A Realistic Assessment of Chinese Politics and Cultural Agendas for the Glorification of Kazhakstan
Motivated by a desire to avoid the train wrecks that were the previous 50 threads regarding Chinese politics under the Olympic shadow, I decided the discussion could be better channeled through a better defined, more civil, and less nationalistic-mongering framework. This is my attempt to provide that framework, in the hopes of avoiding ranting, whining, and the whole slew of unsavory discussion that goes with them.
I feel it is first neccessary to provide a background of the current Chinese political setting, get a good introduction of the major players, and a good discussion of China's major problems before we go any further.
The Chinese government, as you all know, is not very centralized. Academically, it can be defined as a bureaucratic oligarchy. Practically, it's a hornet's nest where the queen is long dead and the only reminder of her ever existing is a giant portrait in front of Tian An Men square; and none of her drones has the biological legitimacy to replace her, but that won't stop them from trying. A little harsh, perhaps, but this is actually a good thing, and I'll explain why in a few.
Practically, the Chinese political structure has not changed in 2000 years. The vast majority of core legislations are constructed and managed by the few political elite. 2000 years ago, it was the Emperor and his advisors. Today, it's the politburo. The core legislations themselves are usually fairly vague and impractical; they are then expanded upon and deployed by each provincial government according to their needs and desires. Each provincial government has full freedom to change these legislations within the wide confines of the proto-definition to suit their own needs. How loyally they adhere to the core legislation depends entirely on the provincial government, and thus there is a degree of regulated autonomy.
For example, Hong Kong's provincial legislation has a high degree of regulated autonomy while Zhe Jiang has a low degree of regulated autonomy.
This is a GOOD system for many reasons - not the least of which is that it survived pretty much intact for 2000 years. It's extremely flexible, allowing the provincial government tailor the laws to their own population, and enforces a very strong geographical political competition.
However, it's not difficult to see how such a system suffers from many problems. It might be flexible on the provincial level, but it's extremely inflexible on the national level. It is very difficult under this system to make a hard 90 degree turn in national politics, for example, since the turn has to trickle through every single provincial government. It also makes corruption rampant - since the political power of the provincial government makes such offenses very difficult to observe and catch.
With that said, the Politburo does hold the ultimate rein to the nation through control of the core legislation, and were it united in thought, it could conceivably make these national changes possible. A prime example of this was Deng Xiao Ping's captalist reforms, which were continued by Jiang Ze Min. Unfortunately, that was the last time the Politburo was united under one direction.
There are several splinter factions within the Chinese Politburo. Chinese political analysts will tell you there are 4. For the sake of simplicity and the constraints of time, I'll say that there are two - the traditionalist and the progressive. Both are characterized by politburo members from two different age groups. The traditionalists are composed of hardline and aging ministers like Wu Bang Guo while the progressives are composed of younger ministers like Wen Jia Bao.
The line is split fairly down the middle, not unlike the United States congress.
But unlike the United States congress, each minister is responsible for different aspects of political roles, which, quite frankly, is where the winds of thetorm starts to blow. For example, Zhu Rong Ji, the current economics minister, is very progressive, and you can see this reflected in the economy. Wen Jia Bao is responsible for foreign diplomacy, and there, too, you can see very progressive diplomatic policies. The Public Safety minister, on the other hand, is very traditional, and his traditionalism is often in conflict with the Judicial minister, who is extremely progressive. The end result are gross reports of police brutality while at the same time, a very high rate of acquittal by judicial process.
In fact, as an observer, you can see this disparity everywhere in China. The education system is extremely progressive despite the state media's attempts to ban certain textbooks and material from the schools. In certain provinces, there are very free-form elections of provincial leadership while in others, there is zero political freedom. This is and always has been a huge concern within the politburo itself. This kind of disparity, needless to say, is very harmful to the political infrastructure. Many attempts have been made to even out the political spectrum within the politburo, but the plain and simple fact is that the current political infrastructure doesn't allow easy solutions, especially when you lack a central figure to make definitive tie breaker calls.
This is a huge reason why Hu Jing Tao was chosen as the chairman. Hu, a practical and very intelligent man in his own right, was primarily chosen because he holds very moderate political leanings. It was hoped that by choosing a moderate arbiter, the political disparity within the politburo could see some peace. We've yet to see if this goal is justified.
And thus - that's where we are today. That's the Chinese political situation in a nutshell. Of course I'm leaving out major holes, but that's what the ensuing discussion is for.
So the topic of this thread is where you think China is going and any comments about the current state of things is welcome, although I would advise any comments regarding trivial issues like lip synching to the other 10 threads.
Having worked as a journalist for a good part of my life, I make it a habit not to inject my personal opinions into things, but for the sake of discussion, I'll start by voicing my own.
Personally, I think progressiveness is the way to go, not surprisingly. Traditionalism in China is nothing more than holding on to an outmoded idea for an outmoded era.
This means I am against censorship - not for any humanitarian or lofty reasons - but just because Chinese people too smart for it, and censorship, to me, is a form of insult to that intelligence. Also, it serves quite literally no political purpose.
I am for human rights - because people tend to be happier when they have them, and the modern political arsenal offers far more tools to deal with problems than deprivation of human rights. I also believe you cannot have captalism and market freedom without human rights, because a human with no rights will not be motivated to buy stuff.
I am ambivalent on the issue of democratization of China - because I believe the change is inevitable, but I don't want it to happen RIGHT NOW, when such a change will jeopardize the economic rise. For my detailed thoughts on the issue, I refer you to the political academy thread by the same name.
I am fully aware that this is probably going to end up with a one-man-pow-wow because apparently, you people would much rather discuss lip synching than actual political issues, but you know what? At least I tried.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by sephodwyrm
