Western liberal democracy would be wrong for China

__________________________

Filmed at the Emmanuel Centre on 7th November 2012.

Event info:

People everywhere are better off living in liberal democracy: that has been the reigning assumption of the western world. But could it be we've got it wrong? If you were one of the world's billions of poor peasants might you not be better off under a system dedicated to political stability and economic growth -- one that has lifted 400 million out of poverty -- rather than one preoccupied with human rights, the rule of law, and the chance to vote out unpopular rulers? Thanks to the Chinese model of government life expectancy in Shanghai is now higher than in New York.

So is China better off without democracy? Or is that just the age-old mantra of the tyrant? That's the clash of civilisations that played out on November 7th.

[rogerfaint]

Key question?
Did Anson Chan pushed for free election in Hong Kong for its elected leader under British rule?
No, as long as she enjoyed high position as chief secretary of a colonial power, a freely elected leader by Hong Kong citizens for Hong Kong was not important.
So, why flaunt your abundance of hypocrisy when you did nothing to talk about free election under British rule?
Was corruption rife in Hong Kong under British rule?

[vrindavantodayofficial]

So this is from 2012. It is now 2019. After the election in 2016, I wonder who thinks the American system works better than the Chinese meritocracy.

[AT-lpqg]

I'm only in my 20s but this is my humble opinion.


The real reason why western liberal democracy does not work for China is because western democracy is born out of the cultural history of Europe. It was shaped by the ideals of the Roman, Greeks, the Enlightenment thinkers. It taken into account what is most valuable to Europeans and many Westerners. But the Chinese don't value those principles the same way. The Chinese is more pragmatic when Westerners are more idealistic.


Let's take this debate as an example. The supportive argument for the Chinese government is based on how much (statistically) China has lifted its people out of poverty and raised the standard of living. That's what matter most to Chinese. However, the support for democracy here was based on emotions and unquantifiable attributes like freedom of speech and universal suffrage. Because that's what matter most to Westerners - individual rights.
The reason why Western liberal democracy is wrong for China because the Chinese people don't value the principles of democracy as much as they value the principle of communism. Chinese people form their views based on their cultural heritage, where it taught them that UNITY is the most important, more important than individualism.
Asking Chinese to adopt western democracy is as nonsensical to them as asking Westerners to adopt communism, it goes against everything they value. Of course freedom of speech and right to vote sound nice, but to the Chinese would ask themselves, nothing is for free. What do we have to trade for those nice stuff? Chinese will be looking at many Western countries for the answer to that question. And what do they see? The democracy that is in practice in many western countries are much uglier than the ideals they preached. Let's take the US for example. Ideally, its leaders should be voted for and serve the people, but what happened is that leaders are voted in to serve the interest of corporations. The corporations is allowed to privatized their profits and communized loss. If they mess up, the people will bail them out. And if they mess up the environments, the people will foot the bill. Secondly, the parties are busy fighting among each other and nothing get done. The same thing is happening in Britain and Europe.


Of course you can say I'm diverting from the main arguments, but that where we got it wrong. We like to discuss democracy in its ideal form, in the way that the Enlightenment thinkers envision democracy should be. But when we discuss Communist China, we talk about all that went wrong. The Chinese is looking at Democracy the way Westerners look at Communism, what went wrong and how it actually is like in practice. So instead of asking when or how the Chinese could adopt the western democracy, we should try to solve our problems first. We can look at China and say they have so many problems, but then the Chinese would look at us and see all our problems. Why would they let go what they have now just so they can inherit a new set of problems.


What would happen to China is that they will continue to develop their nation economically where their citizens are wealthy enough to think about democratic ideals, but they probably will not adopt the democracy that we seeing now but they will develop their own version of it, taking into account what the Chinese people value most.

[kiwifruitkl]

While I was born in China and lived there for a few years, and travelled to China during summer vacation one time, I spent most of my days in the USA. My mother travelled to China twice, perhaps, and my father three times? Anyway, every time he went to China, he would visit his old hometown in the rural countryside. His rural relatives still lived together, but instead of in a village, they were lined up alongside the road, house by house. They told my father that they built the houses themselves, and my father was very impressed by the construction. It was a 2-story building. The rural relatives would still farm, but as you know, that would take a lot of time, so they would go to the city to make spare change and pocket money.

Just so you know, it's not that they don't have any rights in the city. It's just that they are not registered in the city. They are registered to the town in which they live, not the big nearby city.

[mreverbel]

I find it ironical that Anson Chan, when answering to the question of Hong Kong's non-democratic status during British colonial rule by stating that she was chosen on her qualifications and merits, was actually validating the CCPs form of government.

The CCPs method of choosing statesmen is structurally complex and based on objective factors, such as economic growth of cities, provinces, etc... (hence why they focus on it so much). It is definitely not a process under which some compulsive lier who filed for bankruptcy multiple times and raped numerous women would succeed in becoming President. Now his government is responsible for the numerous deaths of COVID-19 that the US is going to have, and answers with modern piracy, stealing medical equipment bought by other countries.

Anson Chan's talk made my stomach turn. I found it dishonest, in that it did not approach anything realistic and just attempted to convey as universal truths ideas that are specific to (some) westerners. It's vague and demagogic.

And last but not least: That that one woman at the end "spoke on behalf of the entire room" that the debate had been won, without even hearing the opinions of everyone else (let's remember that democracy means choice of all, not of the majority) and is applauded, shows that the British have a very opportunistic understanding of the ideas of democracy. Hell... history shows that.

[kimho]

7 years past, time is proving Weiwei and Matin is right,

[willyhwang]

Martin Jacques is one smart dude. His closing comment is spot on.

[elvishassassin]

1:28:09 Martin Jacques hit the nail on the head. As an ethnic Chinese who grew up in a Western country, I have clashed with my parents countless times over differences of value. Their ways of thinking and seeing the world were incomprehensible to someone like me who was fed liberal western values my whole life through the education system and media. I believed the Western system to be superior, however as I got older and saw the problems faced by Western democracies (particularly the US), my views shifted. I finally I am coming to understand my parents point of view, even if I don't agree with them. The two systems are fundamentally incompatible as Western society puts the individual first and Eastern society puts the collective first (the nation is just the family "writ large" as Margin Jacques so eloquently put it), which explains why Chinese people, despite internal disagreements, are so eager to unite to repel any foreign interference in their affairs, as well as the rising nationalism in recent years - which I believe is in reaction to the increasingly hostile anti-China narratives being peddled by Western media and governments. Regardless, I think East and West can and must learn to co-exist and co-operate in a globalized world and work together to solve problems that affect all of our futures.

Also I want to add to Jacques' point about the Chinese concept nation being equivalent to a large family. In fact, the Chinese word for "country" is 国家 which literally translates to "nation family". The character 国 translates to a physical "country" or "nation" and the character 家 translates to "family" or "home" (in Chinese it is the same concept). This is just one example that reflects the vast differences in thinking and conceptualising the world between China and the West.

[Lewis-zpdr]

Anson Chen said children of migrate workers do not have access to education, this is absolutely false! All young people are mandated to receive 9 years of school no matter rich or poor.

[kanzteo]

Its ironic that it takes a foreigner to understand China better than a chinese like Anson. Martin was furious about the nonsense Anson sprout. Utmost respect for Martin and Weiwei. They are so objective and rational in their analysis based on facts.

[chinahamyku]

Looking at this debate 10 years later, the answer may have become clear.
Churchill once said that "democracy (Western-style democracy) is indeed not a good thing, but it is indeed the best system that can be found so far." But as far as China is concerned, the elite political system currently adopted by China is indeed the best system that China can find so far, which is determined by Chinese history and culture.
The United States and the Western world are keen to talk about China's lack of democracy and human rights, and the Chinese are oppressed. If China is like this, how can China become the most dynamic economy in the world? Before the new crown epidemic, 120 million people traveled abroad every year, contributing 200 billion U.S. dollars in tourism consumption to the world every year? Why is totalitarian and unfree China's GDP six times that of democratic India? Why is the United States so unconfident in the face of a rising China today?
China's development over the past 40 years proves that the path China is taking is correct and conforms to China's actual situation. In the past 10 years, the Chinese have seen the decline or stagnation of the United States and the Western world, the chaos of democracy in the West, and the wanton destruction of globalization by the United States for its own self-interest. . . .
The Western world keeps promoting the so-called Western-style democracy to China. Its purpose is to expect that one day the two political parties in China will continue to fight each other, thereby hindering the development of the entire country. This is very evil and China will never fall into this trap.

[AprilsExit]

Ms. Chan is a representative of HK but not China. I'm sorry to say that but the truth is she dose not respect people from mainland and she does not know us at all. Facing so much negative news in EU about China, I once asked my grandparents if they are happy with the government. The answer was absolutely Yes! My grandma was even crying for that as she can live without starvation and having a good life. Whenever someone said You don't have democracy! You are under suppression!... I'm very much annoyed! If so, how can I stand here and talk to you about all the issues!?..Just drop a visit to China! It's a thriving country and it'll be prosperous in its own way: remarkably and peacefully!!

[rogerfaint]

85 million Indians died of starvation under 3 famines in India under British rule because the British forced Indians to plant cash crops like opium, instead of their traditional food crops.

[frankfeng]

Anson makes a point as valid as a growing up adolescent arguing on own liberty his/her parents. Martin, on the contrary, states a view as wise as a matured man retrospecting on his all past experience.

[edwachen]

Anson Chan argued that the income disparity is increasing between country side and urban areas. China has been aware of this, so recently China has increased the land supply in under-developed areas, but not urban areas. The purpose is to move the people back to rural areas that are undergoing massive development.

She also argued that China's growth would decline because it was not able to create local consumption. She was extremely shortsighted, because China has already announced that future economic growth would be led by local consumption.

She saw the problems (like many others could), but didn't expect that China could solve the problems.

On the other hand, Martin, in another speech in 2012 addressing an audience's question on what China should deal with aging population, predicted that China would give up the one child policy. This has really happened recently.

So, in terms of politics, who is an expert and who is a newbie is very clear.

[edward]

Facts: 1. In China today, you don't get sent to jail saying stuff even as a university professor in a class. Recently I heard an elaborate, detailed description and comment about what happened in Tian'anmen Square in 1989 in a lecture. I'm in a university in Beijing. Nothing happened to my teacher, and this wasn't the first time he'd said something like this. 2. To many, the Communist Party is famous for its propaganda, but inside the Party, if you've ever participated in an internal seminar, you'll know how the Party members criticize everything about the Party. There are many truly concerned thinkers in the Party, who are bringing the Party ahead.

[reezy]

In America, you can change political parties but you can't change policies. In China, you cannot change the party but you can change policies. - Eric X. Li

[Ghe]

If democracy is so great, then why there a civil war in USA in 1860? The confederate states voted to breakaway in a democratic voting but war was impose by the Union? Why was their choice not respected?

[alecwk]

If China adopts liberal democracy, China will be INDIA 2.

[xster]

Wei Wei is there to discuss ideas, Anson is there to moral grandstand against a fictional cartoon character using corporate euphemisms