By Frank Ching
China’s economic growth has been remarkable. But continuing to rely on the notion of a benevolent dictatorship is a serious mistake.
The deadly train collision in Wenzhou last month may put a dent in the ‘China model’ of economic growth, but the concept itself is likely to be enduring for two reasons – China’s remarkable achievements since the late 1970s, and the financial crisis that continues to ravage the West. Indeed, if Beijing handles the aftermath of Wenzhou properly, the tragedy may come to be seen as an example of Beijing’s ability to fix shortcomings in its own growth model.
The term ‘China model’ is a Western invention, but has gained currency over the last half dozen years, both in China and overseas. Premier Wen Jiabao has actually said that China doesn’t see China’s development as a model for anyone, saying that all countries should choose paths that suit their particular national conditions.
However, since the West has been laid low by financial crises in the United States and Europe, and with the Japanese economy stagnant for two decades, the so-called Washington Consensus of combining market economics with democracy has lost much of its appeal in many parts of the world, especially among countries with non-democratic governments.
In addition, Beijing’s good relations with developing countries in general means that they will inevitably look to China – and its authoritarian government able to make decisions without interference from an elected legislature, opposition political parties or a free press – as part of their own modernization efforts.
And, despite Wen’s reticence, other Chinese officials haven’t been slow to contrast China’s rapid development with the problems in the democratic West. Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying, in a recent interview with Der Spiegel, pointed out that ‘at the moment it is the Western governments that are having problems.’ Why, she asked, have so many governments made so many mistakes? Why have political parties made commitments they can’t fulfil? And why do they spend so much more than they have? Democracy alone, she said, can’t put food on the table.
She went on to indicate that democracy shouldn’t be necessarily be equated with a multiparty election system, a position shared by other proponents of the China model. It’s a view echoed by Thus Han Zhu, a research fellow at the Sinologizing Research Center, who says that the emphasis should be on good governance, not democracy.
In an article in China Daily he wrote: ‘In the West, democracy is reflected only at the time of elections, but in China democracy has to navigate the entire process of administration, which puts enormous pressure on the government.’ He said polls conducted by the Pew Research Center and others reflect ‘the degree of satisfaction of Chinese people toward the speed and direction of the current development process.’
Another commentary published this month in China Daily, meanwhile, took direct aim at the United States. ‘The debt crisis has exposed the defects rather than the advantages of its system,’ the commentary said. ‘Even many US citizens have appealed for introspection and reform of the country’s political system.’
‘Democracy cannot solve every problem. It is not the be all and end all of political structures, and it should learn from the experiences and advantages of other political systems,’ it concluded.
Yet while Chinese commentators have been scathing of the United States, and keen to talk up China’s achievements, they generally concede that the China model can’t simply be copied by other countries. Zhang Weiwei of the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, for example, describes China as a ‘civilization-state,’ a status that can be claimed by few, if any, other countries. Still, he argues that ‘as China rises, the influence of the Chinese Model on the outside world will likely be greater and greater.’
How? Zhang says that some concepts, such as the idea that ‘good versus poor governance is far more important than democratic versus authoritarian government,’ might resonate overseas. And, on the face of it, this is an attractive idea – China certainly boasts a government capable of making major decisions that are frequently in the interests of the people.
Photo Credit: World Economic Forum
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
AO
I find some of the comments made in this article very shallow and would suggest that some of you learn more about the hystorical culture of the Chinese, and better yet visit the country instead of listening to rhetorics coming from your biased news reports on China. Get first hand information from the people!
The main reason that politicians in the West tend to lecture their counter parts in the developing world is because the majority of them are lawyers! Politician in China are intelluctuals with most of them having engineering degrees. They tend solve problems instead of preaching rhetorics as politicians in the West have a habit to do in order to get elected. I believe in what a politician in Asia said that ‘democracy is a game for the rich’! Just look at the US where they are taking their system and people to!
nirvana
@AO,
Thank you for the lesson.
Eureka! An engineer-focused, four-step solution to the South China Sea dispute is: Firstly, draw a dotted line. Secondly, fill the area inside with patrollers. Thirdly, if anybody opposes with international law, display an aircraft carrier. Finally, if the US intervene, propose a win-win split into spheres of influence.
But I am puzzled. G.W Bush is not an engineer. How did he find such a solution to start his Iraq war?
novoice
definitely a good article .. will start following more of frank ching
Mike
Who is Thus Han Zhu and what is the Sinologizing Research Center? I was finding it difficult to source your work.
jeff
I find it quite sad that the Western World is being kept in the dark by their own media and governments about the brutality of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). All everyone talks about is finances. Bob Dylan said it well: Money doesn’t talk, it swears!
Nobody seems to know or care about the eighty million of its own people the CCP murdered since it took power in 1949.
There are five hundred thousand very rich people in Red China and over one billion who pay over twelve different taxes to keep this half a million in style. There are no human rights whatsoever.
There is an attempted genocide right now of the tens of millions of innocent Falun Gong practitioners in Mainland China.This genocide consists of slavery, torture, organ harvesting and murder. One doctor just confessed to removing the cornea from one thousand living children’s eyes to sell to rich Westerners and CCP members. Unthinkable atrocities.
The list of heinous crimes is too long and all of these crimes are being ignored by the West because of corporate greed. Thank you for your consideration.
John Chan
@jeff:
You are told not get close to Falun Gong, they can cast spell on you and make you go berserk. See what have you done to yourself.
Godknows
@John Chan
As a demon hunter living through several hundreds years in China, I have to told you a terrible truth: Mr.@jeff had his brain eaten by zombies.
– Hold the Holy Bible, pray to God, and He will tell us something from inner side.
Dana Soren
Scale of internet paid spinners by CCP:
50 centers = proficient in English and idioms.
40 centers = students of economics, who can twist facts.
30 centers = students of history, who want to write fiction.
20 centers = high school students, who want to become 50 centers.
10 centers = rabble rousers, who have poor command in English, and like being on the internet.
00 centers = interns, who are considering 50 centing as a career option / for beefing up a lightweight resume.
John Chan
@Dana Soren:
You need to tell us what is the pay scale for the internet spinners working for the predatory imperialist Westpac neo-cons, so the internet spinners can compare the pay scales and work for better pay to improve their living standard, otherwise people need to borrow excessively in order to live beyond their means like the people in the Westpac.
BTW Dana, which scale are you on? So that other spinners could have a reference what they should ask.
ozivan
@Dana Soren. Scale of fees for internet spinners for CCP living in democratic western countries.
= proficient in English and idioms.
= enthusiasts of economics, who can straighten facts.
= enthusiasts of history, who want to search for truths and correct history
written by victors.
= 40+ years work experience, 25 years of which involved with politics with a
political party which was, and still is, in the ruling party of a democratic
country in all those 25 years.
= consider me a rabble rousers, if you wish, who have good command in English,
and like being on the internet.
= On interns, who are considering a career option / for beefing up a
lightweight resume, I am more than happy to mentor them.
That’s me. My charge ? FREE OF CHARGE to China/CCP !!
Fair reporting and comments are all I ask for.
Will gladly speak up for the US or any country who are similarly denigrated unfairly.
nirvana
Many dictatorships not only cling to power but also make sure that they are irreplaceable. They practise cleansing so that a regime change means chaos.
A blogger with screen name Sinodefender, wrote elsewhere: “each time there is unrest in China, millions die”. This was his justification for Tiananmen 1989. And from a human consideration, the logic is implacable. Today, a sudden regime change is not only terrible chaos in China, it will also send aftershocks to the entire region if not the entire world. This is well understood by all governments, especially the US government who did the unfortunate experiment with Iraq (despite friendly warnings from the French).
So what are we hoping for? A slow positive change WITHOUT VOLTE-FACE. Is it possible? Perhaps, but not when we accept as truth, unsupported claims such as “separation of powers, isn’t the right way forward for China”.
Agreed, Western-type democracy is not applicable to a nation like China. But separation of powers is a must. Without separation you have concentration. Slowly perhaps, insidiously certainly. Whether single-party or multi-party, if you allow concentration then the system will work like a (badly designed) nuclear reactor. At some point the regulation mechanism will break, the security valves will break. Then shutting it down will be worse than leaving it alone, hoping that the “critical point” will never be reached.
The title of this article could be: “What if China model is like Fukushima Dai Ichi”
yang zi
@ozivan,my friend, you are still living in the past.look to the future.
yang zi
that was meant for @nirvana
ozivan
Haha…No worries Yang Zi
nirvana
@Yang zi,
Thank you for the friendly advice. But what about YOU? Are you ready to forget the “Century of Humiliations”?
No, in fact keep it. Because it is always good to learn from your past sins, the uncensored past, the non-selective past, the recent past, even if it is shameful and painful, even when it makes a dent in the narrative of glorious episodes.
Rather, are YOU ready to advocate the use of modern international laws, and only international laws, to resolve territorial disputes? Are YOU ready to trash the “undeniable historical proofs”, from “immemorial time”? Are YOU ready to advocate that China relinquish her nine-dotte line claim (1948) of the South China Sea?
I can understand if you say you can not answer. But I would really appreciate your courage if you say YES, as well as your sincerety if you could detail the reasons why you say no.
The question is to YOU, because I believe you are sincere.
Passerby
@Nirvana
Good points. I can’t speak for Yang zi but I think even the most pro-west and die-hard anti-communist Chinese can not forget the “century of humiliations” as you have quoted Yang zi.
Mao has been criticized in China but not as much as the West would have liked to see. He has been judged as having done 70% good and 30% bad for the Chinese nation and the regime has decided to accentuate the 70% of his.
Why haven’t Chinese judged Mao as harshly as the West has? I believe it’s a matter of culture. Chinese culture judges political leaders on both grounds of “intention” and “result” and Chinese culture makes allowances for ‘mitigating circumstances’ when judging their political leaders, whereas Western culture judges political leaders by results only. And the electorate in the West suffers heavily from a human disease called ‘recency syndrome’ – that one judges others based on the most recently memorable good or most recently memorable bad.
The Chinese culture is one of balancing ‘reason’ (道理) and ‘reasonableness’(人情), whereas the Western culture is one of mostly ‘reason’.
That’s why in my opinion, Ai Wei Wei doesn’t resonate with the majority of the Chinese people precisely because of his lack of ‘reasonableness’ even though he may have all the reasons in the world to be angry at the regime.
As to your other item in regards to international law and Taiwan’s nine-dotted map (1948) that the PRC inherited, I am not going to argue on a forum like this because it’s just impossible to make historical and legal arguments via this venue (being selfish, if I am going to do that, I would publish it in a scholarly journal to give some polish to my CV and not to waste it on a forum). Suffice to say that it’s unfair to portray, as the media in the West has, that only China resorts to making a historical claim to the SCS, the fact of the matter is, all claimants rely on history to stake their claims and no international law is acceptable when it comes to the sacred matter of sovereignty.
yang zi
@nirvana, the answer is yes and no, 9 dotted line is here to stay. question to you, are you willing to hire a reformed criminal? China is stuck with a CCP with criminal past, but it is totally dominated by people who were victims of the criminal past. a cup with new tea if you will.
ozivan
@Passerby. Once again, I am impressed, especially your explanation of the “recency syndrome”. Something I just learned, even at my late age today.
nirvana
@Yang zi & Passerby,
Thank you for replying. Obviously, I did not fully convince you. But I appreciate that we have a constructive dialogue. Perhaps, I should meditate on the balance between “reason” and “reasonable” before I react. I would like nevertheless to respond here to some of your arguments.
-The “9 dotted line”. I can show how China has trapped herself in an imbroglio with a single example: the cutting of Binh Minh 2’s seismic cables as reported in The Diplomat on 12 June. See also (http://unclos1982.com/2011/06/21/how-china-can-avoid-next-conflict-minxin-pei/) for detailed maps and discussions.
Apart from these technical discussions. The public (Chinese too) is entitled to ask simple questions: is cable-cutting the mission of a sea patroller? If this is inside their (our) territory, why didn’t they (we) book and fine instead? Why did their (our) 3 sea patroller vessels retreat after? Did they report “mission accomplished”?
How do you answer to that? I know that “high-ranking” people know the answers: not all the waters within the 9 dotted line are China’s and the waters where the incident occurred are not Chinese. Further, it was not a single incident. The pattern of China behaviour is not assertiveness, nor restrain. I would not even elevate it to “arrogance”, simply harassment. This alone shows that China does not believe she is in her right.
-“Better tea in an old cup”. Yang zi said that post-Mao leaders are trustworthy because they were victims themselves of Mao. I accept to give the benefit of doubt. But what about future generations? When will Chinese engrave in their constitution “never, never of this again”?
-The “70/30 verdict” on Mao heritage. I have many questions. Which methodology was used? Is this a verdict “from heaven” or is it a real consensus? What do ordinary Chinese know about the 30% bad? I would love to read China’s “Warren report” version and their “Khrushchev report” version.
-So much for the value of “use the past (mistakes) to orient the future” (Confucius again). Let me correct that “Recency Syndrome” is not a disease but the observed manner of how a (normal) human brain works. There is a disease called Alzheimer which has the opposite symptoms. And it usually leads to dementia. I am not aware of any comparative statistics of this disease between Asians, Caucasians, Africans, Latinos or else. But I am sure, no particular Culture is a risk factor. Age is a proven risk factor.
Passerby
@nirvana
First, as I said earlier, I am not going to address the legal and historical arguments on a forum like this (and I already gave my reasons as to why).
Second, if we were to use Minxin Pei’s article as a reference, in which he said and I quote: “…But that isn’t the case with the Paracels, which China has effective control over, but which Vietnam continues to claim. The 200-mile EEZ of the Paracels and the 200-mile EEZ extending from Vietnam’s coastal line overlap. According to reports, the incident in which a Chinese patrol boat severed the multi-million dollar seismic survey cable operated by a PetroVietnam research vessel took place in this disputed zone…”
So the incident happened inside and NOT outside the disputed zone. There are different reports and God knows what exactly happened since there was not any independent, apolitical reports on this incident. Reports came only from China, or Vietnam or known anti-China sources, or Western sources that provided no independent verification. Let’s take it the cable cutting incident is true, then was China’s action in the Binh Minh incident a harassment? I think so.
But I have also read and viewed video interviews regarding Chinese fishermen harrassed by Vietnamese naval patrols, and non-mainland Chinese journalists and NGO workers being fired upon by the Vietnamese while approaching one of the disputed waters.
My understanding is that both China and Vietnam (at the governmental level) have refrained from publicizing incidents of harrassment, committed by both sides. But the Chinese side got reported by Western media and understandably further promoted by a large contingent of overseas Vietnamese who used these incidents to not only denounce China but to denounce the current Vietnamese regime that they so much despise. The same incidents are often written completely differently by overseas Vietnamese groups when they are written in English and in Vietnamese.
Third, the other reference you cited (http://unclos1982.com/2011/06/21/how-china-can-avoid-next-conflict-minxin-pei/) is actually from a Vietnamese source. How do I know it’s a Vietnamese source? From three clues: (a) some common English mistakes by Vietnamese writers, (b) I know the source of the map used in your cited blog down to the colours and shades; it was originally drawn up by a Vietnamese group called East Sea Research Foundation (translated from Vietnamese and I’m not giving its English name or Web address here (note: it uses a different name in English) because I do not want to promote any one side of the dispute), c) the blog itself that you quoted as a reference has no identification; an indication of something fishy; and when you combine that with (a) and (b), you know that’s a Vietnamese source promoting the Vietnamese side of the story. Nothing wrong with that, but the fact that the blog has no identity is simply not credible.
Fourth, ‘recency syndrome’ is a disease in a political sense, its meaning is well known among pollsters and industrial psychologists and it’s a human frailty that a liberal democracy is ill equipped to deal with. Chinese are not immume to the recency syndrome if China is to adopt Western style liberal democracy. For your information, I know what Alzheimer is because one of my family members is experiencing it.
Fifth, you stated that “… So much for the value of “use the past (mistakes) to orient the future” (Confucius again)…”
Actually, what he said was, literally, “reviewing something old is equivalent to learning something new” (温古如知新) and he referred not only to mistakes but to refer to the idea that we need to appreciate knowledge, whether it’s old or new.
nirvana
@Passerby,
I am sorry to hear that a member of your family has Alzheimer. Please accept my sympathy to the person who has to take care of him/her. I know this is an enormous task.
Thanks for correcting my hastily quote of Confucius. I am confused. If I am walking with two men… No, I will stop here! Let’s get back to our debate.
Firstly, thanks for noting that I referenced both sides. The second reference is almost surely Vietnamese. But why should it matter if they back their arguments with technical details?
Secondly, if you remove the 9 dotted line from “their” map the incident is not in a disputed area, even accepting that all the Paracels and Spratlys belong to China. If you draw your own UNCLOS map, it will essentially lead to the same conclusion. Put back the “9 dotted line”, almost every thing is a disputed area.
Thirdly, did the incident occur at all, or as told? I draw my conviction from the following observations: It is a seismic survey vessel, so it has to know accurately its position. The vessel is leased by the Vietnamese, the captain is not Vietnamese. The videos from the Binh Minh identified the Chinese vessels and recorded their actions. The Chinese patrol vessel must have recorded videos too, but we can’t have access to these videos (“restrain”?). There was no absolute denial by the Chinese government (the Chinese Foreign Ministry simply said that sea patrollers did what they are entitled to do). General Liang Guanglie, when asked to comment in Shrangi La, a few weeks later, simply replied “PLAN was not involved”. It is very difficult to deny that it was anything else than a type of threat-then-retreat action (if not sabotage). You lose your legitimacy and you create a dangerous situation that next time your are in your right to police, the inadvertently offending vessel refuse to obey. Who ever conducted such mission, whoever gave the order for such actions must be severely reprimanded, because it is contrary to the laws of sea, whether in territorial waters, EEZ waters, disputed waters or high sea.
I did not claim that harassments of fishing boats are only Chinese acts. I concur that all claimants , “big or small”, of the SCS did the same. The contrary would be surprising if you look at a map. By censoring its own media coverage of the past incidents, not only Vietnam has a problem with its public, but China too. I am amused that censoring the press while letting the sea patrollers playing cowboys is called “showing restrain”. I would rather qualify this as “looking for a fight”, insidiously. The Vietnamese government knows what this means because, I hope, they remember the “Tonkin Gulf incident”.
The bottom line of my argumentation is: by putting into the ordinary Chinese imagination that the “9 dotted line” is here to stay, you will have the painful job to explain to them that in fact it is not true, starting perhaps with “70% true and 30% false” (same for Vietnamese if they believe all the Paracels and Spratlys are theirs). If I have to accuse China of arrogance in the SCS dispute, I would say drawing the “9 dotted line” and imposing your own law within it is effectively arrogance. Indeed it is justified then to do the “what if?” exercises.
Passerby
@nirvana
I think I’m not going to continue with this thread because at the end of the day, maps are drawn based on history, and people can argue about history until the cows come home. If a historical argument involves the question of sovereignty dispute, then the only way you can resolve it is through political negotiation, or war. I would be happy to indulge myself in historical and legal arguments with an audience if and only if I can gain some scholarly credit for doing it but I’m not going to do it for free on the Internet. By the way, if anyone is interested, contact his office, the Vietnamesse side just handed over a truckload of documents to senator Jim Webb.
Finally, you said “…The second reference is almost surely Vietnamese. But why should it matter if they back their arguments with technical details?…” Well it matters because when you present a document that takes a position but without full disclosure, it’s called ‘inadmissable evidence’ if not fraud.
ciao!
nirvana
@Passerby,
You MISUNDERSTOOD that I wanted to debate on SOVEREIGNTY issues here. In fact, I had started one, with Blogger Sinodefender, but ran out quickly of opponents. Here is the link, which may help your scholarly researches:
http://the-diplomat.com/asean-beat/2011/08/08/chinas-asean-benevolence/#respond
I wanted to stress the poisonous effect of the “9 dotted line”, a Chinese attitude which leaves no room for negotiation and certainly not bilateral negotiations, a policy that internationalizes de facto the SCS dispute. Sincerely, I wanted to convince that it is not good for China. If you think China can still impose “war or closed door negotiation with me”, let the future tell.
I take note of your last two points (“Senator Jim Webb” and “unclos1982.com” anonymity), which I concede have some validity. Nevertheless, to understand the dispute in the SCS, I prefer information in the unclos1982.com. Fraud or not, with technical claims, I can verify. Even if it is proved to be a Vietnamese site, I by far give it more credibility than to this one:
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/662453/China-must-react-to-Vietnams-provocation.aspx
The language of this post is really awkward compared to the image your country wants to show, that the patriotic Chinese want to show, and I am sure that you want to show.
But if you want to stop, let’s stop. It is always a pleasure to argue with you, in the future.
John Chan
@nirvana:
It seems your discontent is the result of you prejudice against China mindset. If you are open minded and objective, the following questions should be asked.
1. Since Philippines and Vietnam already knew all islands within that nine dashes were Chinese land, why did Philippines and Vietnam still take aggressive actions to encroach Chinese territory and became invaders?
2. Why did Philippines and Vietnam behave like Fascist Japan, using all kind of excuses to justify their invasion and blaming China at fault?
3. Why do Philippine and Vietnam have to behave like Somalia pirates to rob China resources in SCS? Due to their bandit actions China has to spend time and money to sanction their illegal activities inside the nine dashes in order to maintain safe and free seaway passage in SCS, should China ask the UN to share those security costs?
4. How Mao was accessed is Chinese internal affairs, it is none non-Chinese business. Why does it become an affair that needs your scrutinization? Is it because you are a lackey of the predatory imperialist that you think you have the divine right to meddle other nation’s internal affairs?
5. I also have many questions about the 30,000 pair shoes lady Imelda Marcos who used Philippines’ national treasury as her personal purse. Why didn’t Philippines treat her like Chinese treated Mao with honesty? Instead Philippines treated her like royalty, what was the methodology Philippines used to let her return to Philippine? Was it because her 30,000 pair of shoes a national achievement for the Philippines that no other nation had done it before? What were the backroom deals to let her return to Philippines as royalty and ran for presidential election too? Would Philippines ever bother to produce “Warren report” or “Khrushchev report” on such greasy dealing?
Above all, why do Philippines and Vietnam want to be willing lackeys for the predatory imperialist Westpac, haven’t they suffered enough in the hands of their ex-colonial masters and invaders? Are they suffering Stockholm syndrome?
nirvana
@John Chan,
After comparing the XX Millions deaths by Mao’s “30% mistakes” to the 300 thousands deaths of the Nanjing Rape by Imperial Japan Army, here we are with the 30 thousands pairs of shoes of Lady Marcos. I think you have the same dark humour as Mao. I think we should stop, don’t you?
John Chan
@nirvana:
Yes, both of us made our points, but marginalizing the victims of the Nanjing Massacre who died tragically by the murderous Fascist Japanese hands is heartless. Trying to turn those victims into a triviality is inappropriate, not appreciated, and disrespectful of the dead.
John Chan
@nirvana:
1. Tiananmen Square incident was taken for granted by the westerners and all anti-China people as an eternal black mark of China, they used it as a punch bag against China without hesitation. Actually the Tiananmen Square incident was a creation of NYT, NYT created the massacre to slander China on behalf of the US and UK black information authorities. The fact is that there was no massacre in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. But there were violence caused hundreds or thousands dead of civilians and soldier in elsewhere in Beijing due to rioting.
2. Yes, division of powers like in the Three Principles of the People is ideal; hope China can make it someday.
3. I believe you are Filipino. Can I ask you “are YOU ready to advocate the use of modern international laws, and only international laws, to resolve territorial disputes in Philippines where places are claiming independence, such as in Luzon, Mindanao, etc.? Are YOU ready to trash the sovereignty claim on Luzon, Mindanao, etc.? Are YOU ready to advocate that Philippines relinquish her claim on Luzon, Mindanao, etc.?”
I too encourage you to say YES, so that a lot of bloodshed could be avoided; please detail the reasons why you say no.
http://external-affair.blogspot.com/
The China model might stay for some time to come. However, if China keeps behaving the way it does now, i.e. extremely secretive and repressing the masses, the model might soon turn turtle.
The Communist party is increasingly facing criticism form its citizens and surprisingly the state owned media. Social networking, even though censored is still a major concern for the party. Mindless infrastructure projects like the three gorges dam, which displaced many and might soon be rendered useless (thanks to silting), foment anger against the government.
Restricted movement within the country, forced demographic aberrations, ageing population, increasing wages, etc will all lead to discontent and are highly inflammable mix for a Jasmine revolution.
ozivan
@Mr Frank Ching. Thank you very much for a brilliantly written article on China’s political issues, one that I haven’t read for a very long time. Most of all, you wrote it along the following salient points :
1. You did not denigrate or condemn the Western political system of democracy, though you discussed about the ills that are now besetting democracies.
2. It was indeed helpful that you raised the issue of expounding the China model, when you observed that :
Quote.
The term ‘China model’ is a Western invention, but has gained currency over the last half dozen years, both in China and overseas. Premier Wen Jiabao has actually said that China doesn’t see China’s development as a model for anyone, saying that all countries should choose paths that suit their particular national conditions.
Unquote.
In that quote, there shows the fundamental difference between Asian and Western cultures. Asian leaders are always very careful not to be seen as lecturing others, trumped, gloat, or sell the idea of the superiority of their cultures, political systems, value systems, or policies (though it may not be said of individuals speaking privately).
Western leaders habitually lecture their hosts touting and trumping their western values, human rights and democracy as superior to anything else, when they’re on official visits to Asian countries, particularly at China.
3. Overall, in my opinion it was a good presentation of Chinese thoughts and perpectives. I see it as not overly important that it might not agree with western views, but more importantly we do not denigrate western values and systems when discussing the subject.
4. Re: Democracy. You wrote : In the end, no political system can be stable if there’s no system for replacing unpopular government short of staging a revolution.
I am inclined to agree with you. I have faith that, within 20-30 years, China will become a young and vibrant democracy, wealthy, healthy and thriving like the Western democracies in the 1950’s to 1990’s.
At worst, hopefully, at least it’ll be a strong one party system, with GREAT MEASURES of FREEDOMS for its people. The British didn’t give her colonies free elections before their independence, only great measures of freedom, and it worked.
Time will tell.
PS: Mr Frank Ching, I have read your articles over the last 10 years, some of which in the Asiantimes, and this article is outstanding.