Jeremiah writes:
Ah the vicissitudes of a government petrified of information€¦after a brief revival this past week, blogspot is YET AGAIN blocked in Beijing. This time joined by the popular workaround site anonymouse which has, until now it would seem, been a decent way to access blocked sites. Hopefully this is all temporary and somebody will get the nanny a cocktail and a neck massage.
But for the moment can I just address (again) the purple elephant sitting in the corner: societies that block information and are afraid of alternative viewpoints cannot be considered modern and developed€¦and no amount of high rise buildings, synchronized hand claps, Audi A6s, or Olympic games will make it so.
Sorry.
Amen. Blocking blog hosting software only scratches the surface of media censorship in China. I used to read the China Daily until its sycophancy became depressing, and while TV news broadcasts are good for Chinese listening comprehension they don’t convey much in the way of useful news. Chinese people brave enough to challenge official government policy on virtually any issue usually end up silenced if not incarcerated.
As Jeremiah writes, the booming economy and increasingly cosmopolitan nature of the country do not mask the fact that China remains a rigid, authoritarian dictatorship that is completely controlled by one unelected political party. Admission of this fact usually elicits feeble excuses, such as that China is somehow “different” and that Chinese people are somehow not ready for participatory democracy or a free press. Some go so far as to say that authoritarian systems “work better”, belying the fact that most dictatorships crumble under the weight of their own inefficiency. China’s impressive growth has been in spite of its government, not because of it.
Some months ago I read Sam Harris’ anti-religion cri de couer “The End of Faith”. Drawing on an impressive command of epistemology, Harris argues that some ideas are better than others regardless of context. For instance, he writes that religions that practice “honor killings” are inferior to those that do not, and that atheism (or scientific rationality) ranks higher than religious faith of any kind in the hierarchy of ideas.
Whether or not one agrees with Harris’ take, I do believe that his rejection of relativism can be extended into the political sphere. Societies that allow freedom of information, protect individual rights, and limit governmental power are inherently more humane and vibrant than those that do not. I do not mean to endorse a violent overthrow of the Chinese government, but am merely pointing out that despite its glowing facade, China remains, in many ways, a deeply backward country.
A caveat or two: I would totally oppose any effort from the United States, United Nations, or any other country to attack China in order to change its political system. China’s sovereignty ought to be respected, just like those in nations whose institutions we may find more admirable.
Comments 4
Ah, precious wikipedia, how I missed thee.
Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 6:28 pm ¶“China’s impressive growth has been in spite of its government, not because of it.”
I am not so sure, Matt. It is pretty clear to me that it was the Chinese government that spearheaded and steered the economic growth. Being democratic does not necessarily bring this sort of impressive growth that we have seen in China. There are quite a few examples out there.
The other thing is, I don’t know who has been telling you and those who believe China is not a backward developing country (and thus threatens the United States and the west), but the Chinese government and most Chinese have no doubt about the fact that it is still a third world developing country which in many ways is a backward country. According to the Chinese government, China will become a “moderately developed” country by 2080, 72 years from now. By the Chinese government’s projection, the gap between China and the highly developed west then will become slightly smaller.
I do agree with you that censorship is retarded and China can live without. As to democracy in China, if the Chinese themselves are content, who is the US or anybody else to tell the Chinese that they need to do this and that?
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:11 am ¶Pfeffer,
You’re right- China has never claimed that it is a fully developed country, and I should have made that more clear in my post. My point was that when evaluating its development, human rights and press freedom ought to be considered alongside economic growth.
Of course, Western countries are not in position to lecture China, but I wasn’t speaking as a representative of the US, just as a resident of China frustrated with the persistence of its police state.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 9:57 am ¶Not all Chinese are content, censorship blacks out the disgruntled voices. Otherwise “Harmony” would not be promoted. For Chinese, there have always been a right side and a wrong side of the track to be on, so to speak. 30 years ago, the uneducated and poor were in, and now, it is the money and power’s turn. The voices of those who were/are benefited from the government’s policy will always be heard. The question is what about those who are/were off the wagon?
Even if all Chinese are content, it is not a reason to turn down something Chinese had never had or experienced. As recent as 30 years ago, there were not much of a material life in China, everything was rationed, and materialism was condemned. Was most of the Chinese content? Probably. Now material life is within reach, materialism seems to on the front and center of Chinese’s mind. It is probably even proportion to Chinese’s happy index. If that is any indication, wouldn’t Chinese grab “freedom” with both hands when we finally have it?
Having said all that, I don’t agree with western countries putting on a tough front on Chinese human right issues, it is ineffective and frankly, you just cannot criticize on one hand and ask for a share of Chinese market on the other. The potential way to change for Chinese, as it seems always, relies on the peasants, and their voices reaching educated middle class.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 11:05 pm ¶Post a Comment