China to Test "Western" Political Reforms In Shenzen

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
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".

Were the mechanisms different or was there some other reason why they worked in China instead of Rome? Very interesting

[DanS]

"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."

High efficiency in government?

As for the rest of the description, it seems pretty vague, but there are some promising parts, such as moving spending more toward the local level. Is the government at the local level elected in any way, shape or form? If not, who is the local government accountable to?

[DanS]

"Very odd."

Why do y'all consider this odd?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Were the mechanisms different or was there some other reason why they worked in China instead of Rome? Very interesting

China was easier to keep together than Rome because China is a continuous landmass that is more or less flat.

As for the mechanisms themselves, I don't think they were that different at the beginning.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DanS

High efficiency in government?

Explain 's.

As for the rest of the description, it seems pretty vague, but there are some promising parts, such as moving spending more toward the local level. Is the government at the local level elected in any way, shape or form? If not, who is the local government accountable to?

Elections - to an extent. There's been plenty of experiments where the most local councils are elected.

As for accountability, they are accountable to the next level up, of course.

[Sava]

I wonder if this will affect my supply of fried rice

[mindseye]

Shenzhen, the jewel of the crown

What? I think that distinction goes to another Chinese city.

This is the first time I have heard of this, too. I think it fits the pattern of conservative officials announcing something after the fact in order to avoid embarrassing humiliations. Example: the earlier Shenzhou space missions were not announced until the capsule had safely returned to Earth.

Anyway, I hope Shenzhen's experiment goes well. Efforts at the local level to date have had very mixed results, from what I ahve gathered. Often, elected independant officials find their efforts thwarted by party members at the next level up. Local party officials are such notoriously petty tyrants.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
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.

No (again). First of all, there had been at least a couple of dynasties before the Autumn-Spring Period and the Warring States. If you count the Sha dynasty there had been at least three. Secondly, Each state were largely similar, including language and culture. As for philosophies, the Warring States was the golden age of Chinese philosophy, giving rise to such great schools of thought such as Taoism and Confucism.

Originally posted by ranskaldan
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.

This is again not true. There had been tens if not hundreds of little states at the beginning of the Spring and Autumn Period but only seven left at the beginning of the Warring States.

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

What do you think that brought them back into one piece? Why did the Roman Empire ended up in pieces, but China remains as one?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
China was easier to keep together than Rome because China is a continuous landmass that is more or less flat.

Flat? Have you look at a topological map of China lately?

[Az]

I think he means a single continuous landmass. It' is true that so was rome, but then, you'd have to walk around the med.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Flat? Have you look at a topological map of China lately?

Have you looked at map of ancient Rome. Horrible mountains dividing it from its empire.

[DanS]

"Explain"

It's just bureaucratic blah. You hear it all the time here in Washington, but you've got to discount it as BS.

I know when I see efficient government services, but it is my view that this efficiency results from accountability to the people, since they are the "customers". Also, the people may not want efficiency above other aspects of the system. For instance, the people may want a broken system in order to paper over differences in opinion. F.e. the INS.

"I think it fits the pattern of conservative officials announcing something after the fact in order to avoid embarrassing humiliations. Example: the earlier Shenzhou space missions were not announced until the capsule had safely returned to Earth."

Yes, this is a fundamental misreading of the value of "live" PR. Re the space capsule, they probably pissed away a good deal of the PR value. This translates into a reduced value of the actual program, which is a shame. (Well, it's probably not a shame in this instance, but I digress...)

Further, it just shows that Chinese media is a stovepipe to the Communist party to the exclusion of other sources. The Chinese media could have picked this up from FT, but the systems just aren't constructed that way.

Not that American media doesn't look primarily at press generated by the US gov't, for instance. But you can pick up Reuters stories just as easily.