Many people hope that China's economic development will lead to democracy, as was the case in Taiwan and South Korea. That, however, is a vain hope.
When civilization moved towards capitalism, which led to rapid economic development, the first step was both painful and cruel. In England in the 1500s, farmers were evicted from almost 10 million hectares of land. They were forced to the cities where they worked for low wages, while five-year-old children worked 10-hour-days in mines and textile factories.
That was how the "original capital accumulation" by the nobility came about.
Taiwan was far luckier. The four Asian tigers -- Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore -- started labor-intensive production for export to the US, Japan and Europe. This transferred the local contradiction between exploiter and exploited to Europe and the US. Taiwan's miraculous economic growth then allowed it to escape the excessive exploitation of domestic labor that occurred during the early stages of the industrial revolution. Despite rapid economic growth, the gap between rich and poor diminished.
China's growing economy is now copying the Asian tigers' export-oriented approach. But although China tries to export its internal contradictions, it cannot do so successfully, which led to China's US$70 billion trade surplus with the US last year, while the manufacturing industry has entered an era of "microprofits."
If China wants to turn to domestic demand, the amount of natural resources that would be consumed by 1.4 billion people is frightening, and certain to cause an explosion of raw materials.
An increase in raw materials and a decrease in finished products would lead to even smaller profits. With no colonies to plunder, the only route remaining is harsh exploitation of local labor.
The development strategy established by Deng Xiaoping (
The so-called socialist market economy was divided into two parts -- a socialist-style control of labor and a market economy where employers were free to exploit labor, allowing quick accumulation of capital.
Since this rapid economic growth is built on depriving people of democracy and freedom, it is strange to think that economic growth will bring democracy in its wake.
Income inequality in today's China is severe. The difference in average income between Guizhou and Shanghai is tenfold. There is also a big difference in legal salaries between different provinces, and the difference is even greater in illegal salaries.
There is a huge army of laborers ready to be further exploited. China has been turned into a giant camp for slave labor.
Chinese President Hu Jintao (
I cannot see any chance of changing a system that exploits the domestic "colonized," the laborers. Economic and social rights have been restricted, and democracy and freedom will be more forcefully controlled. In this area, Hu has a tighter grip than both Deng and Jiang.
If one looks to the people and to actual experience, there is a chance that the Chinese people would be able to build a democratic politics. But a look at the system, however, gives no reason for hope.
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS