our traditional family value taught by Confucius places elder above everyone else, in a sense that the grandest father has authority over all family activities, feudal rulers exploit this sentiment by claiming himself to be heaven’s son aka father of all so he may rule with cultural justification and unfortunately some people passtionately believe this so they accept to be enslaved.

futhermore, this results in collectivism in which each individual must submit to interests of the whole, now this may sound very democratic but again, the rulers are often the ones who decide for the “whole” so the ruled mass obey his will instead of the real collective interest.

so I think the true culprit is that chinese rulers are extremely apt at exploiting the culture, but not the culture itself.

and I didn’t say individualism cannot exist in an autocratic society, in fact individualism and liberalism make the autocracy difficult to sustain, but can still be sustained by force if the dictator knows what he is doing.

you said bout Japan and S.Korea, well, all I can argue is these two countries, when they adopted liberal democracy, successfully separated culture from politics.

They only think of themselves, not the state. So the solution could be to redistribute the power to everyone, but it also could be to just select more worthy people to have the power through a fair process.

Um, isn’t that one and the same? Selections (or elections) of more “worthy” people is by itself a distribution of power, specifically the distribution into the hands of the voters or whoever is part of that “fair process.” The very idea of distribution of power is that no one person has a monopoly on the truth or what is “right” or “more worthy.”

Moreover, your suggestion that “more worthy” people be in government is exactly the false hope in “enlightened kings” I mentioned earlier. The people in government and those who benefit from them feel they are plenty worthy to be there. Who are you to disagree? How are you going to disagree? You say they’re not doing enough, they say they’re trying. You say change them, they say you’re causing social instability. Don’t rock the boat, know your place, right?

@ zing:

Yes, that’s the prevailing Western policy towards China right now, the hope that engagement and subsequent rising economic prosperity will foster a rising middle class that will become more preoccupied with less tangible guarantees of rights and property. Good reference to Maslow as well.

That said, there are reasonable arguments for what Peter is saying, in that specific cultural or historical experiences are indeed possible obstacles to rapid reform or change. This is what many Chinese intellectuals love arguing as well. After all, someone socialized to define themselves by their relationship to those around them is going to be somewhat different consciously to someone socialized to define themselves by their inherent and innate characteristics. I don’t think categorically ignoring these real differences is the right thing to do.

On the other hand, I see these justifications or excuses in opposition to more rapid reform/change as a slippery slope. There comes a point in time where further “preparation” of the people (education, civic-mindedness, etc.) before entrusting them with further power becomes silly and you just need to let them learn through experience. Trial by fire as they say. Or perhaps learning by doing. Sink or swim. Of course, there’s going to be an adjustment period, as people come to terms with the power they have and how to use it, and that adjustment period is precisely what many Chinese cite as too dangerous without adequate preparation. They’re afraid the country would be torn apart before people figure out how to govern themselves. So, the current situation continues, where the “leaders” who “know better” largely make the decisions for the people (and are handsomely rewarded for it) while “waiting” for the people to be elevated until that one day when the leaders feel the people are ready. It is still all very Marxist, er Maoist.

no its not an excuse, and I was just pointing out the issues at hand, heck I even dream china to be modern and democratic THE NEXT DAY but that won’t happen. and you can’t deny what I said, the culture, history and tradition, they are major encumbrance to reform.

and you are right that we need enough middle class, people who naturally demand political participation, so then democracy can flourish. poor peasants who still struggle for survival are very unlikely to know their rights let alone voting.