78 replies to this topic

[Ballserk]

Hi, IMO this a question which can have too many answers and opinions. I think the best way to tackle it is to look at the basic requirements of the democratic systems and how they relate to early republican China.

Here's what I think.

I. Democracies need commitment from the overwhelming majority to support the democratic process. From all sectors of society including ethnic and political divisions. Democracy is most difficult to apply where there are deep ethnic, social and political divisions.
2. Losers must accept the mandate of winners.
3. Winners must respect the aspirations of the losers.
4. Democracies require maturity in political thinking.
5. Democracy is like a piece of iron. Once exposed it will slowly rust away to nothing unless protective measures are in place. Like the absolute rule of law and human rights. Democracy can be easily exploited if not protected.
6. Empowerment of all stratas of society in both the political and economic sense.



I don't think any of these points I make were in place when China first became a Republic or managed to develop. Old attitudes were too entrenched. Democracy never really had a chance and all too difficult. The two major political forces(KMT and Communists) that developed during this period were never commited to democracy. At best it would have become one of those phony democracies that are all too common these days. Russia is a prime example.

There still is a chance democracy will appear in China. And the current political climate is perhaps the best it has ever been for this to happen. But still a long way to go.

generally agree with this.

the problem with democracy in china is that people just don't understand and respect democratic process, and most important of all - rule of law. democracy requires a solid system of rule of law and people's tolerance for dissenting views, these two benchmarks fail miserably in china, whether back then or now. another major factor is the chinese culture, people have simply been under imperial rule for too long there is little to no sense of individualism or personal rights, the submissive attitude to rulers is ingrained in the genes.

if you watched 走向共和, Mr. Sun had to travel around the country and educate everybody on voting and rights and stuff but still no one gives a d****. I know its just a film but it mirrors perfectly the main issues with democratization.

and I am not too obsessed with the term "middle class", long as people abide by laws and understand the process there need not be enough middle class, and vice versa.

so it all boils down to the people, think of it as a software release, besides the hard work on the core programming the developer usually has to put equal amount of efforts into beta testing and patching, on top of that they need to attach a complete documentation and make tutorial videos and such so that users can accept this particular software to be their everyday tool.

I believe theres a consensus amongst the leadership on progressive approach, I can see this in Mr. Hu's latest speech. given china's huge population and cultural and ideological diversity, grand plans would be nigh on impossible to implement let alone work, copy-paste a foreign system would likely have catastrophic result (I too thought this was bullshit propaganda but the more I inspect and analyse the chinese society the more I trust this to be quiet correct).

[HappyHistorian]

So why was it not possible for the democratic government of 1912 to sustain its power and maintain a democratic state?

The Republic of China was a newly established and unstable country. It was more of a dictatorship in the guise of a democracy. Also there was too much corruption. The old ways did not suddenly disappear overnight, it takes a long time for democracy to succeed as it depends on precedent.

[ahxiang]

The Republic of China was a newly established and unstable country. It was more of a dictatorship in the guise of a democracy. Also there was too much corruption. The old ways did not suddenly disappear overnight, it takes a long time for democracy to succeed as it depends on precedent.

Why do you think Republic of China was a dictatorship?

You want to read Paul Reinsch's book to know what Republic of China was like. Wellington Koo's memoirs is another source.

Republic of China, up to 1924, was a parliamentary system, the most democratic form of government China ever had for 5,000 years. True, in between, there was Yuan Shi-kai's usurpation. That was possible after he painstakingly changed the constitution to allow the switch to imperial system, good for 1.5 years, only. Other than 1.5 years of turmoil, China's parliament and parties functioned well, although sometimes chaotically, such as during Zhang Xun's pigtail army mutiny time period. The so-called factional wars between Zhi-xi and Wan-xi were short-lived, with almost no damages. Jagher commented about the early civil wars, claiming that you don't have to kill to win, and the defeated usually just went overseas for a trip, and there was no summary execution or bodily elimination of enemies or opponents.

Please do not buy into the claim that Chinese are ignorant to deserve democracy or the sort. China's lack of democracy was the result of gaming plans of the powers. Today, when US treasury secretary Paulson reportedly visited Peking twice a year, with an accumulated visits of 60+ times, how do you expect China to be progressive and democratic? The dark forces want to rein in China. The only way to rein in China is to inhibit the potential of the ONE BILLION people, i.e., depriving them of the possibility to enjoy a decent life other than a coolie.

[HappyHistorian]

Why do you think Republic of China was a dictatorship?

You want to read Paul Reinsch's book to know what Republic of China was like. Wellington Koo's memoirs is another source.

Republic of China, up to 1924, was a parliamentary system, the most democratic form of government China ever had for 5,000 years. True, in between, there was Yuan Shi-kai's usurpation. That was possible after he painstakingly changed the constitution to allow the switch to imperial system, good for 1.5 years, only. Other than 1.5 years of turmoil, China's parliament and parties functioned well, although sometimes chaotically, such as during Zhang Xun's pigtail army mutiny time period. The so-called factional wars between Zhi-xi and Wan-xi were short-lived, with almost no damages. Jagher commented about the early civil wars, claiming that you don't have to kill to win, and the defeated usually just went overseas for a trip, and there was no summary execution or bodily elimination of enemies or opponents.

Please do not buy into the claim that Chinese are ignorant to deserve democracy or the sort. China's lack of democracy was the result of gaming plans of the powers. Today, when US treasury secretary Paulson reportedly visited Peking twice a year, with an accumulated visits of 60+ times, how do you expect China to be progressive and democratic? The dark forces want to rein in China. The only way to rein in China is to inhibit the potential of the ONE BILLION people, i.e., depriving them of the possibility to enjoy a decent life other than a coolie.

What's Paul Reinsch's book called?

The Republic of China was certainly the most democratic form of government it had in the 5000 years of China's existence. However we need to assess how democratic China was. A democracy requires people to be represented in Government. So how effective was China's democracy?

The Republic of China was dominated by the military, Jiang Jieshi and bureaucrats, hence it was like a dictatorship (maybe more of an oligopoly). Corruption was a big problem in the new republic.

[ahxiang]

What's Paul Reinsch's book called?

The Republic of China was certainly the most democratic form of government it had in the 5000 years of China's existence. However we need to assess how democratic China was. A democracy requires people to be represented in Government. So how effective was China's democracy?

The Republic of China was dominated by the military, Jiang Jieshi and bureaucrats, hence it was like a dictatorship (maybe more of an oligopoly). Corruption was a big problem in the new republic.

http://www.wisconsin...y...le&letter=R

Reinsch, Paul Samuel 1869 - 1923

An American Diplomat in China (1922)

Reinsch was probably one of two or three most compassionate American diplomats ever as far as China is concerned. Today's or future Chinese should forever remember what they did for China. A monument to be erected for Reinsch in China is minimum Chinese could do should there emerge a future generation of Chinese who know how to read history to know who were friends and who were foes.

-Should we Chinese fail to appreciate Reinsch, there would not be another American politician who would come out to defend China's interests in the future.

Chiang Kai-shek was a phenomenon of 1927 and later. Chiang was not a 100% dictatorship, either. He controlled lower Yangtze provinces, only, before Sino-Japanese War forced unification onto China. Chiang was merely practicing Sun Yat-sen's three phase government, military government, tutelage government and constitutional government. The plan to go to constitutional government was set for late 1937, and the paper was drafted by Sun Ke in 1934, three years ahead. After the war outbreak, constitutional government was delayed. There was a supreme council and politics participation assembly. During the 8-year war, China made sure professors and students could continue to go to college and get paid. What happened was professors and students, well fed and exempt from military service (mandatory military draft), turned to communism, and continuously asked for constitutional government during the war. Professors and students used Southwest China as a bastion, and colluded with Comintern and Vietnameses communists, British agents and American OSS agents in sabotaging China's war efforts. After the war, George marshall continued the communist party's path of imposing a coalition government, as demanded by communists in 1944 as well as propagated by Service and Davis. In 1948, China adopted all the major points communists demanded, but as Marshall said, communists felt there was no need to continuing political wrangling after late 1946 and refused to meet with Marshall. Marshall hence left in Jan 1947. Even so, ROC followed the timeline to elect a multi-party cabinet.

Theoretically, before 1924, China had a 1913 constitution, as well as a Yuan Shikai version, but after 1924, when Feng toppled peking government with Russian guns, there was no more constitution. The next constitution was the one devised and implemented in 1947-8.

Edited by ahxiang, 13 January 2009 - 01:28 PM.

[mariusj]

What's Paul Reinsch's book called?

The Republic of China was certainly the most democratic form of government it had in the 5000 years of China's existence. However we need to assess how democratic China was. A democracy requires people to be represented in Government. So how effective was China's democracy?

The Republic of China was dominated by the military, Jiang Jieshi and bureaucrats, hence it was like a dictatorship (maybe more of an oligopoly). Corruption was a big problem in the new republic.

Wait.

Repeat what you said.

Then, add the time frame in.

Then, recall pictures of women tossing themselves in front of carriages in England and black men unable to ride in the same section as white men in America

Then, repeat what you said.

[Mei Houwang]

Then, recall pictures of women tossing themselves in front of carriages in England and black men unable to ride in the same section as white men in America

I would say that's more of a social/economic factor rather than a governmental one, though the government would undeniably be able to affect social/economic conditions and vice versa. Democracy(as well as dictatorship, oligarchy, monarchy, theocracy, etc...) is more about the spread of power within the government. Thus the Republic of China would probably be more undemocratic than its name implies, although one could argue that it would eventually take the road to democracy if left alone.

[mariusj]

I would say that's more of a social/economic factor rather than a governmental one, though the government would undeniably be able to affect social/economic conditions and vice versa. Democracy(as well as dictatorship, oligarchy, monarchy, theocracy, etc...) is more about the spread of power within the government. Thus the Republic of China would probably be more undemocratic than its name implies, although one could argue that it would eventually take the road to democracy if left alone.

No. I disagree.

Forms of Governance is about where the power came from, that is, from WHOM did the contract came, then it is about where does the power go, to WHOM it serves. Now in this specific case, woman was included in neither of these.

Also... Democracy is pretty vague.
http://en.wikipedia....es_of_democracy

[HappyHistorian]

Wait.

Repeat what you said.

Then, add the time frame in.

Then, recall pictures of women tossing themselves in front of carriages in England and black men unable to ride in the same section as white men in America

Then, repeat what you said.

The Republic of China had more democracy than any time prior to the Republic's establishment. The Republic certainly was a limited democracy-women were not represented, minorities were not represented and even most Chinese were not represented. However they were not under authoritarian rule of emperors and they had more democracy than ever before (even though it was limited, but at least it was a start). I am not an apologist for the Republic, it had its faults. The Republic was dominated by cliques, and corruption was widespread.

Edited by HappyHistorian, 13 January 2009 - 05:41 AM.

[Yizheng]

I think with the democratic experiment of the first half of the 20th century China and Russia have big similarities. Like Bayonet points out, the xinhai revolution overthrew the emperors, but it did not and could not change the general thinking overnight, especially too as such different figures as Sun Zhongshan and Yuan Shikai emerged as leaders. Yuan Shikai was not long in wanting to become emperor. Same in Russia after the 1905 revolution, experiment in constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, but it was chaotic and ordinary people didn't really understand it.

All these kinds of experiments take time and usually at first are indeed chaotic and not at all always very democratic. China and Russia had the bad luck to begin their experiments at the moment the world went into first WWI and then WWII, and this changed the whole situation and opened the way for radical forces to get the upper hand. I think without WWI Russia would never have become communist, and without WWII and communist USSR, China would not have become communist.

Democracy as we see it now is really only very new. It was not so long ago in Europe that all men got the vote regardless of wealth status, and has been barely more than 100 years, less in lots of countries, that women got the vote.

I disagree with arguments that some countries are more suited to democracy than others. To me, democracy is about the state and the people being one. The less democratic a country is, seems the more they talk about the importance of serving the people etc. If there is real democracy the state is the people, the people are the state, and the bureaucrats are civil servants . China and Russia both love the argument that democracy would jeopardise stability and the country might fall apart. People are so indoctrinated on this argument they end up believing it as some kind of sacred doctrine. But it seems to me that the history of uprisings in old times in China and Russia (like Taipings in Qing era and Pugachev uprising in Russia) equally if not more threaten stability, and an authoritarian system where the state is divorced from the people has inherent tension and potential for upheaval. This is becoming clear now in Russia as economic crisis gets worse and people start to protest.

I think the Republic in China simply never got the time or conditions needed for democracy to develop. There were many people following their own agenda, all the warlords after their own interests, the guomindang and communists caught in Moscow's geopolitical games too. But none of that means that democracy could not have gradually developed and still could today. It's my impression in both Russia and China that lots of people don't have a clear notion of what democracy acutally is, but their personal aspirations are actually precisely for democracy, though they maybe would not give it that name.

[Mei Houwang]

Forms of Governance is about where the power came from, that is, from WHOM did the contract came, then it is about where does the power go, to WHOM it serves. Now in this specific case, woman was included in neither of these.

Yes, I agree. But all it takes is for a sizable portion of the population to have the power to vote in order for it to be called a democracy. Ancient Athens had a democracy in which only male landowners could vote(same with early America). It may not be a fair democracy(which may be why we exclude it from the term modern democracy), but we still called it a democracy. A democracy doesn't have to be socially fair in order for it to be a democracy. It just has to give a "portion" of the population the vote. I just don't recall the Republic ever having that until they went to Taiwan. I do earnestly believe Sun YatSen was serious about creating a democracy, but the combination of YuanShiKai and ChiangKaiShek, along with a fractured China, probably ruined that.

[ahxiang]

I think with the democratic experiment of the first half of the 20th century China and Russia have big similarities. Like Bayonet points out, the xinhai revolution overthrew the emperors, but it did not and could not change the general thinking overnight, especially too as such different figures as Sun Zhongshan and Yuan Shikai emerged as leaders. Yuan Shikai was not long in wanting to become emperor. Same in Russia after the 1905 revolution, experiment in constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, but it was chaotic and ordinary people didn't really understand it.

All these kinds of experiments take time and usually at first are indeed chaotic and not at all always very democratic. China and Russia had the bad luck to begin their experiments at the moment the world went into first WWI and then WWII, and this changed the whole situation and opened the way for radical forces to get the upper hand. I think without WWI Russia would never have become communist, and without WWII and communist USSR, China would not have become communist.

Democracy as we see it now is really only very new. It was not so long ago in Europe that all men got the vote regardless of wealth status, and has been barely more than 100 years, less in lots of countries, that women got the vote.

I disagree with arguments that some countries are more suited to democracy than others. To me, democracy is about the state and the people being one. The less democratic a country is, seems the more they talk about the importance of serving the people etc. If there is real democracy the state is the people, the people are the state, and the bureaucrats are civil servants . China and Russia both love the argument that democracy would jeopardise stability and the country might fall apart. People are so indoctrinated on this argument they end up believing it as some kind of sacred doctrine. But it seems to me that the history of uprisings in old times in China and Russia (like Taipings in Qing era and Pugachev uprising in Russia) equally if not more threaten stability, and an authoritarian system where the state is divorced from the people has inherent tension and potential for upheaval. This is becoming clear now in Russia as economic crisis gets worse and people start to protest.

I think the Republic in China simply never got the time or conditions needed for democracy to develop. There were many people following their own agenda, all the warlords after their own interests, the guomindang and communists caught in Moscow's geopolitical games too. But none of that means that democracy could not have gradually developed and still could today. It's my impression in both Russia and China that lots of people don't have a clear notion of what democracy acutally is, but their personal aspirations are actually precisely for democracy, though they maybe would not give it that name.

Your post is more expounding than any of the others on this post.

I will check with you to see how today's China is like versus China of 1905-1924, which time period more likely for China to be democratic.

My intuition is that China was more likely to go democratic, and parliamentary system in 1905-1924 than today. What people had missed was the enormity of work Chinese of late 19th century did for reforming China. Literally hundreds of thousands of European-educated, Japan-educated and US-educated graduates returned to China to serve the country. Though you have 20 around cabinets shuffling from 1910 to 1924, almost half of the members of those cabinets were foreign educated. In no situation did I observe any cabinet member trying to cling to their position. The cabinet shuffling, though chaotic, were following the constitution. Throughout the 1910s, you had Chinese conscientiously defending the republic, either the republic restoration wars or the constitution protection wars.

To evaluate a country, whether it is a true republic or a fake one, no matter the flamboyant people's republic or democratic republic, only one criteria should be used, i.e., constitution with some form of parliamentary system that allows free assembly of parties and free election by parties - representative bodies of peoples or constituents - whether direct election or party election is another topic.

Before 1924, China possessed such a constitution that was drafted in 1910 on basis of elements of the US Independence Declaration.

After 1924, China did not have one till 1947-1948, except for a so-called 5-5 Draft by Sun Ke, written around 1934 for implementation in late 1937.

As to Russian and Chinese fate. I already talked about Anglo-American governments' and bankers' shared objective against both Russia and China at
http://www.chinahist...p...t&p=4965283
What you see here is that dark forces had overpowered the peoples of both Russia and China. You see how a little potato British agent, in fact an Irish, by the name of Captain Kennedy, viciously implemented the British empire's strategy to strangle China for 30+ years. -When it came to the issue of China, British agents, communist-penetrated American OSS agents, as well as Russian Comintern agents, shared the same objective, i.e., sabotaging China, as was evidenced by their joint sabotage work in Southwest China during the early 1940s.

Today's Russia is still fortunate than China. Russia's prime minister and president steadfastly defend their national interests on every occasion. They made wealth on gas and oil, not like China which made the money on the coolie labor of billion people, not knowing what they were doing is a sellout of the interests of the nation and the people. Today, you no longer have the hundreds of thousands of Chinese returning to service for the Chinese government. Things are much dire than 1905-1924. What is to come for China will be that in 30 years, 50 years or 100 years, the rulers of China would be the half-mingled sons and grandsons of today's communist leadership, who after spending years in the west won't give a dam[n] about China and the Chinese people. The vicious cycle will not end for China.

Edited by ahxiang, 13 January 2009 - 01:25 PM.

[senor boogie woogie]

Ni Hao!

China has never known democracy, and they never had it. What is required in this society is very strong people to run the government and thre "little people" to make room within the system.

Jeffersonian/American democracy would not work in China. Elections would be rigged. The most powerful of the society would influence and decide every election. Then one would have to consider in a Democratic China that parts of China would elect their own leaders who would want to break up the nation. Xinjiang and Tibet would break away.

For China to work as China, it is required that strong and unwavering leadership runs this nation. There is no other choice. The Han peoples need to be of one voice. Of course, within the Han society there is not room for debate and change, but to the wavering provinces of minorities and to the UN and the World, the Han need to be of oe voice. Democracy would destroy China. China could not handle democracy. This is not calling Chinese stupid. Not at all, the Han is a brilliant society. It is that democracy wont work here. The power comes from on high and is trinkled down to the provinces and to those with guanxi.

There are 70 million Chinese Communist Party members. This is about half of one percent of the nation. These 70 million people indirectly pickthe leaders to run the nation. Probably better odds than the people behind the scenes in the United States who do the same thing. I live in China now and the government is doing a great job. If I thought they sucked, I would be silent, because this is not a democracy.

Democracy would destoy China. The Han wont allow that. What now?

[ahxiang]

Ni Hao!

China has never known democracy, and they never had it. What is required in this society is very strong people to run the government and thre "little people" to make room within the system.

Jeffersonian/American democracy would not work in China. Elections would be rigged. The most powerful of the society would influence and decide every election. Then one would have to consider in a Democratic China that parts of China would elect their own leaders who would want to break up the nation. Xinjiang and Tibet would break away.

For China to work as China, it is required that strong and unwavering leadership runs this nation. There is no other choice. The Han peoples need to be of one voice. Of course, within the Han society there is not room for debate and change, but to the wavering provinces of minorities and to the UN and the World, the Han need to be of oe voice. Democracy would destroy China. China could not handle democracy. This is not calling Chinese stupid. Not at all, the Han is a brilliant society. It is that democracy wont work here. The power comes from on high and is trinkled down to the provinces and to those with guanxi.

There are 70 million Chinese Communist Party members. This is about half of one percent of the nation. These 70 million people indirectly pickthe leaders to run the nation. Probably better odds than the people behind the scenes in the United States who do the same thing. I live in China now and the government is doing a great job. If I thought they sucked, I would be silent, because this is not a democracy.

Democracy would destoy China. The Han wont allow that. What now?

I guess "big people" like you are enjoying one thing that China offers you, i.e., sexual revolution from "little women". The "little people" like me wants to remind you of what you fear the most, i.e., all "little men" going to college some day instead of wasting their time and energies on producing cheap stuff for your enjoyment.

Sure, China had been screwed up more than once, Russian-sponsored coup of 1924-5, US-supported Japanese invasion for manchuria, and sell-out at Yalta.

Someday, when one billion Chinese "little people" go to college, then even 300 years gap could be closed. We will see whether the "little people" deserve the human decency as you had written off.

[Yun]

Jeffersonian/American democracy would not work in China. Elections would be rigged. The most powerful of the society would influence and decide every election. Then one would have to consider in a Democratic China that parts of China would elect their own leaders who would want to break up the nation. Xinjiang and Tibet would break away.

For China to work as China, it is required that strong and unwavering leadership runs this nation. There is no other choice. The Han peoples need to be of one voice. Of course, within the Han society there is not room for debate and change, but to the wavering provinces of minorities and to the UN and the World, the Han need to be of oe voice. Democracy would destroy China. China could not handle democracy.

Let's not get into current politics and predicting the future. You are entitled to your views but they are irrelevant to the topic of discussion, which is China in the early 20th century.