And assume it had fallen more-or-less peacefully, like the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries, and in its place were established some kind of multiparty democracy.
Really posing a question I asked in this thread: Would China be richer or poorer now than it is in our timeline? What are the economic effects, here, of democracy vs. not-democracy?
Well, let’s see: a representative democracy with over 1 billion citizens and dozens of assorted ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups… The only frame of reference here is India.
So, how has representative democracy worked out for India? I suppose it hasn’t been a complete disaster… But it does have the multiple simmering civil wars, the abject inability to do anything about catastrophic wealth disparities, a crumbling infrastructure, a looming population crisis, and a rate of economic growth that generally lags behind that of China.
So there you have your answer. Giving up socialism and government control of the economy probably wouldn’t have killed China, but it would have made it just another generic third-world nation. No matter how you look at it, it appears that the Chinese leadership has wisely chosen to follow the best course of action for its people. Overall, the failure of the uprising was very much a positive development for China, and thus for the world at large.
At a guess, the centralized government would have to lose a great deal of power, transferring it to the various provinces, among which will remain stark distinctions of wealth and development in addition to language and culture. I could even imagine a few of those provinces seeking even greater autonomy, if not downright independence.
So if the best case outcome is the fragile democracy of India, I’d guess the worst might be the crumbling, violent, corrupt post-USSR Russia.
It’s also worth nothing that the “Four Asian Tigers” the countries in Asia that grew the most from the 1960’s to the 1990’s were all various flavors of Autocracy during their most successful and rapid growth.
Singapore: Single party autocracy since independence and still is to this day.
Taiwan: Single party autocracy from 1950-1990’s
Hong Kong: Ruled by an appointed Governor, no representation of local citizens until hand over to China
South Korea: military dictatorship from 1960’s to 1980’s
Of course that’s not to say that rar-rar autocracy is great, it’s just worked better in asian cultures then democracy has. And these countries were never like Burma or Indonesia during Soeharto with a real climate of fear, they were always “mild mannered dictatorships” that were careful to leave people alone to get rich as long as they stayed out of politics.
Careful, though —they “work better” in an economic sense, but with substantial costs in terms of rights, freedoms, etc. (And those costs aren’t evenly distributed —some people are fine, others are not.) The exception is Hong Kong, which I gather really was pretty mild-mannered —but it’s worth pointing out that its last governor is on record regretting not transitioning to democracy. Also, if I may be a bit nitpicky, South Korea’s super-fast growth took place both before and after its transition to democracy; it’s not a brilliant example in that regard.
I’m also not sure the use of India as a predictor is entirely fair. India has such a vastly different economy, culture, geography, resources… and perhaps most importantly, its overwhelming ethnic problems are larger than China’s arguably in large part because its ethnic situation was so much more tenuous to start with!
ETA: There’s also a chicken-egg problem: a fast-growing economy can certainly keep a dictatorship going longer than a slow economy, but the correlation in the opposite direction is hard to demonstrate. Also, Japan…?
The majority of people in Singapore don’t care that they aren’t really free. If they do care it’s relatively easy for them to immigrate somewhere else. Low unemployment, and strong growth are more important to them than absolute freedom of speech.
And as far Japan, in theory it was a democracy but in practise:
" the Liberal Democratic Party (Jiyu-Minshuto; LDP) was formed in November 1955. This party continuously held power from 1955 through 1993"
I think a free China would grow more slowly, but develop a more robust foundation.
China has yet to face its first real test, and its no more possible to declare it an unbridled success than it would be to look at America in 1798 and decide it found its place in the world. Some big things are going to need to be negotiated. The biggest question is, “Can the CCP weather an economic slowdown?” The unofficial deal in 1989 was “Don’t question our rule, and we will make you rich.” Not a great foundation unless you are sure you can offer double digit growth forever.
When an economic slowdown occurs, will the Chinese people have the national discipline to endure some belt tightening (like Japan did), or will they fall into the much more historically Chinese narrative of uniting in good times and falling apart into warring factions when things get tough?
We also have no seen the long-term effects of the 2008 lending binge, the deep shadiness buried n the State owned Enterprises and government controlled utterly non-transparent banking sector, and the housing bubble. A lot has been built, but its way too early to declare it real sustainable growth. People havn’t had to show their returns yet.
I think democracy will come sooner than later. But I don’t see an easy transition.
Where do you get this idea from that China will fall to pieces if it can’t maintain 10 percent growth? No one thinks it will, the CCP is aiming for 7-9 percent growth over the next five years, of course they expect growth to slow.
And when all of my students, who are eagerly taking driving lessons (saying you spent the weekend at driving school is the hip status symbol for rural youth…akin to saying you spent the weekend snowboarding or visiting NYC), realize that a car is not realistically in the future of a rural primary school teacher, how content are they going to be with this new version of the social contract? They are happy to have gone from foot to bicycle to motped to electric scooter, for sure. But they don’t expect it to stop there.They feel they have been promised cars. Can these kids, who are graduating into jobs that make around 2000 RMB a month, get cars in the next 5 years? 10?
People are expecting a three bedroom flat, a vacation to Hainan, and a wedding in a luxury hotel. If they start feeling like they are not moving towards that- or worse that the will only ever get a one-bedroom company flat, vacation to the nearest ancient town, and a wedding at a cheap dishes restaurant- they are going to start to question what the hell they are in it for. It’s not that these things are inherently bad- they’d be luxuries a generation ago- but people have been sold a story that involves more.
Once again sven your posts are long on dramatic rhetoric but lacking any real facts. Yes they can afford a car, local chinese cars cost as little as 23,000 RMB. They get a 5 year loan and they can buy one right now.
And who has promised rural teachers these luxury lifestyles? Not the CCP, it’s 5 year plans are public knowledge. If you mean they’re shown unobtainable lifestyles by advertising? Well yes, but that hasn’t made rural language teachers rise up and overthrow the government in the west has it?
None which is the point of this thread.
They are long on the wisdom earned by spending approximately 12,000 hours in dialogue with several hundred Chinese college Freshmen and Sophomores in a small inland industrial city (who,of course, do not represent all of China but do represent the next generation of the massive rural-aspiring-to-middle-class population) on topics such as “what are your hopes for the future” and “what things in life are important to you.”
Unless you are going to deny that the rural and small city Chinese populace expects a steadily rising standard of living until it reaches East Coast standards, don’t pester me to look up surveys that state the obvious.
Sheesh, why am I arguing with someone who has faith in 5 year plans that nobody, not even the guys who wrote them, puts much credence in? Oh, but the previous plans met their goals? Think about it. Everyone else in China has learned how to read between the lines. From party hacks to barefoot peasants, everyone has developed the ability to analyze information on China in a more sophisticated way than you. Even my assigned watcher couldn’t keep a straight face in the eye of some of this stuff, and he was a True Believer.
Anyway, my students talked about being disillusioned with the government and seeking democracy pretty often- usully in secret whispers during office hours, but sometimes with real anger and tear openly in the classroom Make of that what you will.
Civl War, between ethnic factions.
Yeah, when I was in University I aspired to garage of supercars, a house in Malibu, Maldievs and Monaco, a supermodel wife with big knockers and to travel all the time to exotic locales.
I don’t think University Students are really reprentative of much.
If you are saying that Chinese will stay at peace as long as there is prosperity, then yes I can agree with you. If you say that when standard of living goes down the CCP is in trouble is true. And that has been true since the times of Babylon.
WHen living standards go down, you have instability and discontent which often boils over to conflict. The CCP has been aware of that, just look at Chinese history.
Finally and this is the hardest thing to make westeners understand; most people don’t give a f;lying toss about democracy. They care if the utilities work, the roads get fixed, the schools are good, food is available, it safe to go outside etc etc.A fact the United States forgot when it had its little Iraq adventure.
They’re about the same size, but, nevertheless, China has the history of a country. India has the history of a continent – a continent rather like Europe, all bound together by some shared cultural and religious ties, but, still, a multiplicity of national and local cultures and languages.
Still rather more of a democracy than Mexico was under the PRI, I should think. The lower level of public corruption makes all the difference.
No, the present dynasty has yet to face its first real test. China found its place in the world before the Greeks had heard of Rome.
What ethnic factions? China is 91% Han. That’s the core, geographically as well as culturally, and the minority peoples are mostly all around the borders. You can’t make a civil war out of that, not one that affects the whole country. “Inner China” with non-Han “Outer China” shorn away would still be China. I once had a Chinese roommate (a democracy activist who had to leave the country after Tienanmen Square – I was in law school, he was in pharmacy school at the same campus) who was very willing Tibet and Xinjiang and such should secede if they like, and leave a “smaller, free China.”
Well, that’s what this thread is about – not whether or how much the Chinese want democracy, but whether getting it back in 1989 or so would mean that, today, the utilities would work more reliably or less reliably, the roads would be in good repair, good schools and food would be available, etc., all in comparison to the PRC today.
Frankly, I find your characterization of the Chinese people to be somewhat insulting and condescending. The Chinese aren’t Martians, nor are they emotionally-fragile retards with entitlement issues. When the US economy got flushed down the toilet, I didn’t pick up a gun, form a roving band of marauders with my neighbors, and start fighting street battles with the cops. Rather, I kept on going with my life while hoping that things will improve. I fail to see why the Chinese should be any different.
Also, what is this nonsense about the PRC simply riding along with the good times? Look, I’m a great supporter of the ruling Party, but even I won’t argue that its rule has been all smiles and sunshine. There have been some mistakes, and some suffering as a result of said mistakes. The Chinese people stuck it out, and in the end their loyalty and dedication paid off. Now they’re reaping the rewards of their patience. What makes you think that they have consequently lost the ability to deal with less-than-stellar domestic situations, if they happen to arise once again?
I tend to agree with dissident astrophysicist Fang Lizhi (who snuck into the US Embassy in 1989) that China is never that far from civil war. I think that China would eventually devolve into some kind of warlord state and fragment. When you look at the tip of the iceberg of serious corruption that gets uncovered and admitted by the government, it looks pretty bad. Probably the most recent case was the downfall of the Chongqing government leadersabout 18 months ago.
Back in 1989, as posited by the OP, I think chinese economic growth would have been far far slower, and the likelihood of a federation of warlords or outright breaking up of the country would have been high.
China needs to grow. How much no one knows. Now 10% is the popular meme. When I was in investment banking in the 1990’s it was 8%. It’s a number pulled out of someone’s ass and repeated until “true.” Fact is that no one knows. But to EvenSven’s point is valid - the government pact with the people is “we will let you get rich and you don’t question our right to rule.”