China Geopolitical News Thread

[Engineer]

2) Totalitarian? Yes, from a one-party rule perspective

A party is formed when people gather. People gather to form a government, so a government is a party. A government is political in nature, so a government is also a political party. Now, how many countries have more than one government?

 

[SamuraiBlue]

A party is formed when people gather. People gather to form a government, so a government is a party. A government is political in nature, so a government is also a political party. Now, how many countries have more than one government?

One thing missing at the start in your faulted multi-step logic, people have opinion and people have similar opinion creates a party and people will always have different opinion on any certain subject therefore there will be more then one party.
A house of representatives working as the legislature arm of the government overseeing the executive arm is conformed by representatives of the people through general suffrage in which there will be more then one party talking to with one another to narrow the differences.
The only countries runned by a single party is considered either an authoritarian or totalitarian state and are only few in the present global community.

 

[xiabonan]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to Transparency International, China ranks 88/177 countries/regions.

India, another large developing country, with similar population as compared to China, who also boasts as "the world's largest democracy", ranks 94/177.

Russia, another large developing democracy, ranks 127/177. Much worse than China.

Greece, a much wealthier European developed democracy with much less population to govern as compared to China, ranks 80/177 as well.

Even Italy, Europe's fourth largest economy, one of the engines of the Euro zone, an important democracy and a developed country, does not fare much better than China. She ranks 69/177.

Furthermore, China's ranking has been consistently improving if you look at historical records.

At the same time one has to bear in mind that Transparency International is a NGO based in the West. There's no way their results will be biased for China or the CPC, although the opposite case might likely be true, in fact.

 

[Blackstone]

One thing missing at the start in your faulted multi-step logic, people have opinion and people have similar opinion creates a party and people will always have different opinion on any certain subject therefore there will be more then one party.
A house of representatives working as the legislature arm of the government overseeing the executive arm is conformed by representatives of the people through general suffrage in which there will be more then one party talking to with one another to narrow the differences.
The only countries runned by a single party is considered either an authoritarian or totalitarian state and are only few in the present global community.

You made some good points, SamuraiBlue, espacially about single party governance, but China's government and social structures can't be billed as lacking legitimacy and widespread support from the people. I read a poll earlier this year by a major and respected American opinion survey agency (may have been Pew or Gallup but I'm not 100% certain) that showed overwhelming support for CCP government in Beijing (over 70%), with about 60% support for Provincial government, and 40 to 50% for local government. Those numbers not only show great support for Communist governance, but also indicate majority of Chinese are relatively positive about China's current situation and future development.

 

[Blackstone]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to Transparency International, China ranks 88/177 countries/regions.

India, another large developing country, with similar population as compared to China, who also boasts as "the world's largest democracy", ranks 94/177.

Russia, another large developing democracy, ranks 127/177. Much worse than China.

Greece, a much wealthier European developed democracy with much less population to govern as compared to China, ranks 80/177 as well.

Even Italy, Europe's fourth largest economy, one of the engines of the Euro zone, an important democracy and a developed country, does not fare much better than China. She ranks 69/177.

Furthermore, China's ranking has been consistently improving if you look at historical records.

At the same time one has to bear in mind that Transparency International is a NGO based in the West. There's no way their results will be biased for China or the CPC, although the opposite case might likely be true, in fact.

But, does China compare herself to the likes of Greece, Russia, and India, or with countries like Germany and the United States? Pointing out China's better than Greece, Russia, or India (which is true) isn't saying much.

 

[xiabonan]

But, does China compare herself to the likes of Greece, Russia, and India, or with countries like Germany and the United States? Pointing out China's better than Greece, Russia, or India (which is true) isn't saying much.

Of course it says a lot.

It shows that corruption is not necessarily related to political system.

It shows that even an one-party system can improve in corruption and fare better than many democratic countries.

We do compare with different countries and set different targets for ourselves, that is only normal. For example, there's no way we can have a GDP per capita comparable to the Scandinavian countries, in pretty much the same way that those countries can't have a military force comparable in size to ours.

What this data suggests is very simple: Chinese government is not as corrupt as many stereotypically thought to be, and that there's no strong correlation between democratic system and an one-party system.

Furthermore, even compared to countries like the US, the gap might not seem as huge as it appears. In the States many political activities are legalised and does not constitute corruption, whereas such activities will be seen and dealt with as cases of such.

For example, in large and mature democracies, lobbying and political contributions are an important part of politics and elections. In the US for example, the legislature has already removed the cap of political contributions.

However, if you ask any person on the road in China, "do you think it is a case of corruption if a politician accepts money from individuals and firms?", they will almost certainly tell you "yes". In fact it is such a case in Chinese laws.

 

[xiabonan]

You made some good points, SamuraiBlue, espacially about single party governance, but China's government and social structures can't be billed as lacking legitimacy and widespread support from the people. I read a poll earlier this year by a major and respected American opinion survey agency (may have been Pew or Gallup but I'm not 100% certain) that showed overwhelming support for CCP government in Beijing (over 70%), with about 60% support for Provincial government, and 40 to 50% for local government. Those numbers not only show great support for Communist governance, but also indicate majority of Chinese are relatively positive about China's current situation and future development.

The reason is fairly simple. In the Past century or so ever since the fall of the Qing Dynasty, we have tried almost every single political system that there is in the world. Countless political organisations emerged, and as soon as they emerge there were drown in history.

None worked. People suffered. Wars were fought, and we were invaded again and again.

This may sound cheesy or too much communist propaganda, but it is true that the only party that provided us food, shelter, peace, security, stability, growth, prosperity, and global status, and gave us hopes of a brighter future, is the CPC.

By global status I don't mean countries all like us or look up to us. To be disliked or hated or feared is a kind of status as well.

It's much better than to be ignored, humiliated, trashed, unnoticed, discriminated, or called the "Sick Man of East Asia".

 

[delft]

A recent article in

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

chronicled addition of India, Pakistan, Mongolia, and Iran to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). It's an interesting read and there are much from the story to talk about. One item of note is how near-impossible it is to isolate and "contain" China, because she's simply too well integrated into global economic and political spheres to be contained. The news article also lend credence to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's assertion that the West can't effectively isolate Russia, because sanctions would also hurt Western nations, plus it has China's support. Food for thought.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The accession of new members is a two step process according to this article. The four countries can be invited and start the process with this conference. India and Pakistan will need to work towards at least a begin of a solution to their mutual problems while Iran's problems might get solved next November. There will be the unspoken threat that if say the US unreasonably obstruct the solving of Iran's problems in the eyes of China and Russia it might still be admitted.

 

[joshuatree]

...Those numbers not only show great support for Communist governance,..

You mean Communist governance with Chinese characteristics, considering the present form isn't true Communism.

 

[xiabonan]

You mean Communist governance with Chinese characteristics, considering the present form isn't true Communism.

I think he simply meant "governance by the Communist Party"