedom before he/she is grown up enough to act responsibly.

However, using the above as an excuse to control the child forever will certainly result in catastrophic failure (for both the child and the parents).

varjag2• 17 years ago

Poor people are dumb, let's keep them slaves.

varjag2• 17 years ago

Sarcasm is not the virtue at HN, as I see.

ptm• 17 years ago

A lot of middle class Indians would agree with the sentiment that democracy causes chaos.

In the brief period of time India was undemocratic (the Emergency), anecdotal evidence suggests that the middle class was happy with the way things were. The poor, meanwhile, were miserable, and they responded by voting out the incumbent govt by a record margin.

So it won't be very surprising if middle class China actually supports the lack of freedom.

megaduck• 17 years ago

You've hit the nail on the head.

This is the first time that China's really HAD much of a middle class. Most of this newly minted middle class has moved from being poor peasants to decently paid professionals, and they're quite happy with the current state of affairs.

The Chinese public definitely acknowledges problems with the system. However, for the past thirty years people have been getting richer, living longer, and quality of life has been hugely improved. It sure beats the period before, when they were dealing with war, famine, and the cultural revolution. So, when the government that's brought (relative) prosperity says that democracy is bad, people are inclined to just agree and go along with whatever the government says.

Bottom line: The middle class in China won't support democratic reforms so long as life is improving without them.

adinobro• 17 years ago

Someone else pointed this out before in a different thread but why should they want to change if life is improving without them? If you look at the US as an example of democracy then at the moment it doesn't make a lot of sense. That being said things are always changing and who knows what will happen in the next 20 years.

If things stop improving for most people in China then there will probably be social unrest and they may move to another form of government or the reverse could happen and the US might decide that it wants a nother form of goverment if things don't eventually improve.

branden2• 17 years ago

The people are uneducated. In order to protect them from themselves, a strong government must control them. Since a strong government controls the people, there is no need to educate them. The people are uneducated...

jmathes• 17 years ago

So "the education-preventing government control will continue until education improves?"

stcredzero• 17 years ago

Our own country was organized to be run by an elite of educated landowners. Many of our founding fathers felt that the masses were not educated enough to participate in self-rule.

Fortunately, many of our founders also believed in the ideals of the Enlightenment, and this led to the United States strongly favoring universal education.

Arguably, the current Communist regime in China was founded on ideals that also favor universal education.

tjic• 17 years ago

> this led to the United States strongly favoring universal education.

I'm all in favor of folks getting as much education as they want.

I question, though, whether the current system of universal education is really doing all that much educating, or whether it's mostly a jobs program for unionized teachers.

blader2• 17 years ago

There's no direct english translation, but the term "su zhi" has class, cultural, economic and even ethical implications beyond that of just education level.

It (very) roughly means something like "basic cultural quality level."

To focus on the "education" inflection of that word could result in misunderstood arguments like the Chinese government wants to keep its population uneducated. If anything, their basic educational policies over the past few decades have been the complete opposite of that.

tjmc• 17 years ago

Would it roughly translate to redneck (US), chav (UK) or bogan (Aus)?

mlLK• 17 years ago

Your Internet is almost as ignorant as your statement, but I take it you already knew that given your factual characterization of some people not from the west.

As long as the sentiment like this is taking precedence over, and please pardon my French, the fucking world-wide web then I'm afraid the Zap Brannigans of America will continue to control all of you.

Oh and I almost forgot to mention this. . .Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001_suptables.pdf

branden2• 17 years ago

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I wasn't saying anything about China or its citizens specifically, I was just showing that governmental paternalism for an uneducated/low/dumb/weak/however-disadvantaged population can wind up being its own justification. I could've been a bit clearer about that, but then my comment wouldn't have sounded so wise ;)

timothychung• 17 years ago

An uneducated good man is greater than an educated bad man.

Jackie Chan: China Has A Problem With Its “Suzhi”

Related Stories