|
In many ways, the world’s most important election has happened out of sight. But now that it's done, we can focus on the central question it will need to answer over the next ten years.
What should the China of 2022 look like, and how can China get there?
1. How will China move past an investment-driven growth model without fumbling the ball like Japan in 1990 or South Korea in 1997? How can China move past an investment-driven growth model when, right now, every single important interest group in China is tied to the construction/real-estate/investment triad?
2. Who will bear the pain of an economic transition? Basically, the accounting losses from failed projects have to end up somewhere–if not on seizure of assets from local governments, then as NPLs on bank balance sheets; if not as NPLs, then as a hidden tax on household wealth in the form of negative real interest rates on household savings. each of these forms of losses has a different rhythm and pitch to it–short, sharp pain and the feeling of “冤枉” (unjust punishment) on a crop of rising cadres if you seize assets; Japan-style stagnation if you keep it all as NPLs; the possibility of household capital flight if you further lower the real rate of return available to China’s household savings pool.
3. How will the government bridge the credibility gap it has with the populace? Right now, China’s government has the dubious distinction of having substantial credibility issues with every segment of the people. farmers have land seizures and government price hikes in fuel and fertilizer; the urban poor have general inflation as well as a lack of social mobility; the middle class worry about corruption, an invisible ceiling in advancement caused by nepotism, and food/product safety; the upper class fears arbitrary forfeiture of assets and becoming pawns in political struggles. More than ever, the upcoming leadership needs to build trust not only within the apparatus but also amongst the people.
4. How will China create sustainable and flexible safety valves for discontent? Right now the only common safety valve available is for Chinese rich people to pack up their assets and move abroad. The other safety valves (petitioning, protesting, rioting, making angry posts on sina weibo) are all either ineffectual, highly risky, or both–and people are aware of that, so they are losing their efficiency as safety valves. And even moving assets abroad is more of a curse than anything, as it means that wealthy Chinese increasingly have no stake in their country’s future.
5. How can China build up an internal “infrastructure of trust”? China has done a wonderful job building up physical infrastructure–roads, railways, ports, airports, a world-class telecom network–but the soft infrastructure is missing. Soft infrastructure, meaning things like universities that aren’t viewed as merely second-rate stepping stones to graduate school abroad; accounting firms and ratings agencies that are impartial and trusted; a capital market that allocates capital based on economic viability rather than political connections; consumer protection agencies that actually do their jobs; a media that seeks truth from facts rather than seeking profit from rumor; etc…. resting on the bedrock of a people that actually trust each other. Something needs to be done to build social faith between people and institutions and people themselves, or else nefarious forces will take advantage of that drought of faith to create trouble like the Taiping Rebellion did in the 19th century.
6. How can China assert itself on the international stage without causing its neighbors to ally against it? From 2010 onwards we saw an increasing amount of Chinese power being displayed both in its near abroad, the Western Pacific, and as part of multilateral forces in Somalia. China now has its own fifth generation stealth fighter, its own aircraft carrier, guided ballistic missiles, and a cyberwarfare capacity second only to the United States. In and of themselves, all of these systems are great for expanding Chinese reach and influence; but if they cause all of China’s neighbors to bandwagon against it, they may end up paradoxically weakening China. more than anything, as China’s power increases, Chinese diplomacy must become even *more* polite to offset it. Also, given that the United States has pretty much declared its intention to remain the regional hegemon of the Western Pacific, and has forged a coalition with Australia, Japan, and South Korea in doing so, China needs to formulate a strategic response. Its current course will take it into direct conflict with 4 other countries with much more combined power.
7. A subquestion of #6 is what to do with North Korea. North Korea is a long-running strategic liability for china: dependent on food and fuel aid while angering every single neighbor it has, constantly risking a collapse and an exodus of refugees and wholesale domination by the South. North Korea’s role as a buffer against South Korea and the US is rather illusory given that South Korea/the US could annihilate the North Korean military within months if they chose to accept the loss of Seoul and Inchon to artillery. On the other hand, a unified Korea would be a great counterweight to Japan, and would remove one of the key reasons for a forward-deployed US military presence in the Western Pacific. Furthermore, contrary to what might be expected, a unified Korea would not necessarily be anti-China, either–consider that even though Germany and Russia have at times been the worst of enemies, after Russia let Germany reunify, the two nations became decent allies with many areas of cooperation ranging from keeping Europe addicted to Russian natural gas to sharing weapons technology to coordinating the anti-US half of EU foreign policy.
8. What is the contingency plan for Chinese stability? what if China experiences mass instability–does the administration have a plan that doesn’t involve international embarrassment or a mass reduction in the credibility of the government?
Note that none of these questions relate to what most speculation has focused on–*who* gets the 7 standing committee seats. In the end it matters little which combination of cadres wins, because every one of the candidates has been nominated for their ability to execute on policy. Therefore any policy that comes out of the congress has a decent chance of being executed to the best of the ability of the Chinese government. What *is* important is the party line and policy that comes out of this meeting (even if that policy is hidden from public view).
The one thing to bear in mind about the resulting party line is that a simple focus on “continuing reform” or “maintaining social harmony and stability” is no longer be enough. A superficial and vague policy that comes out of the 18th Congress or the Third Plenary in 2013 will be the path of least resistance–but also the worst possible outcome for China. Now is *not* the time for singing songs or pithy slogans or a revival of the ideas of the 1960s or the 1980s. Now *is* the time for an actual vision on what the China of 2022 ought to be, and how to get there.
  
|
I always enjoy your posts. They are well written and very informative.
|
This is a great blog and I would like to respond to a lot of the points in depth, but really, do you have anything supporting this conspiracy stuff you listed here? I realize I picked apart the only thing unrelated to China, but it bugs me for an otherwise interesting blog.
On November 16 2012 05:52 Shady Sands wrote:
either–consider that even though Germany and Russia have at times been the worst of enemies, after Russia let Germany reunify, the two nations became decent allies with many areas of cooperation ranging from keeping Europe addicted to Russian natural gas to sharing weapons technology to coordinating the anti-US half of EU foreign policy.
|
Very well written, raised some solid points. Unified korea would be good all around, but I'm not sure how it is going to happen under current circumstances.
|
On November 16 2012 06:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Very well written, raised some solid points. Unified korea would be good all around, but I'm not sure how it is going to happen under current circumstances.
I think I read somewhere that South Korea's economy would immediately and totally collapse if it unified with North Korea, so, assuming this is true, that makes it good for everyone not living in Korea.
|
On November 16 2012 06:58 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Very well written, raised some solid points. Unified korea would be good all around, but I'm not sure how it is going to happen under current circumstances. I think I read somewhere that South Korea's economy would immediately and totally collapse if it unified with North Korea, so, assuming this is true, that makes it good for everyone not living in Korea.
Depends on the terms of reunification. How much of the economic load of North Korea will the ROK be expected to shoulder, and when and how will the transfer payments occur?
|
On November 16 2012 07:17 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:58 kollin wrote:On November 16 2012 06:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Very well written, raised some solid points. Unified korea would be good all around, but I'm not sure how it is going to happen under current circumstances. I think I read somewhere that South Korea's economy would immediately and totally collapse if it unified with North Korea, so, assuming this is true, that makes it good for everyone not living in Korea. Depends on the terms of reunification. How much of the economic load of North Korea will the ROK be expected to shoulder, and when and how will the transfer payments occur?
Yeah, I guess that would be true, but even then, just getting the standards of North Korea up to, well, acceptable I imagine would take a great deal of time and money.
|
On November 16 2012 06:58 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 06:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Very well written, raised some solid points. Unified korea would be good all around, but I'm not sure how it is going to happen under current circumstances. I think I read somewhere that South Korea's economy would immediately and totally collapse if it unified with North Korea, so, assuming this is true, that makes it good for everyone not living in Korea.
You can just compare South-North Korea with West-East Germany.
West Germany was richer than South Korea, and it had a much bigger population than East Germany and they still continue to struggle with absorption. South Korea would instantly increase in population size by almost 50% while annexing a country that has completely worthless industry, farms and a massive army full of highly indoctrinated, highly useless young men.
Quite frankly, the South Koreans would be smart to pressure both the Russians and the Chinese to pay cash or face a refugee crisis (since there aint no way that North Korean refuges would make it across the DMZ whereas the Chinese border is relatively porous). Maybe ask the Japanese to pay to due for some random reason and the Americans if they want those North Korean fake US dollar bill fabricators and nuclear missile plans.
|
On November 16 2012 06:11 DarkNetHunter wrote:This is a great blog and I would like to respond to a lot of the points in depth, but really, do you have anything supporting this conspiracy stuff you listed here? I realize I picked apart the only thing unrelated to China, but it bugs me for an otherwise interesting blog. Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 05:52 Shady Sands wrote:
either–consider that even though Germany and Russia have at times been the worst of enemies, after Russia let Germany reunify, the two nations became decent allies with many areas of cooperation ranging from keeping Europe addicted to Russian natural gas to sharing weapons technology to coordinating the anti-US half of EU foreign policy.
I think what he meant was that Gerhard Schroder was bribed by Putin with NordStream directorship to 'stand up' to the United States. And by stand up to he means not to send troops to Iraq.
|
Maybe I'm just insane, but this seems really, really depressing to me.
Shouldn't some of these solutions be really obvious?
I want to say that moving towards a democratically elected government that doesn't shamelessly suppress its people would be a good idea, but I'm sure someone will tell me "They'll never do that" or "The commoners are ignorant and would ruin themselves, we need real leadership" or "but the US is just as bad" or some such shit.
I want to say that China should do everything in its power to dissolve the dictatorship in Korea and assist them in reunification, but someone will tell me "that costs too much money" or "the US".
I don't know. I really don't know what to say.
|
On November 16 2012 08:11 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
Maybe I'm just insane, but this seems really, really depressing to me.
Shouldn't some of these solutions be really obvious?
I want to say that moving towards a democratically elected government that doesn't shamelessly suppress its people would be a good idea, but I'm sure someone will tell me "They'll never do that" or "The commoners are ignorant and would ruin themselves, we need real leadership" or "but the US is just as bad" or some such shit.
I want to say that China should do everything in its power to dissolve the dictatorship in Korea and assist them in reunification, but someone will tell me "that costs too much money" or "the US".
I don't know. I really don't know what to say.
'How' do you move to a democractically elected government? That's the problem.
Some mechanical issues:
1) are there skilled politicians who are non-communists in China, that can take up the job tomorrow, and do it properly if they get elected?
2) if you are Xi JinPing, and you want to democratize, but there are some crazies in the party that doesn't want to do it, what do you do? shoot them? what if they start shooting back? are you sure you can win? If your answer is: why not just tighten security? then the question becomes: how can you make sure you trust your own security personnel (they might also be communist party members)?
3) the communist party has 80 million members, if you democratize, how can the new parties even compete? It's like starting a business that requires you to reach millions of subscribers. a few key posts might be taken by non-communists, but the massive state bureaucracy will still be filled with staff that owe their careers to communists, can you get things done with these people running around? If you fire them, who will take their posts? are the new people qualified? how do you even find that many? etc
4) how do you nationalize the army given that a lot of officers (if not all) are communists? Tell them to leave the party? what if they refuse? Better yet, what if they start shooting at you?
|
On November 16 2012 08:28 Kalingingsong wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 08:11 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
Maybe I'm just insane, but this seems really, really depressing to me.
Shouldn't some of these solutions be really obvious?
I want to say that moving towards a democratically elected government that doesn't shamelessly suppress its people would be a good idea, but I'm sure someone will tell me "They'll never do that" or "The commoners are ignorant and would ruin themselves, we need real leadership" or "but the US is just as bad" or some such shit.
I want to say that China should do everything in its power to dissolve the dictatorship in Korea and assist them in reunification, but someone will tell me "that costs too much money" or "the US".
I don't know. I really don't know what to say.
'How' do you move to a democractically elected government? That's the problem. Some mechanical issues: 1) are there skilled politicians who are non-communists in China, that can take up the job tomorrow, and do it properly if they get elected? 2) if you are Xi JinPing, and you want to democratize, but there are some crazies in the party that doesn't want to do it, what do you do? shoot them? what if they start shooting back? are you sure you can win? If your answer is: why not just tighten security? then the question becomes: how can you make sure you trust your own security personnel (they might also be communist party members)? 3) the communist party has 80 million members, if you democratize, how can the new parties even compete? It's like starting a business that requires you to reach millions of subscribers. a few key posts might be taken by non-communists, but the massive state bureaucracy will still be filled with staff that owe their careers to communists, can you get things done with these people running around? If you fire them, who will take their posts? are the new people qualified? how do you even find that many? etc 4) how do you nationalize the army given that a lot of officers (if not all) are communists? Tell them to leave the party? what if they refuse? Better yet, what if they start shooting at you?
Taiwan was a one party dictatorship as well, but they've had what, 3-4 rounds of elections? And most importantly, in some of those elections the former-party of dictatorship lost and allowed the opposition to rule.
South Korea was a military dictatorship until the 90s.
So was Indonesia.
There are ways for large Asian countries to move into democracy. The only thing is, if you are a country like South Korea and Taiwan there is at least an implicit push towards democratization because you are allied with America (yes, I understand that in numerous cases the Americans were perfectly fine with military dictators as long as they stood up against commie aggression. I am suggesting that even when this was overtly the case, the mere fact that your big ally is at least at home a functioning democracy spurred cultural tolerance of democracy to an extent that we dont see in China). And democracy only arrived in Indonesia when the kleptocratic regime of Suharto collapsed during the Asian Financial Crisis.
I think Shady, or maybe someone else, mentioned that the CCP has been studying Singapore's approach to governance that essentially is a one party state but a one party state achieved by relatively fair elections so maybe theyll do that. Allow elections and just use the massive patronage granting powers of the party and its wealth to make sure all opposition parties are permanently in the minority. After all, Japan was legally a multi party democracy following the end of American martial law yet 90% of the time the LDP dominated politics.
|
On November 16 2012 09:36 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 08:28 Kalingingsong wrote:On November 16 2012 08:11 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
Maybe I'm just insane, but this seems really, really depressing to me.
Shouldn't some of these solutions be really obvious?
I want to say that moving towards a democratically elected government that doesn't shamelessly suppress its people would be a good idea, but I'm sure someone will tell me "They'll never do that" or "The commoners are ignorant and would ruin themselves, we need real leadership" or "but the US is just as bad" or some such shit.
I want to say that China should do everything in its power to dissolve the dictatorship in Korea and assist them in reunification, but someone will tell me "that costs too much money" or "the US".
I don't know. I really don't know what to say.
'How' do you move to a democractically elected government? That's the problem. Some mechanical issues: 1) are there skilled politicians who are non-communists in China, that can take up the job tomorrow, and do it properly if they get elected? 2) if you are Xi JinPing, and you want to democratize, but there are some crazies in the party that doesn't want to do it, what do you do? shoot them? what if they start shooting back? are you sure you can win? If your answer is: why not just tighten security? then the question becomes: how can you make sure you trust your own security personnel (they might also be communist party members)? 3) the communist party has 80 million members, if you democratize, how can the new parties even compete? It's like starting a business that requires you to reach millions of subscribers. a few key posts might be taken by non-communists, but the massive state bureaucracy will still be filled with staff that owe their careers to communists, can you get things done with these people running around? If you fire them, who will take their posts? are the new people qualified? how do you even find that many? etc 4) how do you nationalize the army given that a lot of officers (if not all) are communists? Tell them to leave the party? what if they refuse? Better yet, what if they start shooting at you? Taiwan was a one party dictatorship as well, but they've had what, 3-4 rounds of elections? And most importantly, in some of those elections the former-party of dictatorship lost and allowed the opposition to rule. South Korea was a military dictatorship until the 90s. So was Indonesia. There are ways for large Asian countries to move into democracy. The only thing is, if you are a country like South Korea and Taiwan there is at least an implicit push towards democratization because you are allied with America (yes, I understand that in numerous cases the Americans were perfectly fine with military dictators as long as they stood up against commie aggression. I am suggesting that even when this was overtly the case, the mere fact that your big ally is at least at home a functioning democracy spurred cultural tolerance of democracy to an extent that we dont see in China). And democracy only arrived in Indonesia when the kleptocratic regime of Suharto collapsed during the Asian Financial Crisis. I think Shady, or maybe someone else, mentioned that the CCP has been studying Singapore's approach to governance that essentially is a one party state but a one party state achieved by relatively fair elections so maybe theyll do that. Allow elections and just use the massive patronage granting powers of the party and its wealth to make sure all opposition parties are permanently in the minority. After all, Japan was legally a multi party democracy following the end of American martial law yet 90% of the time the LDP dominated politics.
The examples of Korean and Taiwan are too vague, they don't address how to move things along in China (I wasn't raising a question about "if" I was raising a question about "how"). Even those two countries democratized in pretty different ways. Which begs the question, which path of execution is open to the Chinese leadership?
Your second paragraph may address my point. So the question becomes: can the Chinese government turn into Singapore? To be honest I doubt it, Singapore transitioned from governorship by the British, the Chinese government is in a completely different situation. The issue isn't even so much what the government 'ends up' as, the issue is how do you get there without collapsing everything. What is CCP's build order for this game of "democratizing"?
and even if it does, does it solve anything? do elections solve economic or foreign relation problems?
|
On November 16 2012 10:06 Kalingingsong wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 09:36 Sub40APM wrote:On November 16 2012 08:28 Kalingingsong wrote:On November 16 2012 08:11 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
Maybe I'm just insane, but this seems really, really depressing to me.
Shouldn't some of these solutions be really obvious?
I want to say that moving towards a democratically elected government that doesn't shamelessly suppress its people would be a good idea, but I'm sure someone will tell me "They'll never do that" or "The commoners are ignorant and would ruin themselves, we need real leadership" or "but the US is just as bad" or some such shit.
I want to say that China should do everything in its power to dissolve the dictatorship in Korea and assist them in reunification, but someone will tell me "that costs too much money" or "the US".
I don't know. I really don't know what to say.
'How' do you move to a democractically elected government? That's the problem. Some mechanical issues: 1) are there skilled politicians who are non-communists in China, that can take up the job tomorrow, and do it properly if they get elected? 2) if you are Xi JinPing, and you want to democratize, but there are some crazies in the party that doesn't want to do it, what do you do? shoot them? what if they start shooting back? are you sure you can win? If your answer is: why not just tighten security? then the question becomes: how can you make sure you trust your own security personnel (they might also be communist party members)? 3) the communist party has 80 million members, if you democratize, how can the new parties even compete? It's like starting a business that requires you to reach millions of subscribers. a few key posts might be taken by non-communists, but the massive state bureaucracy will still be filled with staff that owe their careers to communists, can you get things done with these people running around? If you fire them, who will take their posts? are the new people qualified? how do you even find that many? etc 4) how do you nationalize the army given that a lot of officers (if not all) are communists? Tell them to leave the party? what if they refuse? Better yet, what if they start shooting at you? Taiwan was a one party dictatorship as well, but they've had what, 3-4 rounds of elections? And most importantly, in some of those elections the former-party of dictatorship lost and allowed the opposition to rule. South Korea was a military dictatorship until the 90s. So was Indonesia. There are ways for large Asian countries to move into democracy. The only thing is, if you are a country like South Korea and Taiwan there is at least an implicit push towards democratization because you are allied with America (yes, I understand that in numerous cases the Americans were perfectly fine with military dictators as long as they stood up against commie aggression. I am suggesting that even when this was overtly the case, the mere fact that your big ally is at least at home a functioning democracy spurred cultural tolerance of democracy to an extent that we dont see in China). And democracy only arrived in Indonesia when the kleptocratic regime of Suharto collapsed during the Asian Financial Crisis. I think Shady, or maybe someone else, mentioned that the CCP has been studying Singapore's approach to governance that essentially is a one party state but a one party state achieved by relatively fair elections so maybe theyll do that. Allow elections and just use the massive patronage granting powers of the party and its wealth to make sure all opposition parties are permanently in the minority. After all, Japan was legally a multi party democracy following the end of American martial law yet 90% of the time the LDP dominated politics. The examples of Korean and Taiwan are too vague, they don't address how to move things along in China (I wasn't raising a question about "if" I was raising a question about "how"). Even those two countries democratized in pretty different ways. Which begs the question, which path of execution is open to the Chinese leadership? Your second paragraph may address my point. So the question becomes: can the Chinese government turn into Singapore? To be honest I doubt it, Singapore transitioned from governorship by the British, the Chinese government is in a completely different situation. The issue isn't even so much what the government 'ends up' as, the issue is how do you get there without collapsing everything. What is CCP's build order for this game of "democratizing"? and even if it does, does it solve anything? do elections solve economic or foreign relation problems?
Why doesnt Taiwan raise how to move things along?
First, the KMT one party state increased localization, granting more importance to local decision making in the late 80s. Then it didnt actively suppress the Democratic Party when it formed -- even though it was illegal to form political parties-- and allowed the members of that party to run in elections, although they ran as independents. Then it lifted martial law. Then it allowed the Democratic Party to field a presidential candidate. All in all it took about 20+ years.
So the first step would be to transfer the key operations of the state away from the party to the actual bureaucrats on the ground. Then expand elections from village level to at least sub-provincial or mayoral level. Then stop actively suppressing non-Communists, lift some of the censorship and depoliticize the army by removing commissars or the requirement that generals join the party.
|
On November 16 2012 10:19 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 10:06 Kalingingsong wrote:On November 16 2012 09:36 Sub40APM wrote:On November 16 2012 08:28 Kalingingsong wrote:On November 16 2012 08:11 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
Maybe I'm just insane, but this seems really, really depressing to me.
Shouldn't some of these solutions be really obvious?
I want to say that moving towards a democratically elected government that doesn't shamelessly suppress its people would be a good idea, but I'm sure someone will tell me "They'll never do that" or "The commoners are ignorant and would ruin themselves, we need real leadership" or "but the US is just as bad" or some such shit.
I want to say that China should do everything in its power to dissolve the dictatorship in Korea and assist them in reunification, but someone will tell me "that costs too much money" or "the US".
I don't know. I really don't know what to say.
'How' do you move to a democractically elected government? That's the problem. Some mechanical issues: 1) are there skilled politicians who are non-communists in China, that can take up the job tomorrow, and do it properly if they get elected? 2) if you are Xi JinPing, and you want to democratize, but there are some crazies in the party that doesn't want to do it, what do you do? shoot them? what if they start shooting back? are you sure you can win? If your answer is: why not just tighten security? then the question becomes: how can you make sure you trust your own security personnel (they might also be communist party members)? 3) the communist party has 80 million members, if you democratize, how can the new parties even compete? It's like starting a business that requires you to reach millions of subscribers. a few key posts might be taken by non-communists, but the massive state bureaucracy will still be filled with staff that owe their careers to communists, can you get things done with these people running around? If you fire them, who will take their posts? are the new people qualified? how do you even find that many? etc 4) how do you nationalize the army given that a lot of officers (if not all) are communists? Tell them to leave the party? what if they refuse? Better yet, what if they start shooting at you? Taiwan was a one party dictatorship as well, but they've had what, 3-4 rounds of elections? And most importantly, in some of those elections the former-party of dictatorship lost and allowed the opposition to rule. South Korea was a military dictatorship until the 90s. So was Indonesia. There are ways for large Asian countries to move into democracy. The only thing is, if you are a country like South Korea and Taiwan there is at least an implicit push towards democratization because you are allied with America (yes, I understand that in numerous cases the Americans were perfectly fine with military dictators as long as they stood up against commie aggression. I am suggesting that even when this was overtly the case, the mere fact that your big ally is at least at home a functioning democracy spurred cultural tolerance of democracy to an extent that we dont see in China). And democracy only arrived in Indonesia when the kleptocratic regime of Suharto collapsed during the Asian Financial Crisis. I think Shady, or maybe someone else, mentioned that the CCP has been studying Singapore's approach to governance that essentially is a one party state but a one party state achieved by relatively fair elections so maybe theyll do that. Allow elections and just use the massive patronage granting powers of the party and its wealth to make sure all opposition parties are permanently in the minority. After all, Japan was legally a multi party democracy following the end of American martial law yet 90% of the time the LDP dominated politics. The examples of Korean and Taiwan are too vague, they don't address how to move things along in China (I wasn't raising a question about "if" I was raising a question about "how"). Even those two countries democratized in pretty different ways. Which begs the question, which path of execution is open to the Chinese leadership? Your second paragraph may address my point. So the question becomes: can the Chinese government turn into Singapore? To be honest I doubt it, Singapore transitioned from governorship by the British, the Chinese government is in a completely different situation. The issue isn't even so much what the government 'ends up' as, the issue is how do you get there without collapsing everything. What is CCP's build order for this game of "democratizing"? and even if it does, does it solve anything? do elections solve economic or foreign relation problems? Why doesnt Taiwan raise how to move things along? First, the KMT one party state increased localization, granting more importance to local decision making in the late 80s. Then it didnt actively suppress the Democratic Party when it formed -- even though it was illegal to form political parties-- and allowed the members of that party to run in elections, although they ran as independents. Then it lifted martial law. Then it allowed the Democratic Party to field a presidential candidate. All in all it took about 20+ years. So the first step would be to transfer the key operations of the state away from the party to the actual bureaucrats on the ground. Then expand elections from village level to at least sub-provincial or mayoral level. Then stop actively suppressing non-Communists, lift some of the censorship and depoliticize the army by removing commissars or the requirement that generals join the party.
Well, I'm speculating, but I don't think that's necessary the best way to go about it because:
1) what does "transferring key operations of the state" away from the party to the bureaucrats actually mean? a lot of the bureaucrats are party members. and further more if they don't answer to the party, who exactly do they answer to? there are no other parties at this point, because this step is executed before national elections are held.
and what about 'bureaucrats' who are really high up? Is Xi JinPing a bureaucrat? or is he a party member? or is he both? what would it mean for the office of the president if all of a sudden he lost control of the "key operations of the state"?
2) expanding the elections to a higher level raises this question: at what point can elected officials refuse to carry out the economic or social policies of their superiors? and if an elected sub-provincial official still has to listen to the provincial governor who is unelected, then are the elections really that meaningful? so (a) where do you draw the line? and (b) what would it mean for the office of the governors? if I had a bunch of subordinates you didn't need to listen to me, I am still really a governor?
3) what if the army generals turns on you when you try to remove them? Maybe we can try to keep the current officers there, but then simply refuse to admit new ones associated with any political party. But that won't solve the following problem: the PLA wants the CCP to be in control of the country's budget, so funds can be shifted into the military at their fancy, ahead of any social projects. Simply removing the CCP from power itself might cause the army to turn.
There are also a number of other differences between the Taiwan experience and the situation in China imo. We can discuss these too if you want.
I suspect there are a whole host of other mechanical problems that prevents steady democratization, if democratizing is extremely straight forward and in everyone's interest it would been done already.
|
28076 Posts
Interesting blog. I am studying a lot of these issues myself, so it is nice to read your view on things.
|
I enjoy these sort of political insights. Too bad I don't have the passion to actually read up on these sort of things.
Definitely want more of these Shady.
|
What do you think of the jiang/hu factions?
|
On November 16 2012 08:28 Kalingingsong wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 08:11 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
Maybe I'm just insane, but this seems really, really depressing to me.
Shouldn't some of these solutions be really obvious?
I want to say that moving towards a democratically elected government that doesn't shamelessly suppress its people would be a good idea, but I'm sure someone will tell me "They'll never do that" or "The commoners are ignorant and would ruin themselves, we need real leadership" or "but the US is just as bad" or some such shit.
I want to say that China should do everything in its power to dissolve the dictatorship in Korea and assist them in reunification, but someone will tell me "that costs too much money" or "the US".
I don't know. I really don't know what to say.
'How' do you move to a democractically elected government? That's the problem. Some mechanical issues: 1) are there skilled politicians who are non-communists in China, that can take up the job tomorrow, and do it properly if they get elected? 2) if you are Xi JinPing, and you want to democratize, but there are some crazies in the party that doesn't want to do it, what do you do? shoot them? what if they start shooting back? are you sure you can win? If your answer is: why not just tighten security? then the question becomes: how can you make sure you trust your own security personnel (they might also be communist party members)? 3) the communist party has 80 million members, if you democratize, how can the new parties even compete? It's like starting a business that requires you to reach millions of subscribers. a few key posts might be taken by non-communists, but the massive state bureaucracy will still be filled with staff that owe their careers to communists, can you get things done with these people running around? If you fire them, who will take their posts? are the new people qualified? how do you even find that many? etc 4) how do you nationalize the army given that a lot of officers (if not all) are communists? Tell them to leave the party? what if they refuse? Better yet, what if they start shooting at you?
I would imagine if new parties are started they would most likely stem from existing factions in the Communist Party
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
my question is how much bad loans are still on the books and basically not allowed to be valued and written down, and how much are already directly 'disappeared' from the books.
given the inflated real estate market, over and above 'demand' reasons, the portion of disappeared bad loans should be pretty high. this is basically magical money injected into the construction and real estate sector and it is a wealth transfer from the real consumer economy to rent seeking interests controlling land and real estate.
the housing bubble in china is much worse than the u.s. in 2006, but the difference is that the loans are not actually adjusted in value and thus no crash occurred. it's a quasi forgiveness treatment of the loans, with state banks creating that money into the economy. instead of what happened in the u.s. with the loans appearing as debt on the sheet of the private sector, and loss on the bank's sheets. however, with no corresponding increase in the size of the real economy, the amount of money floating around amounts to a huge transfer from those who were operating without this injection, to those who got it.
btw i had access to the true balance sheets of some local governments in a northern province, and it's like, holy shit. the debt is something like 300%+ of total economic activity and the governments had public land as collateral to banks. the government cannot afford a housing crash and banks do not want to write down bad loans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
