China: Vote as I say(economist.com)
economist.com
China: Vote as I say
http://www.economist.com/node/18836744
2 comments
One potential result is that you end up with... two democracies. Revolutionary divisions in Europe just ended up more permanent than the ones in China.
But I don't think population totals tell the whole story. One thing I like to quote is when a friend of mine visited China and noted that the "small towns", which still had 2-4 million people but were smaller than the big cities, still felt like small towns. They were less culturally interesting, less alive. The point is the cultural dynamic of "cosmopolitan centre" against "sleepy provincial town" exists despite multiplying the populations by 10; it's more about where the "centre of culture" is I imagine. So maybe democracy can survive scaling as well.
But I don't think population totals tell the whole story. One thing I like to quote is when a friend of mine visited China and noted that the "small towns", which still had 2-4 million people but were smaller than the big cities, still felt like small towns. They were less culturally interesting, less alive. The point is the cultural dynamic of "cosmopolitan centre" against "sleepy provincial town" exists despite multiplying the populations by 10; it's more about where the "centre of culture" is I imagine. So maybe democracy can survive scaling as well.
Well, I think difference between China and Europe is geography, and now a common language. Mandarin is spoken basically everywhere, except Hong Kong. Even the border provinces like Tibet (Xizhan) and Xinjiang (formerly a Turkic country) have a lot of Han migrants (or colonists, as some might say). It's easier to hold a country together when you share a common language. There are local dialects and languages, but school kids learn Mandarin, and the writing is all the same (though obviously the grammar, phrasing, and idioms will be different).
As for geography, China is very flat. It was flat 5000 years ago, and peasants (the occasional ruler with a civil engineering fetish) have been making it flatter for millennia. There's nowhere for an army to hide. Dissenters can hide in the concrete jungle, but you can't make any real strongholds. Also anyone who holds the Yellow River and Yangtze River will have strategic control of most of China, and the two rivers have been linked since (IIRC) the Qin dynasty.
As for the "small towns" being a little, well, dead, that's partly a result of rural poverty (and taxes redistributing wealth to the capitals); but also (as you said) of the bigger cities being of interest to young ambitious people.
As for geography, China is very flat. It was flat 5000 years ago, and peasants (the occasional ruler with a civil engineering fetish) have been making it flatter for millennia. There's nowhere for an army to hide. Dissenters can hide in the concrete jungle, but you can't make any real strongholds. Also anyone who holds the Yellow River and Yangtze River will have strategic control of most of China, and the two rivers have been linked since (IIRC) the Qin dynasty.
As for the "small towns" being a little, well, dead, that's partly a result of rural poverty (and taxes redistributing wealth to the capitals); but also (as you said) of the bigger cities being of interest to young ambitious people.
"to hold a country" is the key phrase there
Exactly. Why do you think China insists on celebrating diversity (the 55 official ethnic minorities get lots of airtime in cultural events - I've seen a national day celebration on TV in which every official minority had a representative dance troup), while emphasizing some kind of fundamental unity of the country (at the end of the celebration, all the dance troupes danced together).
> USA, UK, Europe and the Western world will just be a distant memory when China and India start becoming major players.
As individual entities, perhaps. As a bloc? NATO member countries total population is about 800 million, if I'm not mistaken. The Western world is hardly going to disappear.
As individual entities, perhaps. As a bloc? NATO member countries total population is about 800 million, if I'm not mistaken. The Western world is hardly going to disappear.
Not just a bloc of NATO countries, but also with Russia, which seems to be eagerly invited into organizations such as G8 (= G7 + Russia). With Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, the total population of such a bloc is 1 billion. I can forsee the US, France, Germany, and Russia soon forming a proto-military alliance, to give them the option to counter-balance China if they need to one day.
And of course the US, unlike China, has immigration as its foundation. They could accept, say, 20 million educated and/or wealthy immigrants from China over the next 20 years, with no shortage of takers ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2660178 ), which would strengthen America and weaken China.
And of course the US, unlike China, has immigration as its foundation. They could accept, say, 20 million educated and/or wealthy immigrants from China over the next 20 years, with no shortage of takers ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2660178 ), which would strengthen America and weaken China.
Russia has always been against NATO and lately it is pushing hard for a strong SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) [1] which is branded as Russia's/China's answer to NATO.
The current major issue with SCO though is it needs either India or Pakistan or both as its members to make it a formidable military alliance. But since India and Pakistan are archrivals there are differences between Russia, which has always backed India, and China, which has always backed Pakistan.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisati...
The current major issue with SCO though is it needs either India or Pakistan or both as its members to make it a formidable military alliance. But since India and Pakistan are archrivals there are differences between Russia, which has always backed India, and China, which has always backed Pakistan.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisati...
> Russia has always been against NATO and lately it is pushing hard for a strong SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) [1] which is branded as Russia's/China's answer to NATO.
This is true. In the long term, Russia needs to decide whether it wants to be a satellite of China, or part of NATO / the West.
Bear in mind that SCO isn't actually a military alliance (with mutual defence obligations) yet, although it may become so in the future.
This is true. In the long term, Russia needs to decide whether it wants to be a satellite of China, or part of NATO / the West.
Bear in mind that SCO isn't actually a military alliance (with mutual defence obligations) yet, although it may become so in the future.
> They could accept, say, 20 million educated and/or wealthy immigrants from China over the next 20 years, with no shortage of takers ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2660178 ), which would strengthen America and weaken China.
This is the best way to weaken China. In fact, it's the best way to weaken any poor country. Just pay the best people they have to come to your country and become permanent citizens. It's still not too late. Within 20-25 years, there may be no advantage for them, but right now, there is still something for the Chinese to gain by moving here.
This is the best way to weaken China. In fact, it's the best way to weaken any poor country. Just pay the best people they have to come to your country and become permanent citizens. It's still not too late. Within 20-25 years, there may be no advantage for them, but right now, there is still something for the Chinese to gain by moving here.
You don't even need to pay people to move, you just need to have a better society (and get rid of all the immigration laws which prevent this from happening).
Don't forget the rest of the Americas! (And Australia/New Zealand!)
"Great divergence" is not necessarily a problem for democracy. Any specific manifestation of democracy is a tool for governing despite them.
Civil war is not more likely in a democracy than a non democracy. Civil wars (I'm perhaps controversially excluding revolutionary wars such as the current Libyan or Syrian wars because they are usually wars between a regime and the The People) are rarely over political disagreement.
Most civil wars are a result of either: (1) two or more competing elites competing for power (eg James vs William; Augustus vs Anthony). (2) Ethnic/confessional divides that supersede everything else politically. For example, Lebanese Maronites are politically Maronites. They will not vote for a Druze Social-Democrat even if this is their political belief because that identification is much weaker than the Maronite one. Lebanese politics is about dividing political pies between sects.
China is probably in greater danger of 1 today than it would be if democratic and it probably wouldn't be under greater danger of 2, Chinese minorities don't want to be Chinese but they are too small even if they do identify politically entirely along ethnic lines.
Civil war is not more likely in a democracy than a non democracy. Civil wars (I'm perhaps controversially excluding revolutionary wars such as the current Libyan or Syrian wars because they are usually wars between a regime and the The People) are rarely over political disagreement.
Most civil wars are a result of either: (1) two or more competing elites competing for power (eg James vs William; Augustus vs Anthony). (2) Ethnic/confessional divides that supersede everything else politically. For example, Lebanese Maronites are politically Maronites. They will not vote for a Druze Social-Democrat even if this is their political belief because that identification is much weaker than the Maronite one. Lebanese politics is about dividing political pies between sects.
China is probably in greater danger of 1 today than it would be if democratic and it probably wouldn't be under greater danger of 2, Chinese minorities don't want to be Chinese but they are too small even if they do identify politically entirely along ethnic lines.
Re #2 of your point. The divide isn't along ethnic lines; it's along economic/cultural. Huge divide between rural farmers and urban yuppies. The yuppies are like the HN crowd. But historically, China goes as the peasant class goes.
Most of the time, the government is trying to appease the peasants while encouraging the yuppies. It's a tough balance.
Most of the time, the government is trying to appease the peasants while encouraging the yuppies. It's a tough balance.
My experience in China has been a little different. You certainly see divides along economic lines, but there are tremendous ethnic divides in China that aren't talked about outside the country, and often its these ethnic divides that create some of the worst economic divides.
Additionally, in recent years the population of China's cities has grown to be around half or more of the total Chinese population. It's not just farmers vs yuppies anymore, its non-local immigrants vs native locals. I saw this big time in Beijing, where a lot of the general working class were pissed because they had to work and ended up with crap for housing while the "natives" didn't work nearly as much - not because the natives were rich, but because they received state-funded stipends and discounted premium housing which immigrants to the city (from other parts of China) aren't eligible for.
I suppose you could consider my second point "economic", thought it's not really in the way most people would think of that term. It's a general side-effect of communist policies which still exist, though are far less publicized within the country.
Additionally, in recent years the population of China's cities has grown to be around half or more of the total Chinese population. It's not just farmers vs yuppies anymore, its non-local immigrants vs native locals. I saw this big time in Beijing, where a lot of the general working class were pissed because they had to work and ended up with crap for housing while the "natives" didn't work nearly as much - not because the natives were rich, but because they received state-funded stipends and discounted premium housing which immigrants to the city (from other parts of China) aren't eligible for.
I suppose you could consider my second point "economic", thought it's not really in the way most people would think of that term. It's a general side-effect of communist policies which still exist, though are far less publicized within the country.
Is country/peasant worker vs city worker an ethnic divide? Sounds more like a class divide. (ironic in a post-maoist country)
The urbanisation figures in china are highly suspect. Given one child policy is primarily policed in the city and intentionally lax in the countryside. This coupled with the fact their census seems (unconfirmed) do NOT count unofficial residence (i.e second/third/etc children). It makes it very hard to get a real picture of China's urbanisation stats.
The urbanisation figures in china are highly suspect. Given one child policy is primarily policed in the city and intentionally lax in the countryside. This coupled with the fact their census seems (unconfirmed) do NOT count unofficial residence (i.e second/third/etc children). It makes it very hard to get a real picture of China's urbanisation stats.
Is country/peasant worker vs city worker an ethnic divide?
The distinction you're looking for is "Han Chinese" versus "everyone else." China's outlying rural provinces have significant populations -- often pluralities or majorities -- from ethnic groups which are not Han Chinese, which is the dominant economic group in China and which is the portion of China largely winning from economic growth. For example, there are several large, predominantly Muslim ethnic groups in the border provinces, by the *stans and what have you. Plus Tibetans, etc, etc.
It is possible that this ethnic conflict eventually gets resolved like the Yamato vs. Everyone Else conflict in Japan: the nation of Japan became coextensive with Yamato Japanese and everyone basically pretends that Japan is monoethnic. (This would have been Serious News To Us for most of Janaese history.) It is also possible that China goes along a more Russian or Balkan path.
It is also possible, I suppose, that China resolves its ethnic issues by some combination of ethnic cleansing and genocide, which would not be new.
The distinction you're looking for is "Han Chinese" versus "everyone else." China's outlying rural provinces have significant populations -- often pluralities or majorities -- from ethnic groups which are not Han Chinese, which is the dominant economic group in China and which is the portion of China largely winning from economic growth. For example, there are several large, predominantly Muslim ethnic groups in the border provinces, by the *stans and what have you. Plus Tibetans, etc, etc.
It is possible that this ethnic conflict eventually gets resolved like the Yamato vs. Everyone Else conflict in Japan: the nation of Japan became coextensive with Yamato Japanese and everyone basically pretends that Japan is monoethnic. (This would have been Serious News To Us for most of Janaese history.) It is also possible that China goes along a more Russian or Balkan path.
It is also possible, I suppose, that China resolves its ethnic issues by some combination of ethnic cleansing and genocide, which would not be new.
On a macro-scale the non-Han are relatively small, though, especially compared to some of the other cases of multi-ethnic countries. Non-Han-Chinese make up only 8% of the PRC population, whereas non-Russians make up about 20% of Russia's current population, and made up about 40% of the USSR's.
It is true that they're much more prominent in the outlying areas; e.g. 60% of Xinjiang is non-Han. Those areas have relatively few people compared to the more populous parts of China, though; Shanghai alone has more people than all of Xinjiang. China's current strategy seems to be to take advantage of that numerical imbalance to Han-ify the outlying areas, since the smallish (in absolute numbers) non-Han population can be swamped by moving only a few percent of the people from the central cities out there.
It is true that they're much more prominent in the outlying areas; e.g. 60% of Xinjiang is non-Han. Those areas have relatively few people compared to the more populous parts of China, though; Shanghai alone has more people than all of Xinjiang. China's current strategy seems to be to take advantage of that numerical imbalance to Han-ify the outlying areas, since the smallish (in absolute numbers) non-Han population can be swamped by moving only a few percent of the people from the central cities out there.
It's easy to throw out numbers like 8% until you realize that it represents over 100 million people. Per capita that may be a small number, but in the general scheme of things it means a lot of disgruntled people. I never really thought about it until I went over there and had the chance to interact with various groups, and it changed a lot of my perspective on how China functions on the inside.
I grew up in Xinjiang, arguably the most ethnically divided region in China, so I know where you're coming from. China's approach to taming ethnic minorities is straight forward: various forms of oppression. Besides racism, the other major reason is that minorities in China, unlike those in the US for example, do not want to be Chinese. There's no civil activism because neither side want true equality (both want to be separate).
Back to the original point: the Han peasant class is far greater than any other demographic. That demographic has been responsible for the dynastic cycles for thousands of years. It's still the case today, and the Chinese government is well aware of that. At the same time, the government has to keep stoking the economic fire, promote innovation, etc.
Back to the original point: the Han peasant class is far greater than any other demographic. That demographic has been responsible for the dynastic cycles for thousands of years. It's still the case today, and the Chinese government is well aware of that. At the same time, the government has to keep stoking the economic fire, promote innovation, etc.
China's ethnic groups are small, weak and concentrated in remote areas. They really are probably not a political factor. I really can't see this ever being the dividing line of a civil war. They might demand autonomy or independence but that's not really a civil war.
Any serious civil strife that could effect the political direction of the country is most likely to be of the revolutionary kind. The most likely (though still not that likely) scenario I can think of is post economic downturn combined with political scandal. It would probably be a nebulous combination/coalition of demands/factions. Pick a basket of anti regime, pro peasant, anti corruption, pro democracy, human rights. Maybe Christianity or religion in general plays a role.
I think you need to draw a line though between civil strife and revolutionary agitation. I think the urban/rural divide will most likely manifest in the latter.
Any serious civil strife that could effect the political direction of the country is most likely to be of the revolutionary kind. The most likely (though still not that likely) scenario I can think of is post economic downturn combined with political scandal. It would probably be a nebulous combination/coalition of demands/factions. Pick a basket of anti regime, pro peasant, anti corruption, pro democracy, human rights. Maybe Christianity or religion in general plays a role.
I think you need to draw a line though between civil strife and revolutionary agitation. I think the urban/rural divide will most likely manifest in the latter.
Had the Han ethnicity not been so dominant, though, ethnic divisions would have been more prominent.
It could always go the way of the 30 year civil war in Mexico or Egypt..in which case you will see a marked increase in both protests and crack downs
How do you explain India then?
Unlike China, India is a heterogeneous society. And Indian regime successfully injects hope into the society e.g https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/NREGA
On what parameters? Both have hundreds of languages, ethnic groups and religions. Both are huge and somewhat federated.
OP was saying that democracy doesn't stand a chance in highly populated countries. According to the Democracy Index [1], it's working better in India than in 15 European countries.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index
OP was saying that democracy doesn't stand a chance in highly populated countries. According to the Democracy Index [1], it's working better in India than in 15 European countries.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index
I wasn't saying anything really, just trying to get my head around the huge difference between numbers in population. Living in the Western world I feel all that matters is the US, and UK, and how much the US dominates and polices global politics.
Yet China and India's population are so astoundingly out of proportion with the rest of the world, I am surprised it isn't them that we hear more of. I haven't even place India into my 'understanding the world' mental picture yet.
My main point is about moving a highly populated country TO a democracy. I look at the American civil war and how many lives were lost during that, and then wonder about the implications of allowing opposing ideas to rise. My initial reaction to the 'communist' regime in China is that it's wrong. But I then look at how large the population is and how well the government is working, and wonder if it's any worse or better than America's capitalist version of democracy.
What happens when China or India decide that they need to police the world in what is an appropriate way to run a country?
Yet China and India's population are so astoundingly out of proportion with the rest of the world, I am surprised it isn't them that we hear more of. I haven't even place India into my 'understanding the world' mental picture yet.
My main point is about moving a highly populated country TO a democracy. I look at the American civil war and how many lives were lost during that, and then wonder about the implications of allowing opposing ideas to rise. My initial reaction to the 'communist' regime in China is that it's wrong. But I then look at how large the population is and how well the government is working, and wonder if it's any worse or better than America's capitalist version of democracy.
What happens when China or India decide that they need to police the world in what is an appropriate way to run a country?
People do not vote as per their conscience in India due to the rampant poverty
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/836-million-indians-live-on-less-...
Voting in elections != Democracy
If one group successfully causes enough political unrest, and 5% of the population supports and follows this group, that's a total of 66,500 000 people, the current population of the UK. Its astounding when you start looking at numbers like this. USA, UK, Europe and the Western world will just be a distant memory when China and India start becoming major players.
How can a democracy successfully emerge when you have the potential to introduce great divergence and even possibly civil war?