Indeed! Taiwan and South Korea handled COVID far better than China, and Japan has done very well also. I don't think any of us here in the West want China to become a carbon copy of the US; at least, I certainly don't. I'd like the Chinese people to find their way to whichever more liberal democratic model works best for them.
Indeed! Taiwan and South Korea handled COVID far better than China, and Japan has done very well also. I don't think any of us here in the West want China to become a carbon copy of the US; at least, I certainly don't. I'd like the Chinese people to find their way to whichever more liberal democratic model works best for them.
I do agree with most of the above. I mainly meant to reflect on my impression from talking to Chinese living here in West. Most of them seem to agree with the notion that it would be too risky for China to go down path of liberal democracy. Of course they may not represent the common view of Chinese people. But their views are noteworthy since they live in the Nordics and see how our democracies work here. Still most of them reject it would be right for China. They seem to a wide extent to reflect the views of people like Eric Li. At the same time they can be quite critical of China in certain areas. While also defending China in other areas - not least when it comes to relations with the West. Would be interested to hear what others experience in dialogue with Chinese friends/colleagues.
Again, it's important to realize that Eric Li's argument boils down to, "If your economy has been destroyed and so you need lots of infrastructure and fixed capital investment, the incentives of your elite (once freed from Marxist ideology so that they can pursue profit) will align with that of your population (allowed to pursue profit in certain limited areas of the economy) for about a generation--that is, the elite will own huge SOE infrastructure and other essential firms, and by building infrastructure and other major things will bring great benefits to everyone while getting super rich themselves." The positive results from CCP governance Li refers to have nothing to do with meritocracy or the flaws with democracy, and everything to do with basic economic incentives. Now that the CCP economic incentives are no longer aligned with those of the Chinese population at large, the issues with human nature--it's largely selfish and short-sighted in most people, unless counterbalanced by competing interests/checks and balances--are coming to the forefront. That is, rather than rebalance the economy by shifting CCP wealth and power to ordinary Chinese to ensure more permanent economic growth and prosperity, Xi has turned to other methods/ideologies plus repression to maintain his absolute power.
That said, if the US continues down its own horrible, increasingly Republican-tribal path, then we will have utterly failed to live up to the promise of liberal values (although those values at least provide a chance for populations to better themselves, unlike CCP "values"). So as William Markle said, it's all about nation building at home right now for the West, starting with things like BLM--can we really make our most oppressed minority equal? It would be amazing if we could and it's both our biggest moral imperative and national security imperative. If BLM actually achieves results, the contrast with the CCP will be stark--our minority has full rights, theirs is in concentration camps. Of course, the US is a long way from full equality for African Americans, but it should be an urgent domestic and foreign policy goal (and of course just a general human goal, among many other ones0.
There are generally two narratives in mainstream Media 1) Eric LiтАЩs view that somehow CCPтАЩs тАЬmeritocracyтАЭ bureaucrats selection is vastly superior than western democracyтАЩs elected officials or 2) Everything about Chinese system sucks and it will blow up. Truth is always in the middle, and if faced to make between these two choices, many reasonable Chinese living in the west would pick 1) on some of the issues, as many non Chinese would probably too. The key is actually to focus on facts and pragmatic things, rather than two extremes
I've always found Li to be a blowhard and apologist, to be frank, with his "meritocracy" claims. It stinks of being a nice convenient justification/explanation for Chinese economic growth since 1978. There was certainly nothing "meritocratic" about the CCP before 1978 (obviously). What changed was desperation over a failing system and so hence a willingness to abandon a failed entirely state-owned model--laudable, but hardly proof of a kickass meritocratic party.
The fact is that from 1978 until about 2010, the incentives of the CCP elite (once freed from communist ideology and free to pursue unlimited wealth) aligned with that of the population--the CCP elite could get rich owning profit-seeking SOE's, and they had destroyed the economy to such an extent by 1978 that massive opportunities were everywhere even for super inefficient SOE's (and obviously the worst of them were dismantled in roughly 50% of industries/GDP).
But now that the country no longer needs massive investment from horribly inefficient SOE's, there's no need for them--this is rebalancing. So the test is, will the CCP be willing to give up its power and privilege for the benefit of all Chinese? Human nature and history say no, of course not (and obviously this isn't happening under Xi, quite the opposite). The advantage of the Western model is that the non-elite at least have some means to fight the natural tendency among the elite to concentrate power and privilege in their hands. This to me is the right paradigm to look at politics and economics--human nature is pretty selfish, and so lots of safeguards are needed.
Definitely fair to say LiтАЩs is an apologist, while some of the facts he cited are true, he overly simplifies them and miss other important issues. WouldnтАЩt be surprised if he is trying to impress Gov officials and tries to get favors for his business. In an тАЬElite rulingтАЭ governance system like China, one can only hope the rulers have the best interest of people in mind vs. their own benefits.
Eric Li doesn't comment on Isaiah Berlin's On Political Judgment http://ayman980.com/class/Readings/Berlin%20On%20Political%20Judgement.pdf Education does not provide wisdom in the art of governing or leadership; and vetting in CCP only prepares one for authoritarian values (hence the initial virus response). I am not arguing the US system is categorically better. But CCP is certainly not promoting its own system of governance anywhere else in the world, for good reason.
ok, but even Global Times is not saying in this piece that Rwanda or any other African nation will be looking to model itself on Chinese governance. None of my African undergrads in China were enamored of Chinese governance. Small sample. African nations can no more model their governance on China than they should on the US.
"The same way the world is keenly following the Chinese economic model that is underpinned by its solid political system, perhaps it is time, too, that Africa learns from China's political path to revitalize its own development plans." I think that IS what they are saying here.
"As stated in the past by President Paul Kagame of Rwanda - a country that has guarded its political stability since 1994 and sustained its economic growth rates over the last decade - the West should not fix its political models on Africa. Instead, the continent should have its own models that are informed by its development needs." It's not what they are saying here though. But then Rwanda is a country where Paul Kagame won 99% of the vote.
This is just one article in the Global Times. Maybe it doesn't mean all that much. But I do think it's worth flagging in this conversation.
(quoting) Notably, no Islamic nation condemned China for its treatment of Muslims. Islamic northern Africa and much of the middle east and the тАУstans are recipients of substantial Chinese lending. Even India has failed to condemn China.
No middle eastern or southern Africa country joined in the condemnation. Several southern African countries have more than 25% of their GDP in debt owed to China.
First of all, the "US model" constantly evolves over time. If "Western" values ├а la traditional European Enlightenment no longer support American primacy, I cannot think of a reason something else won't come out to better serve that purpose.
On a related note, to those growing up in mainland China, there are certain knee-jerk reactions when it comes to "the motherland" (чеЦхЫ╜). Think about "guochi" (хЫ╜шА╗, national shame associated with Middle Country/Qing Dynasty's downfall when confronted by Western powers in the 19th century), or their attitude towards separatism in Tibet, East Turkestan, Taiwan, and most recently, Hong Kong. The CCP has successfully exploited these narratives (e.g. using meticulously designed propaganda and "patriotism education") to shore up their legitimacy. And together with their information decoupling (e.g. WeChat and Weibo accounts catering to overseas Chinese students, most of whom do not read from local sources), the majority of Chinese cannot recognize how subconsciously they are under the influence.
As a result, liberal values that are learned even after moving to the West cannot easily override these conditioned responses from their younger selves' own experience. As Erik has noted here, even reasonable Chinese people would suddenly become irrational when certain buttons are pushed.
Just to clarify, that "something else" re America's future can come within the liberal idea, and it may well be the case that it addresses the limits and shortcomings associated with traditional European liberalism.
Other than first-generation Chinese immigrants, very few people in the US would find the Chinese model to be an attractive alternative even if the current ruling values completely collapse.
The ideas that тАЬdemocracy is too riskyтАЭ or that тАЬthe Chinese people arenтАЩt ready for democracyтАЭ are explicitly pumped into peopleтАЩs heads via the education system and media to the point that I found even reasonable people would repeat it mindlessly. Of course one week in Taiwan will disabuse you of this notion totally.
The key questions is what тАЬdemocracyтАЭ is, as democracy comes in various forms, USтАЩs electoral and UKтАЩs parliamentary are certainly different. Chinese people will probably need to find the democratic system that works for them and the country, and over time to make it work
I find this overly formalistic, DC. Democracy=free elections+independent judiciary, the differences between the UK and US systems are far less important than their similarities. When you say the Chinese people will need to find their own democratic system, I take you to mean the ultimate system might not actually be Democratic. That's fine, but we should be upfront about that (if that's indeed what you mean, because again, the definition of democracy is straightforward, so I disagree the key question is "what democracy is," we all know what it is--voting--the key question is, do we want voting?).
That's definitely NOT what I meant, what I meant is that Chinese hopefully will find their own democratic system where there is rule of law that works for the people/society. Definitely agree Democracy=free elections+independent judiciary, but would assume nobody agree with a free election where 51% of citizens voted to enact laws to kill the rest 49%, in a "tyrant majority rule", right? So I believe details do matter also hence I would counter that democracy is not necessarily straightforward,the US system has many "super majority voting or Elite ruling" to prevent 51% voters from ruling the 49% indiscriminately, others maybe more "one person one vote". Some agree with the electoral syste and some don't. Some believe the Singapore system is democracy, some do not, so hopefully China eventually adopts what works them, but do agree with your Free Election + Independent Judiciary are the bedrocks of any forms of democracy, but just that may not be enough.
тАЬDemocracyтАЭ, тАЬfreedomтАЭ, тАЬequality of rightsтАЭ, тАЬlibertyтАЭ, тАж One can call it whatever they like. But to quote US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, тАЬI know it when I see it.тАЭ
Sure, for the US (presidential), UK (Westminster), France (semi-presidential), or a presumably genuinely democratic system in a future China, each can have vastly different arrangements on the cultural, social normative, and political functional levels, but what I see is that all are formed on the same type of liberal social contract and source of political truth (i.e. clashes of varied ideas) whose origins can be traced back to the works of Hobbs, Locke, or Rousseau, and regardless of whether a theory of тАЬnatural rightsтАЭ is involved.
In contrast, the тАЬdemocracy with Chinese characteristicsтАЭ system under the CCP is a completely different animal, and it is not compatible with the above. Unless there is some serious structural change on the societal levelтАФsomething on the scale of a civil war or a revolutionтАФit seems unlikely to me that China would transition to a genuinely democratic system in the foreseeable future.
DonтАЩt think anyone is paying serious attention with the idea of тАЬdemocracy with Chinese characteristicsтАЭ, or whatever that means. But ultimately, one can argue there is no one-size fits it all in this, whether itтАЩs тАЬnon democraticтАЭ Singapore system vs. democracy in certain African/South American countries, or even тАЬlimited freedom of speechтАЭ democracy (Germany) vs. 1st Amendment US democracy. One can argue US system is not as much тАЬdemocraticтАЭ vs. тАЬrepublicтАЭ, the word of тАЬdemocracyтАЭ doensтАЩt come up in Constitution, and Founders clearly embedded large extend of elitist influence as part of the checks and balance, not dissimilar to RomeтАЩs Consul-Senate-People of Tribute. Ulitmatelhy, each country needs to find its own solution that ultimately works to improve materialistic/spiritual of the people and supported by the people, rather than just a dogmatic approach laid out by the elitists on what the right structure is.
"Ulitmatelhy, each country needs to find its own solution that ultimately works to improve materialistic/spiritual of the people and supported by the people, rather than just a dogmatic approach laid out by the elitists on what the right structure is."
The elites shouldn't determine what the structure is? This sounds democratic :)
Agreed. Joseph Chan has an excellent discussion in his 2015 book Confucian Perfectionism of what elements of moral freedom Confucianism could endorse, and not, and how that might apply in China now.
Do you believe that their apprehension regarding liberal democracy stems from fears about the long-term stability of the unified Chinese state under such a system, or does it come from somewhere else?
"China is not ready for democracy" is an old idea, even though it was promoted in the early 20th century when the west, particularly the US, was the model for modernism. But China is big, and diverse, as much or more so than the US. I doubt that we could get 20 contiguous states in the US to form a democratic union right now. Chinese history has been of contentious and individualistic states and regions, and the old assumption that a single leader is the only way to unify the population still applies, I think. And, as has been discussed, Chinese ideas now about democracy are often ill-formed. In particular, the contentious nature of democracy in the US looks like chaos. On a more practical level, there is no civil society to speak of - no organized way to contend for power or for ideas outside of CCP. Taiwan and South Korea and Japan democratized under different conditions. I think the general Chinese idea is right - you can't get there (to democracy) from where we are right now. Maybe in a few generations.
Indeed! Taiwan and South Korea handled COVID far better than China, and Japan has done very well also. I don't think any of us here in the West want China to become a carbon copy of the US; at least, I certainly don't. I'd like the Chinese people to find their way to whichever more liberal democratic model works best for them.
I do agree with most of the above. I mainly meant to reflect on my impression from talking to Chinese living here in West. Most of them seem to agree with the notion that it would be too risky for China to go down path of liberal democracy. Of course they may not represent the common view of Chinese people. But their views are noteworthy since they live in the Nordics and see how our democracies work here. Still most of them reject it would be right for China. They seem to a wide extent to reflect the views of people like Eric Li. At the same time they can be quite critical of China in certain areas. While also defending China in other areas - not least when it comes to relations with the West. Would be interested to hear what others experience in dialogue with Chinese friends/colleagues.
Again, it's important to realize that Eric Li's argument boils down to, "If your economy has been destroyed and so you need lots of infrastructure and fixed capital investment, the incentives of your elite (once freed from Marxist ideology so that they can pursue profit) will align with that of your population (allowed to pursue profit in certain limited areas of the economy) for about a generation--that is, the elite will own huge SOE infrastructure and other essential firms, and by building infrastructure and other major things will bring great benefits to everyone while getting super rich themselves." The positive results from CCP governance Li refers to have nothing to do with meritocracy or the flaws with democracy, and everything to do with basic economic incentives. Now that the CCP economic incentives are no longer aligned with those of the Chinese population at large, the issues with human nature--it's largely selfish and short-sighted in most people, unless counterbalanced by competing interests/checks and balances--are coming to the forefront. That is, rather than rebalance the economy by shifting CCP wealth and power to ordinary Chinese to ensure more permanent economic growth and prosperity, Xi has turned to other methods/ideologies plus repression to maintain his absolute power.
That said, if the US continues down its own horrible, increasingly Republican-tribal path, then we will have utterly failed to live up to the promise of liberal values (although those values at least provide a chance for populations to better themselves, unlike CCP "values"). So as William Markle said, it's all about nation building at home right now for the West, starting with things like BLM--can we really make our most oppressed minority equal? It would be amazing if we could and it's both our biggest moral imperative and national security imperative. If BLM actually achieves results, the contrast with the CCP will be stark--our minority has full rights, theirs is in concentration camps. Of course, the US is a long way from full equality for African Americans, but it should be an urgent domestic and foreign policy goal (and of course just a general human goal, among many other ones0.
There are generally two narratives in mainstream Media 1) Eric LiтАЩs view that somehow CCPтАЩs тАЬmeritocracyтАЭ bureaucrats selection is vastly superior than western democracyтАЩs elected officials or 2) Everything about Chinese system sucks and it will blow up. Truth is always in the middle, and if faced to make between these two choices, many reasonable Chinese living in the west would pick 1) on some of the issues, as many non Chinese would probably too. The key is actually to focus on facts and pragmatic things, rather than two extremes
I've always found Li to be a blowhard and apologist, to be frank, with his "meritocracy" claims. It stinks of being a nice convenient justification/explanation for Chinese economic growth since 1978. There was certainly nothing "meritocratic" about the CCP before 1978 (obviously). What changed was desperation over a failing system and so hence a willingness to abandon a failed entirely state-owned model--laudable, but hardly proof of a kickass meritocratic party.
The fact is that from 1978 until about 2010, the incentives of the CCP elite (once freed from communist ideology and free to pursue unlimited wealth) aligned with that of the population--the CCP elite could get rich owning profit-seeking SOE's, and they had destroyed the economy to such an extent by 1978 that massive opportunities were everywhere even for super inefficient SOE's (and obviously the worst of them were dismantled in roughly 50% of industries/GDP).
But now that the country no longer needs massive investment from horribly inefficient SOE's, there's no need for them--this is rebalancing. So the test is, will the CCP be willing to give up its power and privilege for the benefit of all Chinese? Human nature and history say no, of course not (and obviously this isn't happening under Xi, quite the opposite). The advantage of the Western model is that the non-elite at least have some means to fight the natural tendency among the elite to concentrate power and privilege in their hands. This to me is the right paradigm to look at politics and economics--human nature is pretty selfish, and so lots of safeguards are needed.
Definitely fair to say LiтАЩs is an apologist, while some of the facts he cited are true, he overly simplifies them and miss other important issues. WouldnтАЩt be surprised if he is trying to impress Gov officials and tries to get favors for his business. In an тАЬElite rulingтАЭ governance system like China, one can only hope the rulers have the best interest of people in mind vs. their own benefits.
Eric Li doesn't comment on Isaiah Berlin's On Political Judgment http://ayman980.com/class/Readings/Berlin%20On%20Political%20Judgement.pdf Education does not provide wisdom in the art of governing or leadership; and vetting in CCP only prepares one for authoritarian values (hence the initial virus response). I am not arguing the US system is categorically better. But CCP is certainly not promoting its own system of governance anywhere else in the world, for good reason.
On not promoting:
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1189460.shtml
ok, but even Global Times is not saying in this piece that Rwanda or any other African nation will be looking to model itself on Chinese governance. None of my African undergrads in China were enamored of Chinese governance. Small sample. African nations can no more model their governance on China than they should on the US.
"The same way the world is keenly following the Chinese economic model that is underpinned by its solid political system, perhaps it is time, too, that Africa learns from China's political path to revitalize its own development plans." I think that IS what they are saying here.
"As stated in the past by President Paul Kagame of Rwanda - a country that has guarded its political stability since 1994 and sustained its economic growth rates over the last decade - the West should not fix its political models on Africa. Instead, the continent should have its own models that are informed by its development needs." It's not what they are saying here though. But then Rwanda is a country where Paul Kagame won 99% of the vote.
This is just one article in the Global Times. Maybe it doesn't mean all that much. But I do think it's worth flagging in this conversation.
I missed your first sentence in the piece. Thanks for clarifying. But as you say, it is Global Times. Best not to make too much of it. I think plenty of African nations will be beholden to China. Beholden, but not modeling on. I wrote about this at http://chinareflections.com/index.php/104-comments-on-the-news/418-money-talks-in-the-clash-of-civilizations
(quoting) Notably, no Islamic nation condemned China for its treatment of Muslims. Islamic northern Africa and much of the middle east and the тАУstans are recipients of substantial Chinese lending. Even India has failed to condemn China.
No middle eastern or southern Africa country joined in the condemnation. Several southern African countries have more than 25% of their GDP in debt owed to China.
First of all, the "US model" constantly evolves over time. If "Western" values ├а la traditional European Enlightenment no longer support American primacy, I cannot think of a reason something else won't come out to better serve that purpose.
On a related note, to those growing up in mainland China, there are certain knee-jerk reactions when it comes to "the motherland" (чеЦхЫ╜). Think about "guochi" (хЫ╜шА╗, national shame associated with Middle Country/Qing Dynasty's downfall when confronted by Western powers in the 19th century), or their attitude towards separatism in Tibet, East Turkestan, Taiwan, and most recently, Hong Kong. The CCP has successfully exploited these narratives (e.g. using meticulously designed propaganda and "patriotism education") to shore up their legitimacy. And together with their information decoupling (e.g. WeChat and Weibo accounts catering to overseas Chinese students, most of whom do not read from local sources), the majority of Chinese cannot recognize how subconsciously they are under the influence.
As a result, liberal values that are learned even after moving to the West cannot easily override these conditioned responses from their younger selves' own experience. As Erik has noted here, even reasonable Chinese people would suddenly become irrational when certain buttons are pushed.
Love this analysis
Just to clarify, that "something else" re America's future can come within the liberal idea, and it may well be the case that it addresses the limits and shortcomings associated with traditional European liberalism.
Other than first-generation Chinese immigrants, very few people in the US would find the Chinese model to be an attractive alternative even if the current ruling values completely collapse.
The ideas that тАЬdemocracy is too riskyтАЭ or that тАЬthe Chinese people arenтАЩt ready for democracyтАЭ are explicitly pumped into peopleтАЩs heads via the education system and media to the point that I found even reasonable people would repeat it mindlessly. Of course one week in Taiwan will disabuse you of this notion totally.
This
The key questions is what тАЬdemocracyтАЭ is, as democracy comes in various forms, USтАЩs electoral and UKтАЩs parliamentary are certainly different. Chinese people will probably need to find the democratic system that works for them and the country, and over time to make it work
I find this overly formalistic, DC. Democracy=free elections+independent judiciary, the differences between the UK and US systems are far less important than their similarities. When you say the Chinese people will need to find their own democratic system, I take you to mean the ultimate system might not actually be Democratic. That's fine, but we should be upfront about that (if that's indeed what you mean, because again, the definition of democracy is straightforward, so I disagree the key question is "what democracy is," we all know what it is--voting--the key question is, do we want voting?).
That's definitely NOT what I meant, what I meant is that Chinese hopefully will find their own democratic system where there is rule of law that works for the people/society. Definitely agree Democracy=free elections+independent judiciary, but would assume nobody agree with a free election where 51% of citizens voted to enact laws to kill the rest 49%, in a "tyrant majority rule", right? So I believe details do matter also hence I would counter that democracy is not necessarily straightforward,the US system has many "super majority voting or Elite ruling" to prevent 51% voters from ruling the 49% indiscriminately, others maybe more "one person one vote". Some agree with the electoral syste and some don't. Some believe the Singapore system is democracy, some do not, so hopefully China eventually adopts what works them, but do agree with your Free Election + Independent Judiciary are the bedrocks of any forms of democracy, but just that may not be enough.
I see, thanks for clarifying. For sure that's where the "liberal" comes in in liberal democracy, right...
тАЬDemocracyтАЭ, тАЬfreedomтАЭ, тАЬequality of rightsтАЭ, тАЬlibertyтАЭ, тАж One can call it whatever they like. But to quote US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, тАЬI know it when I see it.тАЭ
Sure, for the US (presidential), UK (Westminster), France (semi-presidential), or a presumably genuinely democratic system in a future China, each can have vastly different arrangements on the cultural, social normative, and political functional levels, but what I see is that all are formed on the same type of liberal social contract and source of political truth (i.e. clashes of varied ideas) whose origins can be traced back to the works of Hobbs, Locke, or Rousseau, and regardless of whether a theory of тАЬnatural rightsтАЭ is involved.
In contrast, the тАЬdemocracy with Chinese characteristicsтАЭ system under the CCP is a completely different animal, and it is not compatible with the above. Unless there is some serious structural change on the societal levelтАФsomething on the scale of a civil war or a revolutionтАФit seems unlikely to me that China would transition to a genuinely democratic system in the foreseeable future.
DonтАЩt think anyone is paying serious attention with the idea of тАЬdemocracy with Chinese characteristicsтАЭ, or whatever that means. But ultimately, one can argue there is no one-size fits it all in this, whether itтАЩs тАЬnon democraticтАЭ Singapore system vs. democracy in certain African/South American countries, or even тАЬlimited freedom of speechтАЭ democracy (Germany) vs. 1st Amendment US democracy. One can argue US system is not as much тАЬdemocraticтАЭ vs. тАЬrepublicтАЭ, the word of тАЬdemocracyтАЭ doensтАЩt come up in Constitution, and Founders clearly embedded large extend of elitist influence as part of the checks and balance, not dissimilar to RomeтАЩs Consul-Senate-People of Tribute. Ulitmatelhy, each country needs to find its own solution that ultimately works to improve materialistic/spiritual of the people and supported by the people, rather than just a dogmatic approach laid out by the elitists on what the right structure is.
"Ulitmatelhy, each country needs to find its own solution that ultimately works to improve materialistic/spiritual of the people and supported by the people, rather than just a dogmatic approach laid out by the elitists on what the right structure is."
The elites shouldn't determine what the structure is? This sounds democratic :)
Agreed. Joseph Chan has an excellent discussion in his 2015 book Confucian Perfectionism of what elements of moral freedom Confucianism could endorse, and not, and how that might apply in China now.
Do you believe that their apprehension regarding liberal democracy stems from fears about the long-term stability of the unified Chinese state under such a system, or does it come from somewhere else?
Thank you for sharing their perspectives. It's certainly valuable to hear!
"China is not ready for democracy" is an old idea, even though it was promoted in the early 20th century when the west, particularly the US, was the model for modernism. But China is big, and diverse, as much or more so than the US. I doubt that we could get 20 contiguous states in the US to form a democratic union right now. Chinese history has been of contentious and individualistic states and regions, and the old assumption that a single leader is the only way to unify the population still applies, I think. And, as has been discussed, Chinese ideas now about democracy are often ill-formed. In particular, the contentious nature of democracy in the US looks like chaos. On a more practical level, there is no civil society to speak of - no organized way to contend for power or for ideas outside of CCP. Taiwan and South Korea and Japan democratized under different conditions. I think the general Chinese idea is right - you can't get there (to democracy) from where we are right now. Maybe in a few generations.