fischer160_NG HAN GUANAFPGetty Images_china us trade

نظامان وعالم واحد

Aug 30, 2019 Joschka Fischer

برلين ــ مع اقتراب الذكرى الثلاثين لسقوط سور برلين، عادت قضية الحرية إلى الواجهة في كل من موسكو وهونج كونج، مع تباين كبير في الظروف والسياقات التاريخية والسياسية المصاحبة. نتذكر هنا أن العصر الحديث بُني على الحرية، وعلى الاعتراف بأن كل البشر وُلدوا سواسية. بل إن فكرة التنوير الثورية، عندما ترسخت وسادت، شكلت انسلاخا تاما عن كل حقب التاريخ السابقة عليها. لكن الزمن تغير، وأصبحنا نواجه في القرن الحادي والعشرين سؤالا جذريا: هل يمكن أن يمثل أي شكل مُحدّث من الحكم الاستبدادي بديلا للديمقراطية الحرة وحكم القانون؟

في عام 1989، كانت الإجابة الواضحة على ذلك السؤال هي: لا، ليس في الغرب وحده، وإنما أيضا في العالم بأسره. لكن منذ ذلك الحين، شهدنا إحياء النزعة القومية في أوروبا، وفشل الربيع العربي، وانتخاب دونالد ترمب رئيسا لأميركا، وارتداد روسيا لعهود القومية الانتقامية، وبروز الصين كقوة عالمية. ومن ثم توقفت الآن المراهنات على الديمقراطية الحرة.

جاء ظهور الصين كقوة عظمى عسكرية واقتصادية وتكنولوجية ثانية ليؤشر إلى وجود نموذج بديل للتطور الآن، إذ يُنظر إلى حكم القانون والديمقراطية في الصين الحديثة كتهديد لحكم الحزب الواحد. ومن ثمّ تكشف الاحتجاجات المتواصلة حاليا من أجل الحرية والمساءلة الديمقراطية عن انقسام واضح، ليس فقط بين إطاريّ عمل معياريين، بل بين نظامين للنفوذ السياسي.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

When Leninists Overreach
Kenzaburo Fukuhara/Pool/Getty Images

When Leninists Overreach

Nina L. Khrushcheva suspects that Russia and China's leaders may be losing support among their respective country's elites.

9
Inside the Hong Kong Protests
Anthony Kwan/Getty Images

Inside the Hong Kong Protests

Sławomir Sierakowski offers a firsthand account of the pro-democracy demonstrations that have been roiling the city all summer.

19
Who Will Win the Twenty-First Century?
Getty Images

Who Will Win the Twenty-First Century?

Joschka Fischer worries that it won't be the European Union unless it moves quickly to regain its digital sovereignty.

18
The End of the World As We Know It
FotografiaBasica/Getty Images

The End of the World As We Know It

Joschka Fischer considers what a Sino-American rupture will mean for the global economy, and especially for Europe.

14

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 26 Comments on this article

Kien Choong Sep 7, 2019

[in reply to K Bauer]

Hi, I think there is a lot in your comments that I agree with, including that China could do a better job in Tibet and Xinjiang (although I would argue that minorities in China have not suffered the same level of dispossession, genocide and forced assimilation that indigenous peoples in Australia and North America have suffered), that the media is imperfect (often myopic, biased and tends to exploit prejudice, greed & fear), and that the run up to elections are an opportunity to have public discussion (but I also think public discussion should continue even after elections).

Where we differ is that you seem to associate democracy with a particular set of institutions, whereas I have a more comprehensive view of democracy (as government by public discussion) which can thrive in many different types of institutions, including one party systems. Admittedly China's one party system has a long way to go in terms of democracy, but I am open to the possibility that democracy can thrive even in a one party system*. The key is greater transparency and openness to public discussion and good reasoning.

I see democracy as part of China's overall development. Democracy is not a particular set of institution. Rather, as China's population becomes ever more educated and wealthier, they will seek greater democracy. And China's institutions will evolve to adapt to that demand.

I suspect (but cannot prove) that the vast majority of China's people don't think multi-party elections are necessarily the way to go. (There is undoubtedly a vocal minority that seeks multi-party elections.) Perhaps one day China will have multi-party elections. But meanwhile, there is plenty of room for democracy to expand in China within a one party system. It is very difficult for you to see this unless you are willing to take a more comprehensive view of democracy as government by discussion (which I point out is an idea that goes back to John Stuart Mill, the proponent of liberalism).

We are so used to Western style democracy that it can be difficult to imagine how democracy can flourish in a one party system*. But that is something that China will, given time, develop through experimentation and testing. I would argue that this is the strength of the Chinese system, always reforming and experimenting, adapting as the Chinese people's aspirations change.

[* At the time of the French revolution, people may well have doubted that monarchies could be democratic. But today, we no longer think monarchies are incompatible with democracy. Similarly, one day people will realise that one party systems can be as democratic as multi-party systems. On the other hand, I often think that American democracy is rather limited because in practice people's choice are limited to two right wing parties. A change of the governing party makes no difference to people's lives (especially black Americans). You have to look beyond the institutions and examine the real say that people have in how they are governed.]
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
donald quixote Sep 3, 2019

More quibbles from Mr. Fischer melding allegories that are polar opposites, including the subject he attempted to shed light on, but instead skirted off the usual sumpsimus. The current version 2.0 of the American Corporate Capitalism started off poorly by FDR’s new deal, went completely off the rails after repealing the Glass-Steagal Act inevitably reenacting the Great Depression yet again, in the disastrous 2008 Global Financial Meltdown, the aftermath is creating a mega debt-addiction that can explode anytime the “Music” stops.

90 years since the Great Depression America’s corporate capitalists have all but completely usurped and captured the Senate Congress and the presidency, subverted all institutions including mainstream media, concentrating them into focused and paid media. These catabolic INCs continue merrily to milk the remaining 90% of Americans on food, health, education, auto, housing extractive-ly with debts. Most social institution created since the New Deal had collapsed or went defunct. The bulk of America’s middle-class and those below, are tuned into indentured serfs.

Mr. Fischer like the many mainstream “paid” media reporting on the HK protests, all conveniently missed the very point that HK’s growing unrest and the widening Gini coefficient and of inequality, was caused by the effects written in the 50-years 1-Country 2-System Basic Law, HK shall maintain its way of governance ostensibly retaining a system that mirrors America’s extractive catabolic brand of Capitalism. The excuse of orchestrating the 3-month long protests over an Extradition Bill was, and has been clearly documented as a political False-flag, directly on China, flagrantly leaving out the HK 2-system is the American British colonial system, guaranteed by their Basic Law, that is the source of the protests and anger.

Had Mr. Fischer genuinely tried to compare China’s State-back Capitalism against HK’s catabolic extractive Capitalism, showcase Shenzhen that was only a fishing village 40 years ago, look at the Greater Bay Area around the Pearl River Delta, and he would have the answer. HK’s once Asia’s 4-Tiger vibrant industries production have all been relocated to China, as had all production of America’s, except for the Big Pharma and Defence.

The true ideological comparison the author did not review was China’s brand of state-Capitalism with the HK proxy capitalism, and against America’s Corporate Capitalism, perhaps conveniently so because that comparison would review Chinese’s CCP-state controlled socialist Capitalism still takes care of its citizens along the way. The other version in HK and in America, have extracted and catabolized their poor. But that happens to be an unappealing comparison finding, so the author instead reverted to the standard line-to-take, on mumpsimuses unrelated to true governance, instead the focuses would be on suffrage, on freedom, all men supposing-ly born equal, and on “democracy”, a word according to John Dewey had 30 odd definitions. Suffice to say America and the West are obviously seeing the rising China and the Chinese version of Capitalism to be threatening, the West’s catabolic extractive Capitalism has in 90-years globalized ie enslaved their governments and impoverished 650 Million [350M in US, 300M in EU] middle-class, whilst China’s state-Capitalism lifted 600 Million peasants to Middle-class in 40 years, the Thucydidean Trap is blinding.

Incidentally Mr. Fischer parroted another official line-to-take on harnessing AI, well guess what, when Data has exceeded Oil as the most valuable commodity according to a senior executive in Cambridge Analytica in 2018, the only way America’s extractive nihilistic capitalists can go is to mine the human brain, and then to eliminate humans altogether, so all hail to the democracy, something HK and China must have ?
- K. Bauer Sep 3, 2019
  
  Please look at the data (see my comments below) before lamenting like this. China is as unequal as the US and it gets worse (as everywhere). There is less inequality in Europe (social market society) than there is in the US or China. Furthermore, a poor US/EU citizen is still richer than a poor Chinese citizen because that definition is usually related to the mean wealth. China lifted millions out of poverty because of its embrace of capitalism - and despite the state. Democracy with its checks and balances can (it's not an automatism) prevent human disasters like the detention of Uyghurs in Xinjiang or the Tiananmen Square massacre because it gives people the political means to influence governance.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery Sep 2, 2019

Fischer, I'm afraid, doesn't grasp the true nature of the problem. How does the West 'defend its values' while 'maintaining good relations' with an authoritarian, state-capitalist system like China, run by a Leninist party that sees violence as a legitimate means of resolving political problems? The truth is that there is no way to achieve an enforceable and verifiable relation, trade or otherwise, with a system not based on the rule of law; free markets; freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion; or respect for the individual.

Engagement has failed. Experience shows, to the contrary, that the West can expect weak or no results from alliances and trade groups like WTO and TPP. Short of war, the only serious course of action left to the US and Europe is disengagement, aka 'decoupling.'
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery Sep 2, 2019

"Millions of people have been lifted out of poverty. . ." Wrong. They lifted themselves through their own hard work after the CCP got out of their way.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kien Choong Sep 2, 2019

I would argue that this dichotomy between "authoritarianism" and "democracy" as alternative development models is a false one. Rather, I suggest the alternative development models are "capitalist neo-liberalism" and "socialist harmonious society".

While China is certainly more authoritarian than many Western countries, it is also likely to become more democratic over time. The issue for China is how to foster greater democracy within a model of a "socialist harmonious society", where priority is given to people's real freedoms (not just a set procedural rights) rather than the "capitalist neo-liberalism" that prioritises the interests of owners of capital.

Just a thought!
- K. Bauer Sep 2, 2019
  
  Could you please elaborate why the dichotomy between "authoritarianism" and "democracy" should be false?
  
  In China there is no way that people could elect another party to power. In Europe this is standard procedure. The US has at least a 2-way switch...
  
  But from a Europe perspective China (inkluding Hong Kong) and the US have a similar neo-capitalist economy model. Labor rights are quite basic there. For example, its much easier for a company to dismiss somebody in these countries than it is in Europe.
  - Kien Choong Sep 2, 2019
    
    Hi, thank you for reading my comments and for asking me to elaborate. It is conventional to broadly divide the world into democracies vs authoritarian systems. (And it is usual to assume that China is authoritarian.)
    
    But I think the real divide is between a plutocratic-capitalist society, which concentrates wealth & power in the hands of an elite, and a socialist-harmonious society, which distributes wealth & power widely. It's not widely appreciated that Western societies have long been plutocratic-capitalist. It remains to be seen how long the post-World War, post-Depression society of distributed wealth & power will endure. There are signs that much of the Western world is reverting to a plutocratic-capitalist society.
    
    On the other hand, China's people today has far greater freedoms than they have ever had in all of China's history. And China's government seems focussed on its long-term goal of eliminating poverty, improving people's living standards and achieving a society that is inclusive, prosperous and sustainable. I argue that as China becomes wealthier over time, it will become more democratic. But democracy in China will not look like how democracy is practised in the West. China will work out its own model for democracy. The key is that China's government is always reforming, and does not believe it has already achieved a perfect set of institutions.
    
    Western countries ought to watch out that they do not revert to becoming plutocratic-capitalist societies. But if we continue to see the world through a democratic vs authoritarian dichotomy, there is a danger Western societies end up becoming plutocratic-capitalist.
    
    It remains to be seen whether China will one day end up becoming even more democratic than Western countries. There is no guarantee that this will happen. But it is wrong to assume that it cannot happen endogenously (i.e., without outside intervention). After all, democracy in the West took many centuries to develop, but even today, this "democracy" works largely in the interest of a privileged group.
    - K. Bauer Sep 2, 2019
      
      But if you look at the distribution of wealth, you see that China is more like the US than Europe:
      
      Pre-tax national income Bottom 50%share in 2014 [data from wid.world]:
      USA 12.6%
      China 14.9%
      UK 22.0%
      Germany 21.2%
      France 22.5%
      
      In all countries the trend is going towards deeper inequality.
      
      You don't need to have communism (which so far always ended in authoritarianism) to distribute wealth - just look at the social market economies in Europe with their strong social nets. That social market ideology is missing in China (if you disagree please give examples). One reason is that you don't have free unions. The Chinese are dependent on the goodwill from its master the CPC. So why is China not a "plutocratic-capitalist" society with a communist/authoritarian political regime?
      - Kien Choong Sep 2, 2019
        
        Thank you for looking at the data. It's true inequality in China is high, and I suggest this reflects the development stage that China is at. Arguably, higher inequality is the price for the considerable poverty reduction in China. It's an open question whether China will be able to successfully reverse the inequality trend (in line with the "Kruznet curve"). That's certainly the stated goal.
        
        I would also like to argue that the authoritarian mode of government reflects China's development stage. My claim (to be verified by future developments) is that China's government will be less authoritarian as China continues to become wealthier over time. This was the experience in S Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. Let's see if it also happens in China.
        
        But I would challenge the unwarranted assumption that China will always remain authoritarian. That's why I feel the democracy-authoritarian divide is a false dichotomy.
        
        My main complaint with China's government is that it is opaque. Governance could be improved with more transparency, as otherwise decisions will come across as arbitrary, even abusive. But I feel confident that transparency will increase over time. It's not always easy to explain decisions in a transparent manner, and I hope China's government will get better at this in future.
        
        (BTW, I understand that the Indian state of Kerala transformed from being the poorest in India to the wealthiest, and all this under a communist government.)
        
        K. Bauer Sep 2, 2019
        
        I hope you are right. On the other hand, China is already quite rich - the country with the 2nd highest number of millionaires. Economic development hasn't changed much politically so far. Also, you not only need transparency but a way for citizen to criticize and change faulty actions by the authority. Otherwise you can identify faults but are unable to do anything about it.
        
        Kien Choong Sep 2, 2019
        
        Yes, let's hope so. Thank you for your comments.
        
        It's odd to judge a country's achievement (or failures) by just the number of millionaires. One would normally "normalise" the metric by (say) dividing by the population base.
        
        It's interesting, going by the data you provided, that inequality in the US is higher than China, even though the US is so much wealthier. I didn't realise this was the case! Anyway, I hope China does not follow that particular US example!
        
        K. Bauer Sep 3, 2019
        
        China is at odds with the norm - you have a population of nearly 1.4bn which means that the number of people having a living standard at an west european level could already fill an average size country. Your top 10% - thats as many people as Russia has - have 2/3 of the net personal wealth of China.
        
        You make the mistake of comparing a relation like inequality with absolute numbers. The bottom 50% in the US are still better of than most people in the world exactly because of its average wealth. If you want to compare countries look at absolute poverty (person with less than 1.90 PPP-US-$ per day). If China does not change its policies its inequality will stay at this high level even if it gets wealthier.
        
        Kien Choong Sep 3, 2019
        
        I'm not sure I understand your argument. My point was simply that it's inappropriate to simply pick "number of millionaires" as a metric for comparing countries. Larger population countries will tend to have more millionaires than smaller population countries. So you need to compare the metric with a relevant base - e.g., population size. We can debate about what the best metric (or preferably set of metrics) are, and which relevant "denominators" is best for each metric.
        
        I would argue that in China's case, one also needs to look at China's level of wealth (still poor) when assessing achievement vs failure. The US has had every advantage, having the best of European technology (at its founding), a good education system, vast lands (expropriated from indigenous peoples), and the security of two great oceans. Whereas China has throughout history been invaded, right up to its modern history. In fact, I would argue China's peaceful rise as a medium income country is unprecedented. All other great powers (including the US) have risen on the backs of wars, conquests, exploitation, etc.
        
        In fairness, times have changed, and it's inconceivable that China could have pursued the path that European/US countries took. Give China some time. As China reaches per capita GDP that is the same as the US, I'm sure China will become as democratic, and perhaps more democratic than the US. But democracy in China will not look like democracy in the West. That is something the West needs to understand, that their version of democracy is just one version. China will develop its own version of democracy.
        
        K. Bauer Sep 3, 2019
        
        My point is that there are already a lot of wealthy people in China (in absolute not relative numbers) but there is no democratic movement visible. Maybe you are right and it has to be "x percent of total" before people ask for participation, but 140 million is quite a number.
        
        I would say there are already different versions of democracies in the West. The 2-party democracy of the US is quite different to the many party democracies in Europe. But how can you have democracy with just one party?
        
        Kien Choong Sep 3, 2019
        
        Hi, I suggest that the level of education and median income would be better indicators of a country's "latent demand for democracy". Millionaires likely have less need for democracy, as they likely have other means to exert their influence.
        
        On whether one party democracy is feasible, in theory yes if we think of democracy as people's real freedoms to have a say on how they are governed. There is an old idea of democracy as "government by public discussion" which in fact originates with John Stuart Mill. For him, democracy was substantively about reasoned discussion, not elections per se. Multi-party election gives politicians (contesting for power) an incentive to respond to people's views about how the country should be governed. But I would argue that China's single-party government in fact has strong incentives to respond to people's views. It's evident in how much effort China's government has put in improving people's livelihoods, eliminating poverty, and (more recently) fostering ecologically sustainable and inclusive growth in China. The social media in China has been a platform in which people express their views (often critical) about how China is governed.
        
        It is still an open question as to whether genuine democracy can develop within a one party system. The key is greater transparency and accountability. There is always a contest for power, whether as between parties, or between different "factions" within a party. At present, the rules on how the CCP selects its leaders are opaque. My hope (and expectation) is that over time, these rules (which could be unwritten conventions) will become clearer. I understand China is already experimenting with local elections (at the village level), and perhaps the learnings from local elections can be applied (with modification) to provincial, and one day, national elections.
        
        But we should not expect democracy in China to look like multi-party elections in the West. We need to think of democracy more broadly and comprehensively as "government by public discussion". As China's education level rises, and as median income rises, democracy will also rise. After all, China officially regards itself as a democratic country. Whereas the West sees democracy as a binary concept (either the country is democratic or not), China probably sees democracy as something that grows over time, as part of China's overall development.
        
        K. Bauer Sep 4, 2019
        
        First @project-syndicate.org team: Please readdress the formatting of the comments section. After a comment depth of 3 layers it should stop indentation as the horizontal width of the text area is too narrow for longer texts.
        
        Gross National Income (GNI) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP):
        Country int$
        Luxembourg (EU) 80,640
        United Arab Emirates 75,300
        Switzerland 69,220
        Hong Kong 67,700
        US 63,390
        Russia 26,470
        Bulgaria (EU) 21,220
        China 18,140
        Brazil 15,820
        India 7,680
        
        From this China should have a high "latent demand for democracy". You are right that millionaires probably have other means. But as paradox as it sounds, because of that the high inequality in China might actually stabilize one-party rule as the increasing wealth is concentrated in a fraction of the population who have no desire for change.
        
        If you want to have "real freedoms to have a say on how they are governed" you either need free elections of the politicians or at least free elections on the ideas/policies (direct democracy like in Switzerland). That's because public discussion is not objectively. Thats even more true for social media which can easily be filtered, controlled and generate "echo chambers". I've seen referenda outcames exactly the opposite of what you would expect from happening according to the public discussions (which were controlled by media outlets).
        
        For the development you describe, the US may serve as an example for China because they do these big public one-party elections of their candidates for the presidency (Trump won for the GOP last time) and on the state level. However, it is like the recent election of Boris Johnson as PM of the UK not really democratic as only a fraction of the population (democratic and republican party members) have their say.
        
        Again "government by public discussion" without free election is no democracy as a discussion between more than a few people cannot show the will of the many. If everyone would say their opinion it would be a cacophony of epic proportions. Also a discussion is too easily hacked.
        
        Kien Choong Sep 5, 2019
        
        Hi, thank you for taking time to read my comments. I would like to defend my claim that democracy works best through public discussion and good reasoning. Social choice should be based on both (i) public discussion, and (ii) good reasoning. To the extent there is a crisis in Western democracy, it is because politicians have forgotten about good reasoning. Rather, they are focussed on winning elections, including by exploiting people's prejudice and phobias.
        
        China is still a long way from being a full democracy, but to the extent China has succeeded in raising literary and the education level of its populations, it has become more democratic. On the other hand, there are signs that democracy in the West has degenerated somewhat, with votes reflecting ethnic and class divisions, ideological commitments (for example, ignoring climate change), and politicians unashamedly appealing to phobias and prejudice towards migrants. Why? I suspect in part because Westerners see democracy as essentially about elections, and so long as elections are held, anything the elected government does is deemed legitimate.
        
        On the other hand, China's government does not look to elections for legitimacy. Instead, the legitimacy of China's government is based on the extent to which China governs for the whole country, not just for the wealthy, not just for a particular ethnic group. And China's government does not take legitimacy for granted, but works for it.
        
        It's often been said that since India became an independent democracy, it has not had a famine. But it is also acknowledged that Indian democracy is rather poor at addressing chronic undernourishment. (China on the other hand, experienced a terrible famine, but undernourishment is not a problem in China the way it is in India.) Western democracies can be quite bad at addressing chronic problems, like racial discrimination in America, poverty among black Americans, high unemployment in Europe, rising health care costs in America, neglect of Aborigine wellbeing in Australia, and discrimination against refugees and migrants. But these problems persist and continue, because the Western media is very poor at drawing attention to chronic problems. And even when it does, Western politicians can be stymied by powerful narrow interest groups, like the gun-lobby and white supremacist ideologies.
        
        It remains to be seen whether China will one day become as democratic or more democratic than the West, but if this day arrives, it is because of her government's commitment to raising education levels, improving public health, and raising living standards for all its citizens. Democracy will naturally follow as people's education levels rise. But I always insist that democracy in China will have "Chinese characteristics". We must not insist that democracy in China must entail multi-party elections. Such insistence is in fact quite undemocratic.
        
        K. Bauer Sep 5, 2019
        
        The run up to elections are the constantly recurring opportunity to have public discussions of the political agenda on a broad basis. The election is the (ideally conclusive) decision of this discussion.
        I wouldn't say that anything an elected government does is legitimate - they should do what they promised before the election, what they wrote in their political white paper. Unfortunately, that's not always the case.
        
        If the legitimacy of Chinas government is based on how well it governs the country than it cannot fail - because there is no alternative. But people fail. There must be a non-violent, legitimate way to change the government if they fail. Otherwise it’s always all in or all out - the government is deemed to be right or one risk that the country lapses into chaos.
        
        An election is this vehicle for change. For example, the emergence of the "green party" in Europe and the pressure their elections results had on the old political parties pathed the way for climate (and animal cruelty, etc.) being seen as important facts that need to be addressed nowadays (yes it took decades).
        
        Also, a failed US/EU country leader can have a happy life within the country after he lost the election - something that isn't true to most authoritarian regimes. It's not good for democracy if the personal stakes of the people in power is too high. That's in particular true to several African and South American countries.
        
        Regarding addressing racial problems - I don't see that China does a good job with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang or in Tibet. I don't think you can command people to be less racist. It needs education and personal experience. That is something that's probably not heavily dependent on the government system but relies on various other factors (access to foreigners, language, culture, economic situation, history, etc.).
        
        Democracy itself also doesn't ensure a good media. They are free - they can be free and bad. The internet is good for information sharing but because of it we are used to getting news for free. So a lot of good journalism has been lost.
        
        I'm still puzzled as to how democracy in China with "Chinese characteristics" but without elections could look like. I fear that rather serving the "will of the many" it will serve the "will of the people being deemed clever by the old elite". How can you prevent this without election? And do you want to prevent that or is this what you want?
        
        Kien Choong Sep 7, 2019
        
        Hi, I've posted a new comment in reply to your last comment of 5 Sep.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jaap Bosma Sep 1, 2019

The modern world is not built on democracy, it's built on capitalism.
It's not democracy that brought prosperity, it's capitalism. That doesn't mean that capitalism doesn't have its drawbacks, which should be kept in check, but it does mean that China might built a non-democratic capitalist system that rivals the West's capitalist system in economic and military terms.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Aug 31, 2019

Joschka Fischer says we can no longer take for granted that freedom and democracy will continue to prevail, given the contest between “fundamentally incompatible political systems” – authoritarian capitalism and liberal democracy – espoused by China and the West respectively. This division of the world into two systems reminds of the Cold War era marked by a contest for nuclear supremacy between the US and the Soviet Union. The only difference today is that strength is measured by economic performance. Only time can tell whether China’s political system will succeed in the long term, and be an alternative to the current liberal, law-based order in the West.
But the author is pessimistic about the outlook for democracy in recent years. The Arab Spring in 2010/2011 had been a failure. The 2008 global financial crisis was a backlash against globalisation and gave rise to nationalism. Fueled by Russian revanchism, the West has been divided over identity politics, which led to Britain’s vote on leaving the EU in June 2016 and Trump’s election months later. Although the ongoing protests in Hong Kong and Moscow show that democracy is not dead, they may “have little to no chance of success in the short term.,” given the authoritarian power structures in China and Russia.
Some do believethat China’s model can rival Western democracy if it does not tear itself apart. Much depends on how Xi Jinping is going to handle the protests in Hong Kong against Beijing’s asserting sovereignty over the former British colony. Under the “one country – two systems” principle Hong Kong is guaranteed a high degree of autonomy for half a century, enjoying executive, legislative and independent judicial power until 2047.
While Beijing needs to manage social stresses and maintain economic stability, debate has intensified in the past decade over whether China’s mix of a market economy and authoritarian governance could be a viable alternative, given its phenomenal growth since Deng Xiaoping’s economc reforms in the 1980s. Many countries are impressed by China’s semi-capitalist system that has helped the country asecend from a “poverty-stricken developing country to an economic powerhouse.”
With millions of people lifted out of poverty, China has a huge middle-class that makes it an attractive market for foreign companies. Beijing aims to become a leader in high-growth manufacturing and focuses on technological progress and military build-up, seeking to become the world’s most powerful country. But the leadership sees its authoritarian governance as a zero-sum game, allowing no room for failure. If the model fails, the country will lose face, for which the people would have to pay a high price.
According to the author, Trump is “something of a Chinese Trojan Horse.” Despite launching a trade war against Beijing, “he is also doing everything he can to undermine the credibility of the Western model,” which will have “far more consequential than his tariffs.” He is less concerned about a world with “eight billion people” who cannot afford a global conflict. For him it is always “America First.”
The author complains about Europe’s “economic weaknesses and geopolitical naiveté” that have failed to defend the Western model. For this reason, “China’s ascent cannot be prevented. The country is simply too large and too strong to be boycotted or contained; at any rate, the Chinese people’s desire to share in global prosperity is entirely legitimate. The West has little choice but to maintain good relations with the new superpower, while at the same time defending its values.”
Indeed, China’s destiny lies entirely in the hands of “future generations of Chinese.” Although many young people have “no memories of past horrors such as the Cultural Revolution” they may still reject their model. Many travel abroad and have a taste of liberty and freedom. They certainly will call for change when the time comes. It remains to be seen how long this authoritarian governance will last. Obviously the leadership is no longer confident of its grip on power, or elese it would not have to resort to repression. China is so afraid of the vagaries of reforms that leaders have no appetite for change.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
aethelwulf fudge Aug 31, 2019

Funny I blogged this 2 days ago:
"One World, Two Systems.
Thus Australian writer of Chinese extraction, detained months ago, is finally charged, with „spying“.
Despite Australia having a lot on the table, big exports of raw materials and education, Australia‘s PM goes into bat for the „spy“, his ultimate loyalty being to the country’s „Western“ values.
Meanwhile China is affronted and defends its „justice“ system!
Funny how the autocracies pretend to be fair like the „West“, indulge in the pretence of elections and legal systems."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
aethelwulf fudge Aug 31, 2019

Mr Fischer wrote here 30 July. Again he is too pessimistic.
He left out the 20th century!
Liberal democracy copped a frightful beating then, from the Bolsheviks cum Stalinism, then Hitler and - post WW2 - Mao and the Soviets.
But, severely bloodied, it prevailed.
Freedom works, responsibly managed freedom delivers big time, politically and economically, for good reason, harnessing the ambitions and abilities of the multitude.
It’s always messy but way ahead of all the autocratic alternatives.
The gestation of liberal democracy [in the West, as it happened] was long and very painful, as Old Identity Values [OIV] resisted, delivering the US Civil War and WW1 [both self inflicted!], also unhappy offshore imperial engagements.
WW1 then gave us the Bolshevik Russian Revolution and probably WW2, the Maoist Chinese Revolution, and the Cold War!
But liberal democracy has made it through.
Resilient OIV are still with us - via neo-Soviet Russia and post Maoist China, also violent Islamism – but the PRC and Russia will lose, hopefully with a lot fewer corollary casualties than in 20th C.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Godfree Roberts Aug 30, 2019

The idea that the US represents liberal democracy and the rule of law is laughable and has always been, as Sheldon Wolin observed, “One cannot point to any national institution[s] that can accurately be described as democratic,” he writes in that book, “surely not in the highly managed, money-saturated elections, the lobby-infested Congress, the imperial presidency, the class-biased judicial and penal system, or, least of all, the media.” [ Wolin: “Democracy Incorporated”]

Rule of law? In America? The America that executes 2,000 of its citizens each year without trial, imprisons another 2,000,000–also without trial–and has killed an average of 1,000 foreign civilians daily since 1951? THAT America?
- Walter Gingery Sep 2, 2019
  
  The difference is that Wolin's book was published. How many books critical of the CCP are allowed to be published in China? (Don't get me started about Tiananmen, Lhasa, Xinjiang and now Hong Kong.)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/5esOvatar

نظامان وعالم واحد

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

When Leninists Overreach

Inside the Hong Kong Protests

Who Will Win the Twenty-First Century?

The End of the World As We Know It

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

نظامان وعالم واحد

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification