Simon (of Simon World) says:
"I've written a piece titled Post Communist China, which asks what is the plan if and when the Communist Party falls? What is the best way to ensure a liberal democracy takes root and what are the potential alternatives? I would appreciate your comments and thoughts. It is a debate that needs to happen before, not after, the fall."
Interesting premise, and Kate of The Roadkill Diaries also has a recent letter from Guangzhou that's worth your time. Yeah, Winds has a few thoughts and resources to offer....
- To answer those sorts of scenario questions, it helps to be able to chart the underlying trends and forces in a society right now, then group them and look at the different stories they might tell. Winds' comprehensive post on China's Stresses, Goals, Military Buildups... and Futures offers some of that, along with tips on how to do that analysis.
- You can also find trends, indicators, and possibilities in my Oct. 2004 China framework article, which adds contributions from a number of readers on each point.
- After reading Simon's thoughts, some of his issues are addressed directly in our recent piece about democracy, liberty and global development, which talks about China in particular. That post includes new insights into Barnett's "Pentagon's New Map" core/gap thesis, the China vs. India models, the idea of an intelligence/ knowledge base 'river' in every society, and why lack of "requisite variety" in China (i.e. a blocked river) may kill you or those you love.
Having thrown those out there, I'll start with a provocative idea:
Once the problem is framed in terms of requisite variety, could it be possible to have a non-Democratic China Post-CPC, that nonetheless takes steps in the right direction and so sets the stage for coping now and positive change later? What could that look like?
Back to you, Simon (and to our readers, too)....
UPDATE: New Winds Top Prospect (we rotate that blogroll now and again, as Den Beste-san did) Pundita responds to Simon World. (Hat Tip: Dave Schuler)
Your question is a good one, Joe, but there's an even more basic one: why a China? The economic development of the last twenty years hasn't been spread evenly across the country but concentrated in a fairly narrow band. Despite the customary designation of Chinese as a single language with several (mutually unintelligible) dialects it's actually a language family with several completely different languages.
There are forces that hold China together: the shared (but at least partially imaginary) history and traditions, the writing system, Han Chinese ethnicity, and the brute force of an authoritarian regime. There are also forces that could pull it apart: ethnic minorities, different languages, rapidly differentiating urban and rural cultures.
While I, like most people who read and comment here I'm sure, ardently hope for a democratic future for China, democracy will be difficult for China. Bureaucracy and corruption are the system there and I doubt that free elections will change that. There's elitism in the very fabric of Chinese culture and society: even with the writing simplification programs of the last 45 years or so real literacy remains somewhat elusive. I know there are claims of up to 90% literacy. I doubt it. Definitions of Chinese literacy I've seen require knowledge of 1,500 to 2,500 characters. That's it. That's what the “literate” peasants learn and most of the people are peasants. You need to know 2,500 to 7,000 characters to read a newspaper.
Do you need widespread real literacy for democracy? Probably not but I think that you do need upwards mobility.
Pundita responds to the same post from Simon's World.
Joe,
The premise is flawed. China already is post-communist. China has abandoned communism in favor of fascism. This may seem like a semantic point, but there is a real substantive distinction.
A communist China is a poor China without the means to fight a war of aggression. A fascist China can create enough wealth to do so.
The policy of engagement with China has failed. Rather than promoting liberalism, all we have accomplished is assist China in its quest to acquire the means for military aggression. China is following the path of Imperial Japan.
The engagement policy must be dismantled if a containment policy is to succeed.