I think you got this very very wrong. The crucial difference is that China is not a democracy, no matter how you may think Chinese government is "working hard to rid of the inequality" and corruption, it is still not a democracy. Power that are not elected by the people, being centralized to just a few people with no check or balance and no one to question them breeds corruption. It is a reason why there are so many "tigers" (corrupt officials) in China, many stolen billions from the country and moved oversea.
Well said, and supportable by facts and not just opinions.
China's current political system breeds people like
there is no way for common people to dispose of a corrupt leader whose power is absolute.
Wrong. Philippines has a classical form of corruption where officials and elites take or demand bribes for actions, even if the actions go against the nation’s interests. Examples are public projects designed to fail, with officials and elites pocketing money while the public foot the debt.
China’s corruption, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly graft. It means Communist officials (what other kind of officials are there in China, hum…?) take tips/gifts/bribes to do their job. Wealth is transferred from the public to the plutocrats and economic rent seekers, but the city/province/nation get completed projects that are in line with what the nation needs. Examples are good schools, roads, rails, airports, harbors, condos, shopping centers, business districts, and so on.
On the other hand, democracy enable the system to have change, a system where people can change the course and direction of the whole country, dispose and prosecute corrupt politicans when courts (appointed by the said politican) can't; and get rid of incompetent public servants.
Empirical evidence show the world’s most economically successful nations (US, Japan, ROK, EU, UK, Canada, Australia…) completed or very close to completing their national development (economic, education, fair social/economic access for women and minorities) before embarking on full democracy (i.e., universal suffrage with open, multiparty elections). It’s a proven formula for success.
On the other hand, nations that democratized or attempted democracy before completing their national development are all basket cases. Examples are India, Philippines, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, Republic of China from 1912-1949, Ukraine, and many more.
There will come a time very soon that China will face critical problem it can't solve because the power that be does not want to change, and there is no one who can challenge that.
It’s my firm believe China will democratize some day, but it will be democracy with Chinese characteristics. It means “liberal democracy” is out; it wouldn’t work for China, and frankly, it isn’t clear if it works for the West either.
I see China transforming to some kind of democratic-meritocracy in about 50 years or so. It will still be an empire in that Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang can never leave. Democratic China will have a strong presidency (kind of like King Obama) and some degree of autocracy. It will also have an elected legislature that presides over a mostly independent judiciary. By mostly independent, I mean the legislature can overturn court rulings on super majority vote, just like the way Canada does.
It is because they are so used to the way it works, and people have refined and became so efficient at operating it, there is little incentive to upgrade to a costly new operating system that may perform worse than Windows XP (Vista remember? Windows 8 remember?). So people stopped upgrading and stucked at the old operating system.
