The US critisizes the Chinese communists for the iron control they exercise over their people. But how necessary is this strict control to stop China
moving towards anarchy ? Could China survive as a Western democratic society ?
P.S. I don't believe in Communist ideals in any way.
|
From my reading of the situation I don't think china would "break up" in any signifigence sence. The control is maintained to keep down democratic
elements in society, not like russia, to stop it from fragmenting.
China has been the same for the last 2000 years, just the heads at the top and the express philosophy has changed.
The underlying social structures, like the importance of social contacts to faciliatate social harmony and achieve aims, is as old as China itself.
If china had a revolution it would be to introduce more democratic processes into the society itself, that was the intention of the students. Not an
overthrow of the entire system.
Often, from my reading, when people are asking for more democracy in China, they don't have a specific system to replace it in mind, they are just
sick of the tight controls on their lives and the authoratarian decision making structures.
|
i think in a major revolution some provinces (Tibet for instance) would break away, but most of China would remain intact
|
A fascinating topic: there is a very real sense in which China is the "last empire" - but the incredible sense of unity felt by Chinese (including
still the 80m -last count -overseas Chinese) suggests that the "Chinese" parts will endure come what may.
The division in China is already very great: the increasing wealth of the urban east and the grinding poverty of the rural population; but while
this may give rise to social conflict: 2,500 years of history, shared culture, and Confucianism give a coherence to the nation that makes political
disintegration almost unthinkable.
The vast Western provinces: Tibet, Turkmenistan, Sinjiang are very un-Chinese and poor and empty, likewise Inner Mongolia - without China they'd
jsut starve. Tibet, incidentally has been so vigourously "re-populated" by Han Chinese that it is effectively Chinese.
To be sure, these "new Tibetans" are very poor and very disillusioned but that would not make them secede.
"Communism" as a theoretical/philosophical construct is largely irrelevant now -the strong centarlised government and military are still vital: but
the point to make is that change will occur within the same borders, as it were: muuch as it has done repeatedly, with enormous bloodshed, over the
last century.
This unity goes as deep as the very language: you cannot be "Chinese" and a "foreigner": a Chinese abroad stays Chinese -the phrase for
foreigner can only mean " not Chinese".
It is often said -with some justification -that regardless of his/her passport and birthplace,a Chinese is always a Chinese.
|
