Contrary to popular myth--and the Harvard Business Review--democracy is not inevitable. In fact, there is good reason to believe democracy is not the best or most desirable form of governance. In yielding to popular whims democracies are led into wars, caused to spend beyond their means, and compelled to allow for the incitement of violence. Nonetheless, we are repeatedly reminded of Churchill's infamous dictate, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Beijing, however, is less certain of Sir Winston's wisdom.
Confronted with a requirement to govern a nation of 1.3 billion residing across a geographic space roughly equivalent to United States, the Chinese Communist Party has opted to employ authoritarian principles that are deemed unconscionable by self-righteous Western crusaders. Like their European forefathers, who were irrationally compelled to rescue Jerusalem from the "infidel," these modern-day Knights Hospitaller are simply unwilling to accept the possibility there are legitimate alternatives to liberal democracy. Count Google in this teaming mass.
The internet giant, whose 10-point corporate philosophy includes the catchy phrase "you can make money without doing evil," is apparently no longer willing to allow China's leadership to...well...lead China. Go figure. Google's corporate leadership, that readily signed on to Beijing's self-censorship rules in 2006 so as to grab a share of the world's largest internet market, now wants to unilaterally change the rules. Guys, allow me to be the first to say this in writing....you are not a sovereign entity, and you are not charged with protecting the greater good of the Chinese citizenry. You are capitalists who chose to stage a moralistic fit after a collection of rank amateurs managed to hack into your systems. Beijing is entitled to ask you to leave, and to take your democracy crusade with you.
Now, before my email is inundated with angry missives, allow me to explain why I have come to this conclusion. Americans have a historical tendency to believe we are practitioners of the world's only form of legitimate governance. That sentiment was certainly evident when Philip Slater and Warren Bennis published "Democracy is Inevitable" in 1964. According to Slater and Bennis, "barring some sudden decline in the rate of technological change, and on the...assumption that war will somehow be eliminated during the next half century, it is possible to predict that after this time democracy will be universal." Slater and Bennis were wrong. And they were not alone.
In 1989, Francis Fukuyama, a former Rand analyst and then-Deputy Director of the State Department's policy planning staff, published an essay titled "The End of History?" Written as the former Soviet Union visibly collapsed and China's dalliance with capitalism transitioned into a permanent state of affairs, Fukuyama's piece heralded "the total exhaustion of viable systemic alternatives to Western liberalism." More specifically, Fukuyama told the U.S. policy community that...
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human governance.
In this brave new world, national governments would be "liberal insofar as [they] recognize and protect through a system of laws man's universal right to freedom, and democratic insofar as [they] exist only with the consent of the governed." A noble vision--and one that won much acclaim, even among American political scientists.
In September 1989, Lucian Pye, a renowned sinologist and then-President of the American Political Science Association, stood before his assembled colleagues and declared they were witness to the "crisis of authoritarianism." Pye insisted political science needed to get busy studying and explaining the imminent demise of what he argued were "all manner of authoritarian systems." According to Pye, authoritarian regimes were fundamentally challenged by the rise of global communications systems, expanding educational opportunities, international trade, and the effects of contemporary science and technology.
Furthermore, Pye was willing to argue "the presumed advantages of totalitarian practices for economic development have apparently evaporated." All of which led him to conclude, "The long historical trend that favored the strengthening of centralized state power has seemingly come to an end, and the trend now favors the pluralism of decentralized authority." For Pye, like Fukuyama, the future promised national governments who worshiped at the West's temple of free-markets and liberal democracy.
Rather than fading away the authoritarian capitalists appeared to develop a remarkable staying power. China's continued high growth rates suggest there is more to the story. Instead of disappearing, the authoritarian capitalists actually seem to be thriving. This disconcerting development was brought to the fore for Washington's policy elite in July 2007, when Foreign Affairs published Azar Gat's "The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers." Gat used his essay to argue Russia and China's rise suggested "capitalism's ascendancy appears to be deeply entrenched, but the current predominance of democracy could be far less secure." As Gat put it, "all that can be said at the moment is that there is nothing in the historical record to suggest a transition to democracy by today's authoritarian capitalist powers is inevitable."
In George W. Bush's Washington these were fighting words. The first shot back across Gat's bow came from Michael Mandelbaum, the Director of the American Foreign Policy program at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. In an essay titled "Democracy Without America," Mandelbaum hoisted the torch for those who believed authoritarian capitalist states were simply at a waypoint on the path to democracy. According to Mandelbaum, "the key to establishing a working democracy...has been the free-market economy. The institutions, skills, and values needed to operate a free-market economy are those that, in the political sphere, constitute democracy." Mandelbaum would have us believe free-market capitalism did more than build institutional and social skills requisite for a democracy. The professor argues participating in a free-market economy cultivates two habits essential for democratic government: trust and compromise. His bottom line, "For a government to operate peacefully citizens must trust it not to act against their most important interests and, above all, to respect their political and economic rights." So where is China in this process?
Mandelbaum dodges the question. While he admits China has undergone a "dizzying change" that has installed "many of the building blocks of political democracy," Mandelbaum notes the Chinese Communist Party is "determined to retain its monopoly on political power." As such, he believes the Chinese Communist Party is willing to forcefully squelch any organized political opposition and bid for popular support by pointing to the country's economic successes. Furthermore, Mandelbaum holds many Chinese are loath to be plunged back into the chaos that so traumatized pre-1976 China. This does not mean Mandelbaum thinks Beijing will be able to ward off democracy forever. Revealing his determinist tendencies, Mandelbaum ultimately concludes democracy may come to China because pressure for adopting this form of governance "grows wherever nondemocratic governments adopt the free-market system of economic organization."
Unfortunately for Mandelbaum, this predilection for democracy in free-market economies does not appear permanent. As Larry Diamond--co-editor of the Journal of Democracy--noted in March 2008, "If democracies do not more effectively contain crime and corruption, generate economic growth, relieve economic inequality, and secure freedom and the rule of law, people will eventually lose faith and turn to authoritarian alternatives." So how to avoid this problem? Diamond contends democratic institutions "...must listen to their citizens' voices, engage their participation, tolerate their protests, protect their freedoms, and respond to their needs." The assertion here, of course, is that the Chinese Communist Party does none of these things--a premise we know to be erroneous. In fact, Beijing appears headed down the very path Diamond would have us believe essential for any democracy--"rigorous rules and impartial institutions." This would lead me to believe we are coming full circle and Gat was right, we are preparing for a revival of authoritarian great powers.
But not without a bitter intellectual fight. The challenge is to convince Western policy makers this is indeed the case--that they do not need to be planning for the Coming Collapse of China or the Coming Conflict with China because Chinese leaders failed to adequately prepare for the future. This will be no easy task. As we have seen, Western academics have poorly prepared the policy and business communities for understanding China's adaptively.
This poor preparation of the intellectual battlefield helps explain the blog posts David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, uses to explain his corporation's latest policy concerning China. It helps explain State Department and White House demands the internet be respected as an electronic form of Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner--and, more specifically, that the globe's population should be exposed to same. And it helps to explain why we are confronted with an increasingly tension-prone relationship with Beijing. Americans simply do not understand there are other forms of governance that should be respected and treated as legitimate stewards of the state. Perhaps watching Beijing escort Google to the door will help us overcome this myopia.
Over the recent few years, one trend I have seen has been the effectiveness of complaint call centers in China. I have put several to the test when the occasion occurred and I have been pleasantly surprised. Here in Canada try to complaint about a Taxi driver, good luck.
In the west, face it, it is difficult to get your grievance heard. Some netizens here may remember Peter Cook and Dunley Moore? "O yes, I'll write a letter to the Times". Try and collect from Mr. Madoff? good luck.
So to presume that China is evil is the fundamental bedrock of Sergey Brin's logic and most who voice human rights concerns towards China. Google is in fact punitively asking the US government to step in and subvert China, presuming sainthood?
Perhaps you don't find China's censorship and human rights behavior disturbing. So you won't have any trouble following orders then from the government on what you can or cannot say about this matter. This "guidance" just in from China (psst: I think you're in violation):
"It is not permitted to hold discussions or investigations on the Google topic.
"Online programs with experts and scholars on this matter must apply for permission ahead of time. This type of self-initiated program production is strictly forbidden.
"All websites please clean up text, images and sound and videos which support Google, dedicate flowers to Google, ask Google to stay, cheer for Google and others have a different tune from government policy.
"Do not participate in and report Google's information/press releases.
"Only use Central Government main media (website) content; do not use content from other sources.
Now you're just being silly.
I sorta thought that when I read " I've lived in Asia...so I know the difference", but thought better than to say anything, but geezus.
I really do wonder sometimes about this need by 'well-meaning activists' to infantalize any group they suddenly feel the urge to 'save' - the chinese are more than capable of getting around any governmental rules and regulations should they want to. You only have to go there today to see that.
And again - anybody arguing for nuance is not automatically FOR censorship - and please, no need for snide remarks about 'coordinated campaigns' either.
That's no better than the Repubs arguing that people who believe that women should have a choice are PRO abortion. It's about as intellectually dis.honest.
Read the majority of posts whenever China comes up - one could equally argue there's a 'coordinated campaign' to bash China.
I think whenever we react reflexively to 'red meat' issues like 'censorship', 'authoritarianism,' 'communism' and the like, we become part of the meme that allows for vested interests in our own countries to manipulate its agenda.
(contd in Pt2)
KevinAtLarge:
We saw that just a few years back at the relative ease at which America went to war.
While the precipitating event was in 2001, the prevailing wisdom had already been shaped years before (no strawmen about being pro Saddam, please). That's not to say if reportage on that region had been more nuanced, America would not have gone to war anyway, but I'm certain it would have taken more to move public sentiment in that direction.
These days, we're seeing the drums beginning again - from the Right - trade issues, 'stealing jobs', and from the Left - human rights, environmentalism, etc.
Krugman: ' China- Currency manipulators! ( Yaaay!)
Roach ( Morgan Stanley) : 'Not so!' ( Hisssss!)
No one ( or very few) bothers to mention Stiglitz and other economists who offer a more nuanced opinion. And so it goes.
Now, each and every one of those issues can be discussed with some nuance, but the primary narrative shaped by most media fits but the Good guy/Bad guy storyline - and that's just plain dangerous for everybody.
This is what happens.
Grownups deal with this. They don't take their ball and runaway.
I found no resentment of the US, but only friendship, respect and admiration for the US. The people worked hard and wanted to emulate us. The government was working hard and successfully to bring their nation forward. For those who are outraged at some practices, there are two suggestions.
One - Go over there and spend some time with the people so that one can form judgements based on experience. Two - focus in cleaning up our own house first. Our Constitution is being violated left and right, censorship is indeed practiced here, international laws have been and are being violated. Our government has been bought by big money. Before we get all excited casting stones, let’s clean ourselves up first.
Very interesting points and then you ruined your message with that line. Anyone telling Americans to be more self-centered and ignorant of the world at large is on the wrong track, whatever your reasons. There's absolutely no reason why anyone can't multitask on political, ethical, and human rights concerns. In fact, learning and caring about one country is an excellent way to to deepen concerns about another country. For example, learning about the environmental and labor problems in China helps in understanding what we face in the US.
This is about basic human rights, censorship, information control, violence toward citizens, coercion. One can respect (and even love) a culture and the laws of a land without condoning or aiding those things.
China doesn't live on Mars. It's the most populous (and soon to be one of the most powerful) countries on earth. Think ahead a little. If we're creating a separate internet for China, how long until that begins to leach into our way of life here? How will this impact us in the future if china is buying up media companies, controls major markets, has a driver's seat at the table for international bodies, controls major resources and influences other governments and businesses? If you think the rest of us will not be impacted you are mistaken.
In this case, China hacked into Google computers to obtain data on human rights activists. Do you think we should just pretend that it didn't happen and go about our business?
And yes, we have to continue to clean up our own house(s). This isn't about being superior.
China is a sovereign nation and entities which have chosen to do business within China are, should, and will be bound by the laws of China, not our laws, opinions, etc. Too many of our citizens look upon other nations as if they were US states and are outraged by real or perceived actions or policies not in line with our advertised values.
Further, democracy is a term which has come to cover too broad a range of reality within governments. At the national level we are a theoretical mix of direct and indirect democracy. However, our government has drifted to a Plutocracy, i.e., controlled by the power wielded by wealth - as used in leverage upon our elected who require vast amounts of cash for re-election. We are a government completely controlled by money. That’s simply not a democracy.
I am a strong admirer and user of Google. However, Google must recognize the laws of nations within which it desires to do business.
This will be the same kind of guy who spouts 'noble savage' mythology and believes in Eastern Medicine because it's old.
you can have free(er) information without endorsing western-style representative democracy. Instead this shmuck licks the taint of all those oppressing people all over the world. You CANNOT RESPECT PEOPLE AND SUPPORT CENSORING THEM.
Anderson loves China's government. I prefer to take the side of its people. In this matter, the two are in contest. If Anderson really believed the BS he was spouting he would see the basic conflict in the argument; that a people needs to be 'protected' from themselves and knowledge is anathema to the idea of respecting them as people who can make reasoned decisions.
As for google... they' re probably just wrapping themselves in the flag because they haven't been that successful in China anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUVUX0r9l7k&feature=PlayList&p=70CBCCA16D67292F&index=7
but you are wrong if you believe that the people are against their government.
As for respecting people, but censoring them, that happens right here on this forum!
Maybe you should qualify that one a little bit: A know there are still a few Tiananmen Square dissidents out there from 1986 who have managed to escape imprisonment, mostly by living underground. Many are still quite fearful of their government after witnessing how ruthlessly their nascent democracy movement was shut down.
The internal affairs argument doesn't hold water in this interconnected global economy for anyone and certainly not for China. Chinese interests and ours are intertwined and more and more China is everywhere we are, sharing the discussion, competing for resources, influencing the future of our planet. In the US, companies are increasingly pinning their hopes on the Chinese markets and Chinese interests are becoming larger and larger stakeholders in US government, businesses. Many of us will be working for chinese companies or companies partly owned by chinese interests in the coming years. China is probably the most important country for this century and the next.
If the chinese choose to have a different style of government, that's mostly their business. It's not as if the US' particular style of government is perfect. But those fundamental human rights principles are above any particular government or business interest. Would you knowingly do business with a company that built their products off of child slave labor? Of course not.
If we get in the habit of kowtowing to the Chinese on these fundamental issues, than we are building our own cage. If we believe in our principles (free speech, basic human rights), then we better get busy advocating and asserting them whereever and whenever. Google is doing exactly the right thing - staying engaged but not capitulating completely either.
*
*
Peoples Republic of China Link: http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html
*
United States of America Link: http://w2.eff.org/legal/constitution_us.html
*
I'll stay in the U.S.A.
*
Posish!
*
R/ PRONESE
Who asked you to move?
Do you really think you cannot access any site you want while you're in China?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Maybe you can "access any site you want while you're in China", maybe you can't. What appears on the site, however, might very well not be what the authors put there. As for the rest...if an American chooses to remain ignorant, that's their choice. Virtually the whole emerging middle class in China is relatively unsophisticated in how to deal with new technology, and doesn't have the variety of uncensored media available to help remedy the situation.
I'm really having trouble with your last sentence, though. It's just misleading on so many levels. Why didn't you add, "without having the police on your doorstep half an hour later" for the sake of improved accuracy?
Your theory that the Chinese government blocks all news to it's people, is silly. I lived in China in 1988 and 1989, and I watched coverage of the "demonstrations," on both China TV and CNN. I was even present at some of the "incidents." I can tell you this, I no longer believe, out of hand, anything on CNN or other MSM. You see, instead of portraying events in a neutral, honest, unbiased way, MSM, especially American media, distorts, twists and outright lies, making up stories out of whole cloth, to push their agenda.
I would ask you this, since you do not seem to know what happened, or didn't happen in Tiananmen, why don't you care that you have been brainwashed by your ever so worshiped so called "free press?"
At least in Chine, people are scepticle.
Ask the world, in North Corea, in Iran, in Nigeria.
How can you imagine a society without humans rights respected as the main rule?
And there are no human rights without democracy.
The American model may not be the best one, I agree.
But only because democracy is never finished to reach it's a state of relationship and balance with power(s) to constantly create, respect and protect.
Democracy is a process not a regime.
Elisabeth Guerrier France.
speaking in terms of effectiveness only, china has a vision for the nation, and we have...greed. and we have to hire mercenaries in a big way to wage wars during which the American public shops.
VERY interesting and fundamental debate.
One of our 20th century's philosopher Marcel Conche writes in "Time and Destiny" " What showed us the revolution ( here the one of humans rights) is that History WAS the concepts of freedom and equality not as one event of History but as History itself."
The power of democracy may have not to be mixed up with the free market even if it gathers the conditions to create it.
Capitalism is not a synonym of democracy, let's try to realize it.
And to go further, to me these are some of the questions we need to ask not to democracy but to capitalism.
It's democracy that creates it with the abandon of rules organizing and watching over the market, we all know how badly it ended.
But who ever thought that democracy was not supposed to create its law to regulate powers?
Who ever thought democracy was a synonym of dirty money and abuses?
Who ever thought democracy could be in the hands of 1% of a population?
This can be called totalitarian capitalism.
Not democracy.
The question about Google is not that is should be allowed by the Chinese current government which power to decide about this is only a sign of totalitarianism but if,as a Chinese you can have access to it if you want it, which is a sign of respect of humans rights.