« Cancelling classes to conference? | Main | Flaunting »
Saturday, September 09, 2006
China
Ross Terrill revives the old chestnut that China will be unable to maintain political authoritarianism in the face of economic liberalization. I have no doubt that there is some truth to that.
But I think there is some much more interesting going on within China's political landscape that will serve to destabilize authoritarianism faster than cellphones and the internet (for how authoritarianism can also control the "borderless" internet, see the very good chapter on China in Goldsmith & Wu). In short, local officials in China's provinces are experimenting with forms of "deliberative democracy," giving citizens a very real opportunity to discuss and control who governs them and how. It is a process that is only beginning -- but it contains, in my opinion, faster-germinating seeds of democratization. For more, pick up a copy of "The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China" this October. For a faster and cheaper account of one of these experiments, see this article in Time/Asia. A more scientific report of the episode recounted in Time appears in my forthcoming book.
Posted by Ethan Leib on September 9, 2006 at 10:39 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d834e5c88769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference China:
Comments
Economic liberalization and the decline of authoritarianism have very little to do with each other, at least in the Chinese context. The story of China today is of a very effective authoritarian state that skillfully uses selective market liberalization to maintain its power. As long as the experiments are disparate and don't coalesce into a national movement, its a good way to vent pressure. Meanwhile, it is the remarkable advances in standards of living that result from economic liberalization that otherwise keep the pressure off.
Terrill's article doesn't seem to make any conclusion, but is a respectable conventional wisdom affirming day-in-the-life-of China. The Japan analogy is flawed according to most financial minds, because of China's size, it will be thirty years before it implodes the way Japan did. I think Professor Leib's implicit argument that seeding democracy through experiments such as the one documented in the Time article is possible but problematic. I think the biggest problem is bridging the ignorance divide that manifests itself in comments like Bleepless's. Come on, people, let's realize that talking about China's authoritarian regime as "Communist" is totally misleading and counterproductive. I look forward to reading your book, Professor Leib.
Generally, this topic wearies me because things are said about it at such a level of abstraction and without real local knowledge. It reminds me of what Cheng Li wrote: "If you visit China for two weeks, you want to write a book; if you stay in China for two months, you want to write an article; if you live in China for two years, you don't want to write anything." ~ Cheng Li, Rediscovering China
Posted by: Bart Motes | Sep 10, 2006 9:46:01 PM
Yawn. Over how many decades has the NYT done that? Again and again and again, their gurus have found one pretext after another for claiming that tyranny in each and every Communist country was breathing its last. They even found moderation in Stalin's defeat of Trotsky. When there is a small, temporary setback (e.g., Brezhnev), they are confident that it can't last and, besides, it is our fault. Always and forever, their policy suggestion is the same: give the Communists what they want. When there actually was a major structural change -- Gorbachev's USSR -- the NYT did not much like it because it endangered the Socialist triumphs they so love.
Posted by: Bleepless | Sep 9, 2006 10:04:30 PM
Authoritarianism in Chinese history has a solid basis in necessity.
During the 50's Professor Karl Wittfogel of Columbia created the theory of "hydraulic despotism". He noted that all the ancient despotisms, China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Gupta India, etc, were characterized by dependence on wet agriculture and a corresponding need for water control on a huge scale. A society based on wet agriculture can produce massive amounts of grain and support a huge population. It also requires a class of engineer bureaucrats to supervise the non stop construction and repair work. A class of engineer bureaucrats that can conscript forced labor to repair irrigation ditches can also conscript forced labor to build Pyramids, Great Walls, ziggurats, temples, palaces, Hanging Gardens, etc. All the monumental construction projects that advertise the size and might of the state.
China has two immense rivers that need massive water control. When the Chinese government is weak the rivers silt and then flood. When they flood the death toll is in six figures. A society that is constantly battling the elements will need a strong government.
Posted by: Charles Warren | Sep 9, 2006 10:01:25 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.