China to Test "Western" Political Reforms In Shenzen

[ranskaldan]

Yep. And common sense has been in force for the past 10 years.

Strangely, I still haven't found any mention of this experiment in Chinese sources.

[chequita guevara]

Haven't been any good Chinese communists since the Canton Commune.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
DuncanK: yes, of course. Nothing can replace checks and balances.

Except true democracy on the most local level

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

Strangely, I still haven't found any mention of this experiment in Chinese sources.

That maybe because they are doing this for the multinational corporations and the international community. They don't want their people to know about it. It might cause problems for them.

[ranskaldan]

Well, the people of Shenzhen should hear of this, at least? If they do, then it would be common knowledge across China in a week.

I'll be watching Chinese news websites for updates.

[DaShi]

Re: China to Test "Western" Political Reforms In Shenzen

Originally posted by DanS
...starting this year. Could somebody help give us a clue on what the significance of this is? I'm especially interested that Jiang's man is heading it up, not any of Hu's men.

It's obvious, isn't it. If it works, then Jiang can take credit for it. If it fails, it will fail during Hu's reign so he'll be to blame.

[DanS]

I don't see it failing. To do it in Shenzhen, the jewel of the crown, means that it has broad support, even by Hu. Success, in the way I measure things, will be difficult, however.

[DaShi]

I didn't say it would fail. I just explained why Jiang would put his name on it.

[ranskaldan]

Finally! The news appears as headline news at a reputable Chinese news website:

http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-01-18/0852879232.shtml

[ranskaldan]

A quick translation of main points:

Shenzhen will carry out the reforms in early 2003. In essence, the city government will be split into the three branches of legislative, executive and judicial. This will result in the disappearance of many existing government offices, in the first instance of such reform across the entire nation.

"Mayor Yu [of Shenzhen] explains: even since Montesquieu advanced his idea of limited power for each branch of government, many Western nations have adopted such reforms. This has resulted in both advantages and disadvantages, often an over-emphasis on process has resulted in sluggish decision-making and implementation. Shenzhen's goal is to create a system that is both able to supply checks and balances among its branches and ensure high efficiency in the government."

In addition, the city government delegates the right to approve foreign investment, fixed capital investment to local borough authorities.

The borough governments will also have greater rights in the areas of the environment, commerce & industries, public safety, urban planning, etc.

Some other unrelated stuff.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I would hasten to mention that Communism is a primarily economic system, not a political system. All of the world's previous communist states taught consistently that once the revolution was fully achieved, equal self-rule by all people would be the order of the day.

Thus, the ideal communist society bears more in common politically with a democratic society. The paradigm that communism opposes is not democracy, but capitalism.

However, the political system that often accompanies communist nations is authoritarian or police rule. This is what most people mean when they mention "communist". Historically, all communist countries have tended towards authoritarian and police rule, and as such a "communist" is frequently caricatured as somebody who loves police states and oppression (which is an oversimplification of the matter).

China appears to be trying to work a mixture of authoritarian politics, and capitalistic economics. This might lead to a dangerous challenge by the newly empowered middle class, but Jiang's contribution to Chinese Communist thought (such as it is) was to admit capitalists into the Communist Party.

Evidently his thinking was to include the newly economically powerful class into politics, thus allowing them some limited power or perception thereof.

This will certainly help reduce friction with the noveau riche, but risks alienating the enormous social majority living at or below the poverty line.

An International Herald Tribune article recently chronicled (rather positively, I might add) President Hu's latest departures from Jiang's standard. Hu visited rural areas and spoke to local governments about greater state aid to the poor and health treatment. He specifically mentioned the Communist Party's debt to the peasantry, and acknowledged that improvements in their living standards are needed.

China's non-autonomous regions are all linked by a common script and many similar cultures (though not entirely identical). This is one of the reasons proffered to explain why China has not fragmented to the same degree that the Soviet Union did. The USSR admitted republic nations but did not provide them with political or economic equality, and could not convince them of the validity of the Moscow rule over their territory. China, on the other hand, has a sufficiently coherent and continuous historical/cultural bond with most of its non-autonomous regions that any sustained pro-indepence activity would be unlikely.

Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang are exceptions to this. Taiwan, though culturally similar to China, is at present politically distant (insofar as military and diplomatic intervention by the Americans have worked to foster an anti-Beijing, pro-Taipei stance). Economics used to define the major differentiation between China and Taiwan (during the Chiang rules, Taiwan's political system was every bit as draconian as China's... a fact that most westerners do not hear about) but now with the attractiveness of mainland investments, and the shared culture and language, more and more Taiwanese investors and entrepreneurs are returning to China, lobbying against Taiwanese policies which could endanger peace (such as declarations of independence) or hurt profits (such as regulations limiting the export of human skills and resources to the mainland).

Tibet and Xinjiang were annexed recently enough so that pro-independence movements are more influential. Moreover, both regions have considerably different cultural and linguistic histories than the Han states. At present, the Chinese government is pouring huge amounts of state and private investments into the development of these two territories, and international policy upholds Chinese sovereignty over these two areas.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Shi Huangdi:
Yes, China has stayed together for thousands of years, mainly due to the draconian, tyrannic governmental measures that were first set in stone by Shi Huangdi.

Definitely not. It is the culture that bound the people together.

[Urban Ranger]

There has been no mention of this in the local news either. Very odd.

I would hasten to mention that Communism is a primarily economic system, not a political system.

[Az]

What's with the communist talk, anyway? It's not like the PRC is connected to communist ideas, really.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Definitely not. It is the culture that bound the people together.

No. Before Shi Huangdi's time, China was fragmented enough to be very Europe-like. Each "state" in what is now China had its own culture, language, philosophies, script. The outlying states like the Chu, Qin, Yue etc were considered semi-barbarian.

This is the reason why China could go through five hundred years without showing any signs of political reunification -- there was simply no concept of "China" at the time, at least no more than the concept of "Europe" is today.

Shi Huangdi changed all that. Among many of his deeds, he destroyed the old system of states and initiated massive migrations; he unified the scripts and measures of the individual states; and he first set in stone the idea of an indivisible China. The difference between him and Rome, however, is that his state-control mechanisms worked better for China, which was less geographically fragmented anyway. Hence subsequent dynasties were able to keep the country together until it really gained a sense of "cultural unity".

China didn't begin as a "cultural monolith" -- it was Qin Shi Huangdi who first created that concept.

Besides, cultural unity is irrelevant anyway. China has flown apart countless times in history, culture or no culture.

btw, here's a link to Chinese news:

http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-01-18/0852879232.shtml