[Marcarc]

Oh get real. China is ALREADY bringing in democracy, it is simply doing it at the local level. YOu think it needs literacy to know how you want your economy to function, whether you want to dam a river, whether you want to relocate peasants? In Haiti the evidence is clear that people REVOLT because the US and Canada RIG their elections and run their elected officials out of the country. Democracy is the developing world means one thing-it's a LEGITIMATE democracy as long as you are doing what the industrial countries want. If not, then you AREN"T democratic. Take a look at Hamas, they get legally elected (far more than the american President) and immediately everyone says "they won't be legitimate until they do this...". <br /> <br /> The argument that people aren't 'ready' for democracy is another way of saying 'they might not form the type of democracy WE want'. It's true of virtually EVERY democracy in the world now that the PEOPLE would govern far differently if their countries were TRUE democracies. <br /> <br /> And of course it belates the point that without Democracy China is free to torture who they want, arrest who they want, rob people of their livelihood, censure their information (and how are they going to 'get educated' if the means to that are denied them?), and take their land and culture. ALL people are 'ready' for democracy, they simply may not use it the way YOU like.<br /> <br /> PS the government HERE has no bribery or scandals? There are no scandals in the US?

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= spock] Many in the western world are crying for democracy in China. But the truth is, i do not believe China have the capability of handeling democracy. First of all, democracy needs the people of the country to be educated and responsible. Yet in China, a large percentage of the population are still illiterate. So how can we expect them to make intelligent choices when it comes to selecting the leader of the country? It would be like giving an infant the power to run an entire household. Even when some villages are choosing village chiefs, there are bribery and scandals. Some almost amounted to blood feuds between the opposing sides. Now imagine this on a national scale, especially in a country with 1/5 of the world's population! What would that amount to, global unrest? <br /> Look at the african nations, Haiti. They have democracy, but every time they have an election, they are on the verge of a civil war! This kind of unrest cannot be allowed in a country like china.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I agree with you completely Spock. When you think about it, no Asian nation really has any history of democracy as Asia is much more authoritarian in tradition and culture. I doubt democracy would ever have happened in nations like Japan without U.S. pressure.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Oh get real. China is ALREADY bringing in democracy, it is simply doing it at the local level. YOu think it needs literacy to know how you want your economy to function, whether you want to dam a river, whether you want to relocate peasants? In Haiti the evidence is clear that people REVOLT because the US and Canada RIG their elections and run their elected officials out of the country. Democracy is the developing world means one thing-it's a LEGITIMATE democracy as long as you are doing what the industrial countries want. If not, then you AREN"T democratic. Take a look at Hamas, they get legally elected (far more than the american President) and immediately everyone says "they won't be legitimate until they do this...". <br /> <br /> The argument that people aren't 'ready' for democracy is another way of saying 'they might not form the type of democracy WE want'. It's true of virtually EVERY democracy in the world now that the PEOPLE would govern far differently if their countries were TRUE democracies. <br /> <br /> And of course it belates the point that without Democracy China is free to torture who they want, arrest who they want, rob people of their livelihood, censure their information (and how are they going to 'get educated' if the means to that are denied them?), and take their land and culture. ALL people are 'ready' for democracy, they simply may not use it the way YOU like.<br /> <br /> PS the government HERE has no bribery or scandals? There are no scandals in the US? [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Marcarc come on. The Chinese government still murders its own citizens when they get in the way. This is population management, not democracy. They are much less democratic than the apathetic west.

[Spock]

Ofcourse, I'm not saying the Chinese have a bad government. I am Chinese myself. It's just that from where i'm from, people are pretty petty about things. I just don't see an entirely westernized democracy in China within the near future. Don't get me wrong, i ultimately support democracy in China. I'm just sick and tired of people criticizing the chinese government for not being democratic with all the problems they have to face. I think if there has to be a democracy in China within the next 50 years, there should be a requirement of something like that you have to graduate highschool to be able to vote.

[Marcarc]

This is absolutely HILARIOUS! Here we see the argument "they have a terrible government which kills its own citizens", then right after that we have the argument that "because they are so authoritarian they SHOULD remain so". Which is it perturbed? If a government is authoritarian then that's WHY it should be a democracy, so it will STOP acting authoritarian. <br /> <br /> But if you look back at the 1800's you saw pretty much the same arguments in Canada. Those who 'had power' simply said the 'masses' were just too stupid to vote. There was lots of illiteracy, many didn't speak the language, and many brought their baggage from their homeland. Is that an argument to not let people vote? Even NOW in Canada the vast majority of people simply do not know the issues. And there's a reason, because during campaigns ISSUES are almost never discussed. <br /> <br /> Peasants, in fact, have FAR more intelligence than politicians. Government in Canada makes HORRIBLE decisions that any farmer can tell you is the exact wrong way to go. And that farmer may not even know how to read! <br /> <br /> That was also the reason behind our federal government essentially taking over native councils. Many native groups have a FAR more extensive history of democracy. In fact the same goes for many chinese communities which had much more autonomy in most aspects of their community. However, the point made above is that it isn't OUR notions of democracy. As argued elsewhere Canada isn't a democracy at all, it's a constitutional monarchy. We have SOME freedoms, but we also have serious economic and political censures on us as well. If you don't believe that, just go ask your local municipal councilperson, they've been screaming at the feds and provinces for DECADES because of the thousands of restrictions placed on them.

[Spock]

I do see your point about the democratic history of the aboriginals. However, i wish to point out that China has had almost 5000 years of feudal traditions. We are talking about a country where people are not accustomed to democracy. As such, it will take time for them to understand the concept of democracy. Also, most chinese does not care for politics, they have trouble just to feed their family, as long as the government doesn't get in their way, they're good.

[Marcarc]

There is no real difference between 'feudalism' and 'monarchy', both mean essentially that somebody else calls the shots and communities are not allowed to make their own decisions. What a lot of people do not realize is that most agrarian communities, whether feudal, communistic, or oligarchic have tremendous 'freedoms'. A farmer there can essential do what he wants with his fields, while the community has enormous powers over social policy. In canada the environmental and social restrictions are extensive, and farmers, and anyone else simply has no recourse.<br /> <br /> Of course under current restrictions the above statement is completely false, the 'government' is EXTENSIVELY 'getting in people's way'. Massive expropriations of land are epidemic in China. So it's clear that China doesn't want 'democracy' because farmers may actually VOTE to KEEP their land. <br /> <br /> There are plenty of examples of 'non feudal' forms of government, particularly of course in Tibet and western China as well as the north. Most villages in the himalayas had next to no contact with outside forms of government. However, even if that were true, that's exactly what progress is. Britain also had a tradition of feudalism but it makes no difference now. <br /> <br /> Obviously having 'a tradition' means nothing about exercising democratic rights. Just because somebody has always told you what to do on some things, doesn't mean you don't know how to make that decision democratically. One election canadians had no right to vote, the next election they did, so 'tradition' really didn't enter into it. In fact 'tradition' is precisely the reason to not have democracy AT ALL.

[Spock]

Of course under current restrictions the above statement is completely false, the 'government' is EXTENSIVELY 'getting in people's way'. Massive expropriations of land are epidemic in China. So it's clear that China doesn't want 'democracy' because farmers may actually VOTE to KEEP their land. <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> While this is true, the acquisition of land by the government is necessary for the industrial developement and the economic growth of china. However, often times the peasants cling to their land, which only offers them a mediocre income that is barely enough to feed their own children. However, they refuse to surrender their land, even with the prospect of a better life (industrialization comes with jobs, which translates into more income and higher standard of living). This lack of foresight is often due to their inadequate education. My father, who is an official of the government, and was a mayor of a county of eight hundreds thousands people encountered numerous problems such as this during his term as mayor. The people their are earning less than 100 dollars canadian a year, barely enough to feed themselves, let alone send their children to a decent education. My father tried to reason with them for an entire afternoon, yet they would not listen. Later on, they even resorted to violence, beating up the construction workers, and damaging the equipments. By the way, the land was legally purchased, with the villager's consent, they had simply changed their mind because someone (who had studied law in a 3rd rate university), perhaps out of their own interest, had persuaded them to resist the developement, despite the benefits it will bring. As you can see, how can a country progress with this kind of people at the helm? Rest assure however, that all Chinese are like this, I still stand by my point that only people who had an decent education should be able to vote in China.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] This is absolutely HILARIOUS! Here we see the argument "they have a terrible government which kills its own citizens", then right after that we have the argument that "because they are so authoritarian they SHOULD remain so". Which is it perturbed? If a government is authoritarian then that's WHY it should be a democracy, so it will STOP acting authoritarian. <br /> <br /> But if you look back at the 1800's you saw pretty much the same arguments in Canada. Those who 'had power' simply said the 'masses' were just too stupid to vote. There was lots of illiteracy, many didn't speak the language, and many brought their baggage from their homeland. Is that an argument to not let people vote? Even NOW in Canada the vast majority of people simply do not know the issues. And there's a reason, because during campaigns ISSUES are almost never discussed. <br /> <br /> Peasants, in fact, have FAR more intelligence than politicians. Government in Canada makes HORRIBLE decisions that any farmer can tell you is the exact wrong way to go. And that farmer may not even know how to read! <br /> <br /> That was also the reason behind our federal government essentially taking over native councils. Many native groups have a FAR more extensive history of democracy. In fact the same goes for many chinese communities which had much more autonomy in most aspects of their community. However, the point made above is that it isn't OUR notions of democracy. As argued elsewhere Canada isn't a democracy at all, it's a constitutional monarchy. We have SOME freedoms, but we also have serious economic and political censures on us as well. If you don't believe that, just go ask your local municipal councilperson, they've been screaming at the feds and provinces for DECADES because of the thousands of restrictions placed on them.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Marcarc you're wrong. Canada is about as democratic as it gets. Much more so than the U.S.A. in practice. People are just apathetic. When it comes to China--they have little history of national democracy. <br /> <br /> I was arguing China will never be democratic by CHOICE. I think evidence demonstrates Asians are authoritarian.<br /> <br /> And in the 1800s in Brith North America there was still much less violence towards dissenting opinion than in totalitarian China.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] There is no real difference between 'feudalism' and 'monarchy', both mean essentially that somebody else calls the shots and communities are not allowed to make their own decisions. What a lot of people do not realize is that most agrarian communities, whether feudal, communistic, or oligarchic have tremendous 'freedoms'. A farmer there can essential do what he wants with his fields, while the community has enormous powers over social policy. In canada the environmental and social restrictions are extensive, and farmers, and anyone else simply has no recourse.<br /> <br /> Of course under current restrictions the above statement is completely false, the 'government' is EXTENSIVELY 'getting in people's way'. Massive expropriations of land are epidemic in China. So it's clear that China doesn't want 'democracy' because farmers may actually VOTE to KEEP their land. <br /> <br /> There are plenty of examples of 'non feudal' forms of government, particularly of course in Tibet and western China as well as the north. Most villages in the himalayas had next to no contact with outside forms of government. However, even if that were true, that's exactly what progress is. Britain also had a tradition of feudalism but it makes no difference now. <br /> <br /> Obviously having 'a tradition' means nothing about exercising democratic rights. Just because somebody has always told you what to do on some things, doesn't mean you don't know how to make that decision democratically. One election canadians had no right to vote, the next election they did, so 'tradition' really didn't enter into it. In fact 'tradition' is precisely the reason to not have democracy AT ALL.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Yes but western nations like Canada have divisions of power--that is not the same as a Communist Party. Britain created the Magna Carta--freedom of speech and right to life are concepts that the Chinese jsut don't practice.

[Marcarc]

Of course they do, that's just crazy. EVERY society has freedom of speech and right to life of people they LIKE. I can't threaten to kill you, in fact I can't even write about holocaust denial or I could end up like Zundel. I can't talk about overthrowing the government. I can't write a book showing people how to build an atomic bomb and I can't make unproven accusations about people. In fact, here in Waterloo a woman was sued for millions for posting pictures of a development site which the developer hadn't cleaned up. Say what you want, but suing somebody for millions is just as, if not more effective for trampling peoples freedom of speech. <br /> <br /> Likewise,just go to a public demonstration and see how free your speech is. Of course they won't arrest you for exercising your freedom, they'll just claim you were loitering or disturbing the peace. Either way, you AREN"T free to exercise your speech-especially when you are sitting in jail.<br /> <br /> ANybody that thinks Britain suddenly became a bastion of free speech with the abolition of capital punishment after the Magna Carta doesn't know their history very well. In the 1800's about one twentieth of their population was executed. Stealing a horse was a hanging offense.<br /> <br /> Either way, that has nothing to do with democracy. If the chinese government said today that they will never execute anybody ever again that doesn't make them more democratic. It just makes them 'nicer'. <br /> <br /> Chinese citizens in their communities have no more interest in executing anybody than canadians do. Contrary to popular belief, at the community level they also don't go around stifling people's voices. Those are all bureaucratic policies at a national level. They don't apply to chinese culture any more than canadian federal policies reflect the wishes of native canadians. A chinese community is as capable of making their own decisions as a native, or even non native one here. Keep in mind that your community has no more democratic rights than in China, in fact China has property rights, which Canada doesn't, and canadian communities are not even recognized in the charter. The provinces can override every single municipal decision made if they want to. So you can easily say WE have no tradtion of community democratic rights either-that has nothing to do with whether we are able to exercise them. It has everything to do with a higher form of government which restricts democracy any way it wants.

[badsector]

[QUOTE]marcarc: Oh get real. China is ALREADY bringing in democracy, it is simply doing it at the local level.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> China is not a democracy, nor does it want to become one. Democratic "initiatives" that they show on TV to appease the ignorant Westerner are just a theatre. The Chinese government wishes to avoid the disaster that has befallen on the Eastern European ex-communist states when the US took over. They want to take an advantage of Western investment and free trade but don't want to change their government. China has the potential to destroy Western economies via free trade and emerge in 10-20 years and the sole superpower of the World and boy, are they consistant about their intentions! Your problem is, Marcarc, that you do not understand communism, that's why you buy the Chinese BS about democracy.<br /> <br /> Communist governments are excellent in showing a false picture. The entire communist regime was built around the "Potemkin" idea. Potemkin was a follower (and lover) of Catherine the Great. When Catherine toured Russia to see how happy the peasants lived in her empire, Potemkin had built mock villages wherever she travelled and populated them with mock peasants who were paid to look happy and prosperous. In reality, they were badly oppressed and exploited. Communist regimes adopted the Potemkin idea and turned it into a functional system.<br /> <br /> Here is a funny story from a communist country (it was a true story, unfrotunately):<br /> Government officials came to the village and asked the peasant how many piglets his pig had. He said 10. The official was under pressure to make the numbers look good so he wrote in 20. Soon the order came from the party headquarters for the peasant to give up 10 of his piglets for export and leave the other 10 for his own consumption...<br /> <br /> Here is another funny story, also true:<br /> In a communist Eastern European country in the 1950s, when party officials toured the country to see how well the peasants were doing, a large convoy of machines (tractors, etc) followed them. Everywhere they went, the same tractors were placed around as if they had belonged there, then filmed and photographed. After the event the tractors were taken to the next location and the peasants were left to work the land with their hands. I am sure they were happy to see the shiny tractors on TV though...<br /> <br /> You see Marcarc.... China is just doing what all communist countries have always done really well: taking the ignorant for a ride.

[Marcarc]

Oh sure, and OURS isn't. Suuuure. And I've got a bridge to sell you in Labrador. That China has democracy at the local level in many towns is already fact. That's not in debate. It's as democratic as ours is. Anecdotes never prove the rule, hell, take a look at George Bush's 'town hall meetings', where all the questions involve 'regular americans' saying "you are so great" and "what can I do to help you?" What do you think a government photo op is? In New Brunswick the Premier has been showing nothing but the same new building that they built for Molson for three years now. Get real, what is true in communist countries is just as true in our society. In fact, I'd say it's MORE true, since the USSR and China can do what we don't, which is simply throw people in jail or kill them if they don't like what you say. Again though, THAT isn't communism and has nothing to do with communism. <br /> <br /> As the good book says, worry about our own stick in our eye before staring at the other guy's.

[badsector]

It's always interesting to read you Marcarc. You have a lot of truth in your writing, yet I have to say once more again: you do not understand communism. Why would China's leaders give up power? Where is the force or motivation? The whole US economy is moving to China to produce there for US export. US corporations readily serve Chinese communism. Google released a search engine in China that conforms to Chinese censorship. Microsoft deleted a web site from its server that was created by a Chinese dissident. The whole greedy corporate World is ready to serve to China's communist regime, yet you claim that China is becoming democratic. It's the other way around: the West is giving up democracy. You saw some "local democracy" stuff on TV? Sure, the government set up an Oscar winning show to convince that stupid Westerners that they are a democracy. It sure negates Tianamen Square and the crack down on Falun Gong.<br /> <br /> Hey, here is another anecdote for you. Communist election = if you voter for me, you can lower one of your hands. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> So true...

[Marcarc]

If you read my comments I certainly am no fan of the chinese government, that may be what you are reacting to. The point was simply that china is introducing democracy at the local level-that's all i said. By definition that means they are introducing democracy. Nobody said their federal government was becoming more democratic. In Canada the same thing happened in 1857 with the introduction of responsible government. Elected officials were introduced, rather than nominated appointeees. By definition that is MORE democratic, but as I've argued extensively elsewhere, it doesn't make the country a democracy. Your opinion may be that its 'all for show', just like the introduction in Canada of responsible government may have been 'all for show'. Not everyone could vote, and there were few contenders. Yet the reality is that ANY movement that includes people in their government is more democratic than not including them. <br /> <br /> Canada is not becoming 'less democratic', it is the same as it has been since 1857. There are things 'for show', but no essential changes. In four provinces all constitutional amendments need to be passed through provincial referenda. All provinces have legislation on how to conduct referenda, in fact, municipalities COULD have referenda all the time. The 'for show' aspect comes into it when we ask how many times does ANY level of government ask the population ANYTHING. It's pretty rare.<br /> <br /> Even in the states, the ones that have citizens iniatives and populist referenda make it so hard that they are quite rare. It's ironic that many books have come out recently about how 'out of control' citizens initiatives have gotten. In the last electoral period a mere 78 issues were put to the people in the 24 states that have the mechanism, during the same time period legislators passed over 17,000 laws. Clearly they are FAR from out of control, but like Canada, american governments don't like it when people try to control the agenda. In Canada, well, its been a long time since canadians have even been CLOSE to controlling any agenda.