Comments on: UK Had US; Who Does US Hand Off To? http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/11/16/uk-us-%e2%89%a0-us-china/ The geography of the future Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:49:01 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: ende http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/11/16/uk-us-%e2%89%a0-us-china/comment-page-1/#comment-148852 ende Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:20:25 +0000 http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/11/16/uk-us-%e2%89%a0-us-china/#comment-148852 kurt9's comments nicely provide a backdrop for my own thoughts. The price of the Chinese governments's desire for economic prosperity is an increase in demand for economic freedom. As an educated middle class continues to develop and grow in China, an increase in demand for political freedom follows. Whether it be Western style political plurality or a more accommodating single party, the PRC is likely going to have to tolerate some competition, albeit in its own terms. Furthermore, it is likely to see its own brand diluted and increasingly heterogeneous. What are the implications of this? More precisely, where will these fault lines emerge? China is likely to experience an increasing dichotomy between its poorer rural inland and (increasingly capitalistic) wealthy coastal regions. These coastal regions are growing accustomed to their prosperity and are going to become increasingly defiant towards any attempts to 'sacrifice for the common good' (inner-China). As the coastal provinces continue to integrate their economies with the surrounding region (South Korea, Japan... Taiwan), we could very well see an exchange of political ideology following the same vertices. The Taiwanese government, the ROC, doesn't need to split from China. It needs to infect China, by further integrating itself with coastal China; like Hong Kong. The PRC's Communists and ROC's Nationalists could conceivably compete politically as does America's Democrats and Republicans. The PRC and the US are already enjoying a considerably stable partnership, even with its areas of tension and mistrust. If the ROC, a close ally of the US already, were to become a very real political force within China, and Taiwan the de facto capital of the Chinese littoral, then I believe China could come to more closely resemble America's protege. With that said, I don't believe that the US is close to handing off the baton quite yet. Still, the foundation is being set. kurt9’s comments nicely provide a backdrop for my own thoughts. The price of the Chinese governments’s desire for economic prosperity is an increase in demand for economic freedom. As an educated middle class continues to develop and grow in China, an increase in demand for political freedom follows. Whether it be Western style political plurality or a more accommodating single party, the PRC is likely going to have to tolerate some competition, albeit in its own terms. Furthermore, it is likely to see its own brand diluted and increasingly heterogeneous.

What are the implications of this? More precisely, where will these fault lines emerge? China is likely to experience an increasing dichotomy between its poorer rural inland and (increasingly capitalistic) wealthy coastal regions. These coastal regions are growing accustomed to their prosperity and are going to become increasingly defiant towards any attempts to ’sacrifice for the common good’ (inner-China). As the coastal provinces continue to integrate their economies with the surrounding region (South Korea, Japan… Taiwan), we could very well see an exchange of political ideology following the same vertices.

The Taiwanese government, the ROC, doesn’t need to split from China. It needs to infect China, by further integrating itself with coastal China; like Hong Kong. The PRC’s Communists and ROC’s Nationalists could conceivably compete politically as does America’s Democrats and Republicans.

The PRC and the US are already enjoying a considerably stable partnership, even with its areas of tension and mistrust. If the ROC, a close ally of the US already, were to become a very real political force within China, and Taiwan the de facto capital of the Chinese littoral, then I believe China could come to more closely resemble America’s protege.

With that said, I don’t believe that the US is close to handing off the baton quite yet. Still, the foundation is being set.

]]> By: kurt9 http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/11/16/uk-us-%e2%89%a0-us-china/comment-page-1/#comment-148179 kurt9 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:05:39 +0000 http://www.futureatlas.com/blog/index.php/2009/11/16/uk-us-%e2%89%a0-us-china/#comment-148179 I think China will liberalize politically in their own way over the coming decades. Westerners have a certain bias that representative democracy is the only form of political liberalization. However, other parts of the world do it differently. Another way to liberalize is for a one-party system to encourage people from all areas of life to join it. This is what Singapore did and is what China is doing now. The single party evolves towards a "big tent" party. However, the development of "western style" multi-party systems may still be China's future. Both Taiwan and South Korea had single-party, autocratic governments until the late 80's. Both countries experienced protests (South Korea being worse) in the late 80's, which went away once the government allowed multiple party politics. Of course, the CCP would rather follow the Singapore route than that of S. Korea and Taiwan. However, what works for a city-state of 4 million may not work for a regional-sized country of 45 million people, let alone a continental nation-state of 1.5 billion people. I think China will liberalize politically in their own way over the coming decades. Westerners have a certain bias that representative democracy is the only form of political liberalization. However, other parts of the world do it differently. Another way to liberalize is for a one-party system to encourage people from all areas of life to join it. This is what Singapore did and is what China is doing now. The single party evolves towards a “big tent” party. However, the development of “western style” multi-party systems may still be China’s future. Both Taiwan and South Korea had single-party, autocratic governments until the late 80’s. Both countries experienced protests (South Korea being worse) in the late 80’s, which went away once the government allowed multiple party politics.

Of course, the CCP would rather follow the Singapore route than that of S. Korea and Taiwan. However, what works for a city-state of 4 million may not work for a regional-sized country of 45 million people, let alone a continental nation-state of 1.5 billion people.

]]>