78 replies to this topic

[MengJiaSheng]

I was just wondering what the exact reasons for the failure of the Republic of China after 1912 were. Although one might argue that the Republic lives on on Taiwan, still in Mainland China the republican experiment failed. So why was it not possible for the democratic government of 1912 to sustain its power and maintain a democratic state?

[changsham]

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.

Edited by changsham, 28 December 2008 - 04:48 PM.

[MattW]

If you look at history, democracies take significant amounts of time to develop a strong foundation in a society. For example, look at the UK, where the process of democratisation took over 700 years, starting with the 1214 magna carta. You can't achieve democracy overnight, and the youthfulness of the post-1912 Republic made its failure not ineveitable but a realistic possibility.

[bayonet]

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.

The Republican was demorcracy in guise dictateship indeed, the emperor was overthrown yet the mindset was not, new emperors appeared one after another though without the title of emperor. Democracy is a long way to go. Taiwan has been under the rule of Republic of China over 60 years, yet it was till very recently the democracy experiment kicked off. It is still young and needs test.

[LongMa]

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.

I agree with all these points. It might be instructive to see how Democracy involved from a KMT/Military Dictatorship in Taiwan. It did not happen over night, but Taiwan is relatively stable today even if there is often deadlock and political infighting...there is not threat of revolution and people do vote in high numbers, protest, free press...it seems like a "young" but healthy democracy.

[mariusj]

I agree with all these points. It might be instructive to see how Democracy involved from a KMT/Military Dictatorship in Taiwan. It did not happen over night, but Taiwan is relatively stable today even if there is often deadlock and political infighting...there is not threat of revolution and people do vote in high numbers, protest, free press...it seems like a "young" but healthy democracy.

Actually, in a healthy democracy, people vote in their best interest. In Taiwan, people vote in a very distinctive line.

[Yang Zongbao]

The Republican was demorcracy in guise dictateship indeed, the emperor was overthrown yet the mindset was not, new emperors appeared one after another though without the title of emperor. Democracy is a long way to go. Taiwan has been under the rule of Republic of China over 60 years, yet it was till very recently the democracy experiment kicked off. It is still young and needs test.

I agree with these points and Changsham's. Even Chiang himself tended to act more like an Emperor than a real president, to say nothing of the Warlords all around China. The failure of Chiang's regime was also contributed to by gross corruption, and some stupid decisions. A great example was when Chiang laid off a lot of his soldiers after the war with Japan. These soldiers, who had no other skills and spent their whole lives fighting, became jobless, and either turned to banditry (causing resentment against the army), or simply joined the Communists for their next meal. This lesson was learned too late by Chiang, but he did make sure to give his veterans jobs in Taiwan, to make sure that large unemployment by trained men wouldn't cause social issues.

[MattW]

So, the prevailing opinion seems to be that you can't achive democracy overnight...Because it was an 'experiment', that suggests a lack of experience and am uncertain outcome...

[Mei Houwang]

Modern Democracy needs a significant middle-class. China did not have that. Communism, on the other hand, needs a significant agricultural lower class. China had that. Look at all the nations that developed a communist government-in-power and you'll find that it was mainly populated by the agricultural lower class. In short, I say one must look at this economically instead of on whether the Chinese had "experience", although that too is important.

[MattW]

Modern Democracy needs a significant middle-class. China did not have that. Communism, on the other hand, needs a significant agricultural lower class. China had that. Look at all the nations that developed a communist government-in-power and you'll find that it was mainly populated by the agricultural lower class. In short, I say one must look at this economically instead of on whether the Chinese had "experience", although that too is important.

Communism needs a successful capitalist foundation on which to build on [as Marx suggested], which China did not have.

[Mei Houwang]

In theory, yes, Marx did say that capitalism must come before communism. But in practice, we can see that agricultural countries like China developed into communist nations without a heavy foundation in capitalism. Of course, you can argue that China/Russia's communist styles are different from those Marx described. China's communism, Maoism, should be much easier to take hold in agricultural societies, since it views industrial centers less positively and agricultural communities more positively.

Edited by Anthrophobia, 31 December 2008 - 07:18 PM.

[MattW]

In theory, yes, Marx did say that capitalism must come before communism. But in practice, we can see that agricultural countries like China developed into communist nations without a heavy foundation in capitalism. Of course, you can argue that China/Russia's communist styles are different from those Marx described.

Has China ever really achieved Communism though? I would argue it hasn't. Limited forms of socialism have been present, but the Communist vision of a classless society e.t.c as envisioned by Marx has never been realised in China.

[LongMa]

Actually, in a healthy democracy, people vote in their best interest. In Taiwan, people vote in a very distinctive line.

One could argue that Americans do to.

You can pretty much predict the conservative and democratic ones and you can also predict by race, class, and less so gender how people fall...the swing states are a small minority, that only make up a minority of the population, my estimate off the top of my head is only about 15% of the population or so...

I think in both nations you can argue that people vote their interest.

A nation I would question the health of is actually Japan.

[mariusj]

One could argue that Americans do to.

You can pretty much predict the conservative and democratic ones and you can also predict by race, class, and less so gender how people fall...the swing states are a small minority, that only make up a minority of the population, my estimate off the top of my head is only about 15% of the population or so...

I think in both nations you can argue that people vote their interest.

A nation I would question the health of is actually Japan.

Very large numbers of African Americans who voted for Obama also voted to ban gay marriage, that is a distinctive crossing the line.

In America, if the Republicans in Congress try to raise taxes and increase social spending, would Republican voted them back in office?
In Taiwan, the party are form much less to the political and economic ideals that found the party, instead its much of demagogic sway of public opinion on something far more abstract then the economic benefit of general population. In other words, as much as American politicians waste their time on worthless c**p, the Taiwanese lawmakers are more so. At least the televised ones anyways.

[ahxiang]

I agree with these points and Changsham's. Even Chiang himself tended to act more like an Emperor than a real president, to say nothing of the Warlords all around China. The failure of Chiang's regime was also contributed to by gross corruption, and some stupid decisions. A great example was when Chiang laid off a lot of his soldiers after the war with Japan. These soldiers, who had no other skills and spent their whole lives fighting, became jobless, and either turned to banditry (causing resentment against the army), or simply joined the Communists for their next meal. This lesson was learned too late by Chiang, but he did make sure to give his veterans jobs in Taiwan, to make sure that large unemployment by trained men wouldn't cause social issues.

Yang, Chiang "laid off" soldiers because it was a George Marshall demilitarization decree as part of peace deal with communists.

This thread asked originally who China's democracy failed. It failed when Feng Yuxiang, who had more guns from Russians than Chiang Kai-shek, toppled the Peking government in 1924 "shoudu gemin" - capital revolution. Without Russians meddling in China, the south and north could have reached a middle path to reunite in 1920s.