Actually the conclusion does address this issue.

-------
Despite the tremendous achievements scored in building a socialist political democracy, the CPC and the Chinese people are clearly aware of the many problems yet to be overcome. The major ones include: The democratic system is not yet perfect; the people's right to manage state and social affairs, economic and cultural undertakings as masters of the country in a socialist market economy are not yet fully realized; laws that have already been enacted are sometimes not fully observed or enforced, and violations of the law sometimes go unpunished; bureaucracy and corruption still exist and spread in some departments and localities; the mechanism of restraint and supervision over the use of power needs further improvement; the concept of democracy and legal awareness of the whole society needs to be further enhanced; and the political participation of citizens in an orderly way should be expanded. There is still a long way to go in China's building of political democracy, which will be a historical process of continuous improvement and development.
------

The most interesting thing about the report is that it doesn't mention Mao at all, and only mentions Marx very briefly in historical terms. The Communist Party of China is no longer even nominally Communist. The interesting thing is to compare this document with one written ten years ago or twenty years ago (i.e. the premable to the PRC constitution).

Also, the report envisions a one-party democracy. Most people would argue that this is impossible. The time that bothers me about this argument is that most people in 1990 predicted that the CCP would have collapsed shortly, and it didn't.

One other interesting point is it actually addresses that point. The argument that the CCP can't do what this report is trying to do is based on the saying look at country X. The whole first section of the report is saying "China is different and so you can't take country X's experience and apply it to China."

Exactly, which is the news in this concentrated of communist propaganda and sovietic language?
Communist dictatorships always used to include the term "democracy" in their official denominations or documents. DPRK (Noth Korea) is "Democratic", DDR (East Germany) was "Democratic" and so on. Of course they had (and have)nothing to do with democracy.
In this document there's the whole ideological arsenal: One-Party State, proletarian dictatorship, democratic centralism, and so on.
So, which is the news?

P.S. Simon, I know the tone of your post was sarcastic but, as usual, "serious" and "rationale" debate is starting...

Best.

An every day more astonished Enzo.

Enzo: There are more than two types of governments in the world. Not everything can be neatly classified into "communist dictatorship" and "Western democracy."

Right now, if I'd have to categorize the PRC, I'd say that it is trying to make transition from Soviet-style communist totalitarian dictatorship to Singapore-style capitalist authoritarian dictatorship.

Curiously, my political outlook is very similar to Reagan-era cold warriors as far as political classification. Reagan supporters (like Jean Kirkpatrick) tried to make a distinction between capitalist authoritarian regimes and communist totalitarian ones, arguing that the latter were worse and that the United States should support the former despite the fact that they often had bad human rights records.

I agree with this point of view, I just classify China as a capitalist authoritarian dictatorship. China-2005 looks a lot more like South Korea-1975 than Soviet Union-1975.

Part of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine was that capitalist authoritarian regimes would gradually become democratic. Maybe. Maybe not. There's no sign that Singapore is becoming democratic.

Actually, I'm not a fan of historical determinism. What happens next depends on the decisions people make. However, one must consider the *possibility* that the Communist Party of China could indeed create a stable one-party capitalist dictatorship.

Joseph,I don't understand how your comment applies to mine.
The point I've made before is that the document you were trying to interpret was the same old, breathless, ideological, dead rethoric as ever. It was a perfect example of old days communism language (and contents).
Lately (in expat-chinese blogosphere above all), we witness a peculiar and widespread trend: every burp coming from CCP circle is dissected as if it meant a revolutionary change in China history and politics. In reality, nothing happens or things go worse.
The fact that even a Politburo-style document like that were for someone the chance to infer something "new" for the political future of China confirmed my sensation.
I usually find this trend useless, sometimes ridiculous, in this case grotesque.

Best.

Enzo

I love the (oxy)moronic phrase "democratic dictatorship." You are free to do what we tell you. When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you. And so forth.

Richard W from The Three Ts made an interesting comment over at TPD saying that his former students in Dalian genuinely believed that they were living in a democracy in China. Saying that there were village and town elections and many CCP inner-party posts and policies are subject to democratic votes within the party etc.

Pretty frightening to most Westerners I think that Chinese citizens could think this, but some of them do.

From a Westerner's perspective, this is all obviously blatant propaganda. The CCP can explain why black is white and vica versa. They can put a positive spin on anything, and usually do.

Propaganda: defintely yes

Dalian student: they may be hopeful, but they may well be right.

I don't think we are hailing a baby-step as a fundamental change or we are satisfied at the current speed of change, far from it.
However, any baby step is better than frozen feet. Some encouragement of these baby steps, especially some help to solve the problem arises during these baby-steps, may well help to speed up the change.

It ideological rhetoric, but it is not the same old ideological rhetoric. There is quite a lot new in it. Part of what you have to keep in mind is that any politica party (not just the CCP) has to make believe to some extent that it hasn't deviated from its old principles, and so the really eyepopping parts of the document are carefully hidden.

For example, "Chinese Communist Party Formally Drops Maoism, Willing To Learn From Western Democracy" would be a reasonable headline for this document.....

1) I don't know about anyone else but I think it's pretty significant when you have Communist Party of China issue a very long document with a historical review and not mention Mao Zedong or Maoism even once, while at the same time saying nice things about Sun Yat-Sen.

2) As far as the "willing to learn from Western democracy" part, there is this pretty extraordinary paragraph.....

---------------
In building socialist political democracy, China has always adhered to the basic principle that the Marxist theory of democracy be combined with the reality of China, borrowed from the useful achievements of the political civilization of mankind, including Western democracy, and assimilated the democratic elements of China's traditional culture and institutional civilization. Therefore, China's socialist political democracy shows distinctive Chinese characteristics
----------------.

The thing about watching political reform is that it is like watching ice melt or paint dry. Each little step is rather unnoticable, but over time, stuff happens.

The most telling point is what I think is the crux of the issue: somewhere in the back of the CCP's leadership's mind is the Singaporean model of semi-authoritarian capitalist dictatorship, albeit of the "benevolent" kind. Can the CCP morph into the PAP? Maybe, but they need to shrug off history, which as Joseph demonstrates and we all know they continue to do even without formally admitting it. They also need to figure out how Singapore's model can apply to a country as vast and diverse as China. I'm not sure it can. But you have to give the CCP credit for recognising the flaws of the old model and their political savvy in trying to construct a new one.

I agree with those politcal scientists who analyse China's political system as being a form of federalism: market-preserving federalism with Chinese characteristics (by which they mean paternal authoritarianism in the Confucian tradition). I have discussed this is some detail in my article titled "The myth of CCP totalitarianism" in the China Articles section of my blog, for those of you who might be interested.

China's unique form of federalism, incidentally, is seen by many political scientists as being the secret behind China's economic success, and its ability to lift over 400 million people out of poverty. It's a model that is clearly working - no other country on earth is climbing the UN Human Development Index rankings list at a faster rate than China. No other country even comes close! Some commentators in the China blogsphere have argued that China's economic success has come in spite of the CCP - but as I said, most political scientists (especially those in the US) say the opposite. They say that it is because of the switch from a centralised planned economy to a decentralised market-preserving federalism, with its Chinese characteristics, which has been the key to its successes to date.

Now, why should we assume that a Western-style two-party system (which is also fundamentally undemocratic) be a magical panacea for any of China's ills? ZBoth independent US studies and Chinese studies consistently show that the majority of mainlanders do not want multi-party elections - that's something else you need to consider. They are generally satisfied at present with the current system, with the status quo. This isn't CCP propaganda - this is what the majority of those surveyed have said, and in numerous studies. Every study, some of them have been vast and on a national scale, have shown the same results - whether carried out by US researchers or Chinese researchers.

There are many problems for China to overcome (the same can be said for most countries) but I don't see why the Chinese can't continue to enjoy their increasing amounts of personal freedom and civil liberties without having to adopt a two-party system like what we have in the West. As Gore Vidal has quite rightly said, in my opinion, the two-party system is really a one party system anyway - the same organisations fund both, the two parties are simply two heads, each belonging to the one monstor, each feeding from the same trough.

Mark Anthony Jones

Alot of it is dead rhetoric, but I think lying underneath are some actual, erm, ideas. I wish someone would put together a dictionary of CCP terminology. For instance, in Chinese the word "propaganda" doesn't appear to mean the same thing it does in English. That isn't simply because the CCP has brainwashed people to think propaganda is good - as a concept it really doesn't seem to be the same thing as what we mean in English. Alot of this gibberish is, in a sense, code. Someone should write a lexicon.

MAJ: the problem is the CCP is also the same party that got China into the centralised planning mess that they then magically released when they were forced to de-collectivise farms. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think the problem of making a PAP is bigger than the problem of ruling a vast country. IMO PAP is difficult to reproduce, almost as difficult as it is to find another Lee Kaun Yew in this world and that this person can rise to power. (well, they are almost synonymmous) It is pure luck that LKY/PAP fall on Singapore (and misfortune that they didn't fall on Malaysia, or China, or India).

I believe LKY/PAP would do just as great had it been given Malaysis, and perhaps even China.

I should say "the CHALLENGING of making a PAP...."

Simon, I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow your logic here. So what if the CCP introduced central planning when it first came to power? The fact is, like all political parties, the CCP is constantly reforming itself. Surely you cannot deny that it has reformed its own system of governance by introducing not only a market economy, but also a decentralised form of market-preserving federalism in order to facilitate economic growth and rising prosperity. You have to give some credit where it is due. Or are you fixed into thinking that the CCP is a stagnant anarchronism?

Mark Anthony Jones

MAJ:

I agree with you that the CCP have been able to reform themselves, indeed they're Communist only in name these days. But my point may be best explained by analogy: if I set fire to a house, then run in and rescue the occupants, am I the hero or the villian?

I see your point, but most historians argue that the Mao years enabled China to unify itself and to bring about the stability necessary for his successors to have been able to introduce market reforms, political decentralisation, etc. In other words, the revolution has, on the whole, left a positive legacy. The Nationalists may have been able to achieve the same thing, though many historians doubt it - they were fiercely corrupt, and relied too heavily on regional war lords for support.

And you cannot blame today's leaders for what past leaders have done, can you? The CCP that you claim "set fore to the house" is not the same CCP of today, is it?

Mark Anthony Jones

I see your point, but most historians argue that the Mao years enabled China to unify itself and to bring about the stability necessary for his successors to have been able to introduce market reforms, political decentralisation, etc. In other words, the revolution has, on the whole, left a positive legacy. The Nationalists may have been able to achieve the same thing, though many historians doubt it - they were fiercely corrupt, and relied too heavily on regional war lords for support.

And you cannot blame today's leaders for what past leaders have done, can you? The CCP that you claim "set fire to the house" is not the same CCP of today, is it?

Mark Anthony Jones

The sins of the fathers and all that? Today's CCP may be far removed from that of Mao's, but they make no effort to distance themselves, in fact much to the contrary, the cult of Mao still thrives.

The Cultural revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the famines, the entire crazed rule of Mao may have unified the country, but at an incredible cost. Was it worth it? You are saying yes, I would say no. And yes, kudos to the "new" leadership of Deng and co. for changing the CCP, but did they have much choise? No, they didn't if they intended to survive in power post-Mao. The shame of it is the incredible waste of the Mao years. Imagine how far more advanced China's economy could be if the country wasn't subject to Mao's despotism.

Simon, I see little evidence of the cult of Mao still thriving! Only in a commodified form, as Mao kitsch, and more often then not in the form of religious kitsch: Mao trinkets and things to hang from rear-view car mirrors, etc - trinkets that are supposed to bring good luck, etc.

The CCP rarely appeal to the ideas of Mao. Politically he is long dead, and the CCP have indeed distanced themselves from his ideas. You are wrong when you say otherwise.

Imagine how far more advanced China might be had the revolution not succeeded? Well, historians are divided: some say China may have ended up looking more like India or Indonesia, others imagine something more like Taiwan. The Mao years weren't completely wasted if they achieved the stability needed to allow his successors to introduce market liberalisation and political decentralisation (the two go hand in hand). At any rate, today's leaders cannot be held responsible for the Mao years, and once again, the point is, the CCP today is not the CCP of yester years, nor will today's CCP be the CCP of the future.

I am ambivalent towards the CCP - I neither love it nor hate it. Like all political entities that have governed, its legacies have been mixed, and always will be. But on the whole, I think it is today, generally speaking, steering China in the right direction.

Mark Anthony Jones

Et voilà, the logical conclusion of a surreal debate.

My God... may chinese people who believe in democracy and rights forgive...

Enzo

sun bin,

"I believe LKY/PAP would do just as great had it been given Malaysis, and perhaps even China."

I disagree with that statement. Singapore is a one-of-kind case, if nothing else, simply because of the small geographical area and its demographics. Not to mention its colonial legacy. Malaysia would've been harder for the PAP to consolidate and govern.

And if there was a PAP in China, it most probably would done something similar to what the CCP had done, with all the requisite bloodshed and upheaval. Any speculation otherwise is pure wishful thinking.

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your comment. (and your critique + intro to Yadav's critique on Kaplan).

Ruling Malaysia is definitely more challenging than ruling Singapore. However, it is only 6 times larger in terms of population, while 450 times in terms of area and hence natural resources.
I think the challenge to rule Malaysia lies in the more complicated racial mix (no one predominant race).
I do sincerely believe LKY had a good chance had he got the job.

---
For China's size, it may be my 'wishful' fantasy. My general problem is, there is really no scientific evidence for the correlation between difficulty/complexity and size.

In other word, I believe LKY can rule something larger than Singapore. Although I am not sure how large is too large for him, I am not convinced of the size proportional to difficulty argument. They may be correlated, but it is definitely not a linear relation, esp for leader with good organizational skill nad has been good at setting up processes and systems

sun bin,

Malaysia does not only have a more complicated racial mix, but also soco-economic groups that Singapore did not have to handle, or in some cases were more easily and earlier managed - again partly because of geographical and population size, and, to point out what you mentioned - natural resources. For example, how many farmers, miners, fishermen, rubber plantation workers, steelworkers etc. did Singapore have compared to Malaysia? Or even China?
If LKY had a 'good chance', I would emphasise just the 'chance'.

And on China - I never implied that there is some sort of 'linear relation' as to how well a leader can govern a country given its size, or the 'size proportional to difficulty argument'. You brought it up.
But human societies are to a large extent dynamic, and this includes factors other than size. For example, the fact that Singapore was a British colony and China wasn't, was a factor as to how Singapore turned out differently from China.

I also stated that the PAP would probably have gone the way of the CCP, because in spite of human dynamism, both parties and their leaders had characteristcs that disturb me.

Let's start with all other things being equal - ceterus paribus: WW2 just ended in China; the Nationlists and warlords had to be dealt with; the country has few or no modern political institutions brought by Westerners, much less the rule of law or a democratic culture. Then, consider the following:

Mao was an ethnic Chinese autocrat. LKY was...an ethnic Chinese autocrat. The Chinese Communist Party was...Communist. The PAP started out as a 'centre-left' party...with Socialist-Leninist characteristics (there is at least one analysis of that floating around on the 'Net, if not published in print).

It has been officially documented that LKY had initially been a 'defender' of democracy, advocating a free press and at one time even in the defence team representing labour union (or student) strikers in the 1950s/60s. And look at Singapore now. Given this turnaround after he came to power, what makes you think that he would have governed any more fairly or better in China?

The only difference is that he probably could've articulated and justified any atrocities more eloquently and much better than Mao ever could. After all, LKY was a Cambridge-educated lawyer, and Mao wasn't.

Excuse me for the long reply. But I have one last thing to say here: I find your statements lauding LKY so much especially interesting - and disturbing.

Ok...it is about LKY. We can agree to disagree. I am an admirer of LKY, despite all the criticism he might attract.

There is not much to debate actually. It boils down to opinion and sbjective faith. (yours and mine).

I think PAP was central-left, they aligned with communist at the beginning until they were threatened. I see nothing wrong with being central left though - but you can disagree.

Yes, the difference, as you stated, LKY is Cambridde educated lawyer, which not only helped him to become, but also to think and act logically and rationally. THIS IS IMPORTANT. LKY also was exposed to all the western ideas which Mao (of Jiang or Hu) weren't. These are FUNDAMENTAL differences.

You do have a point about British influence though. But again, neither of us have solid reason to believe what we believe. I was just telling my "guestimate".