People's Republic of China Nov 22, 2009

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 30 Oct 2010 15:30

and why is Sh. MMS not doing anything about this visa thing. After all visa is on reciprocal basis between two countries.
Why is GoI still allowing Indians to travel on stapled visa ?
and oh no, pls don't start on - wait till we become 5T dollar economy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Oct 2010 20:20

Maps:
China cultivated area
http://www.kas.ku.edu/archived-site/chi ... ral_86.jpg

China topography
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class ... graphy.jpg

China population distribution - "over 90 percent of the Chinese population live on less than 40 percent of the land."
http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/geo/1zgzpopu.jpg

China railways
http://voyage.typepad.com/lfc_images/China_Rail_Map.jpg

Note how, in China the topography and cultivated area are closely related to the populated regions and there the railways are. All the night lights of China are also in the same region.

shyam · Post by **shyam** » 31 Oct 2010 04:27

naren wrote:How about giving Tibetan refugees "North Arunachal Pradesh" passport

Give them Indian passport. For India, Arunachal Pradesh is part of it. Chinese agree that Arunachal Pradesh is part of Tibet. By extension, Tibet is also part of India that is to be reclaimed later (like PoK). So Tibetans diserve Indian passport and DL is eligible to become President of India.

naren · Post by **naren** » 31 Oct 2010 04:52

^^^ Amen.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 31 Oct 2010 05:42

^^^ Why not have an extremely articulate Tibetan born in India become the Minister of External Affairs instead of choosing doofuses like SMK?

Even when the Indo-Tibetan FM says nothing, he will say it all.

There's a blow for pluralism and simultaneously a kick in the face for the PRC all in your face.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Oct 2010 05:48

Cosmo_R wrote:^^^ Why not have an extremely articulate Tibetan born in India become the Minister of External Affairs instead of choosing doofuses like SMK?

Even when the Indo-Tibetan FM says nothing, he will say it all.

There's a blow for pluralism and simultaneously a kick in the face for the PRC all in your face.

Cosmo - the smart spokespersons that come out of Pakistan and China are because they appoint people in this manner. In a democracy you cannot appoint anyone unless he is voted into power at ground level elections from some way out constituency. He must have political support, or the party must have the political support that enables to party to field any candidate and ensures that he wins.

Also a token spokesperson of this sort is little different from SuAR speaking for Pakistan. If such an appointee gets importance then SuAR too is important.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 31 Oct 2010 05:53

^^^ Shiv
"In a democracy you cannot appoint anyone unless he is voted into power at ground level elections from some way out constituency."

OK, but where is SMK voted from?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Oct 2010 13:33

Before becoming a Congress appointee SMK was a greatly respected politician in Karnataka who ran an administration that had the reputation of being clean and efficient despite the fact that it was full of money grabbers like anyone else. SMK has political support in Karnataka and serves the Congress as a powerful symbol for the Congress supporters of Karnataka which is a BJP state now. And SMK is not a Tibetan refugee with no political base. It would be completely naive to believe that there is any comparison. Appointing SMK was easy for the Congress. He has a political base.

India is all about politics. Any corrections applied to India will have to be via politics. But this is OT.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2010 16:42

Ameen, in due course such a politician with local roots will emerge from bylakuppe settlement via bangalore.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 31 Oct 2010 19:14

The thing with giving stapled visas to Tibetans is that the Chinese might simply stop them from coming to India which I guess we don't want.
A much more constructive way (by which I mean provocative and effective

) would be to stamp the Indian visas with
"Indian Embassy .... PRC & Tibet"
This seems some what doable to me if India Gov was in the mood for some moo-thor-javab.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 31 Oct 2010 19:21

Yeah Right! Trust MMS govt to come up with all these Chanikian schemes. The poor PM. So many expectations, so frail shoulders.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 31 Oct 2010 23:57

shiv wrote:
Dhiman wrote:
Given that there is no lack of large scale injustices in world history, I don't know why only this "Holocaust" thing (which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with anything in India China context) comes up repeatedly as an example as if the world hasn't seen bigger injustices.
Macaulay and/or card carrying membership of the anglophone club.

It isn't just about the number of people murdered.

It is about extreme conceptions of nationalism that can be used to mobilise the full resources of the state and the nation to liquidate entire groups of people designated as 'the enemy', all the while denying the existence of the mass-murder.

While it might be comforting to think that only Germans/Europeans/group of your choice are capable of such savagery, the darker truth is that it could happen on any continent.

It is an extension of the logic of the modern nation-state that takes ethnic or cultural identity and turns it in to a political identity. It is also an extension of the Utilitarianism that underlies modernity, that the needs and the security of the majority (as defined by the majority) should come first. Any nation-state under sufficient levels of stress may find sections of the population entertaining the idea.

For people on the far left suspicious of liberal democracy's majoritarian tendencies, totalitarianism is only one vote away, one lost war away, one high profile terrorist incident, one crippling economic crisis away from being voted in to power.

Of course that's simplistic, and ignores the more complex reality of the distribution of political power in most democracies.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 02:12

Leonard wrote: Human Beings are bound by a code of "ethics".

Whose ethics? Is there a ten commandment of ethics that are set in stone? You may find that ethics is a fluid concept that is more grey then black and white.

Leonard wrote: Fortunately the Concept of "Eye for an Eye", and "Clan for a Clan" has long since changed except perhaps in China and in the Islamic World.

Case in point -- If in your Family, some one close is targeted by hate, murder -- DOES not mean that if your brother orders you to re-actively target the Family of the Victim --- You cannot implement this concept of "Duty" -- It is UN-ETHICAL !!

I think you misunderstood the duty I was talking about. Legalism is bound by a code of ethics as well. In fact, in legalism, ethics are codified. Duty runs both ways. Father to son, son to father. Emperor to subject, subject to Emperor. If the Emperor failed his duty, then he loses the mandate of heaven. And it voids the duty you owe to the Emperor. That's what we're talking about.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 02:27

Kamboja wrote: What do you think are the odds on the CCP managing a staggered transition to a more democratic system in the future?
It seems to me that the constant refrain (implicit rather than explicit) of the CCP has been that they are 'compelled' to maintain an autocratic system because the Chinese people are not accustomed to/ cannot handle democracy, so in the interests of harmony and progress the one-party rule must continue; but in time, of course, once the Chinese people have politically matured, then the CCP will gradually introduce more democracy.

Near future? Zero. Long term future? Anyone's guess. But, IMHO, I do not see China progressing into multi party democracy in the western sense. China dosen't need politicians, China needs adminstrators. A Japanese friends once said to me, "can you imagine China without an Emperor?"

One thing to remembers is, you don't need democracy for the people's voice to be heard. It might be the best system we have know. But as they say, (multi-party) democracy is the worest form of government, except for everything else we tried.

Kamboja wrote:
I understand that some progress has actually been made to devolve decision-making at the very local (municipal) level, but my questions to you --
- Do you think the CCP leadership is sincere about someday sharing power in a multiparty system? (if yes, is that the kind of 'someday' that will never come?)

No. Maybe at the local level with final central approval.

Kamboja wrote:
- What are the average views of your peers on this same question? Do the educated upper-middle class of China (who are not part of the CCP) really believe that the CCP will eventually share power?

No. CCP wouldn't share power. Would the Emperor share power?

Kamboja wrote:
- It seems from your posts that your duty is to China, not necessarily the CCP -- the CCP just happen to command your duty because they happen to be in power today. Given a hypothetical scenario where you could, with a magic wand, determine the shape of China's political system tomorrow, do you think a multi-party (or two-party) democratic system would serve China's national interest better than the CCP?

No. I hate to do it, but I use Indian democracy as a example on why China shouldn't adopt western multi-party democracy. You think your democracy is bad? If it happened in China, we would put your vote-bank politics to shame, in terms of corruption. At least corruption in China now are performance based.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Nov 2010 02:39

TonyMontana wrote:
No. I hate to do it, but I use Indian democracy as a example on why China shouldn't adopt western multi-party democracy. You think your democracy is bad?

India is not similar to the western style democracy since the social structure and experience of the Indian nation is different. It may have components similar to the UK system but the people and social network which does the process is different.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Nov 2010 07:05

TonyMontana wrote: China dosen't need politicians, China needs adminstrators. A Japanese friends once said to me, "can you imagine China without an Emperor?"
<snip>
No. I hate to do it, but I use Indian democracy as a example on why China shouldn't adopt western multi-party democracy. You think your democracy is bad? If it happened in China, we would put your vote-bank politics to shame, in terms of corruption. At least corruption in China now are performance based.

Democracy is probably as much an experiment as communism. As I see it the most ancient system of government was monarchy and it has existed everywhere. This system rarely did much good for most people - it was good for the elite and nobles only and it was the "best kings" who did some good for the people. Buddhism tried to bypass the misery of the people without changing the system of government.

Both Christianity and Islam tried to take over government by creating a virtual (mythical) king called God. Westphalian democracies arose from the European battlefield in which the Church (and Christianity as a political force) lost.

Communism arose as a reaction to imperial excess in Russia. Communism followed the same route as the Catholic Church and Islam in trying to impose "equality" by force.

If you look at the world today you find that democracy is the system that governs about 500 million people in Europe, 300 million in the US, 130 million in Japan and 1.1 billion in India. That adds up to about two billion people in democratic states. Communism has just one single state - China with 1.3 billion. Together I think it adds up to only half the world's population. (Note that I have ignored the Koreas, Australia, Canada South Africa and Cuba as small change. I don't know what Russia is). Still I estimate that 33% of the world population is still ruled by monarchies or oligarchies with neither democracy nor communism.

The real question to a person who lives outside of a communist country is how long communism can last as a political force. China does not need politicians, but China has politics. If you have politics and do not allow politicians what do you get? You get an oligarchy or monarchy. Monarchies last only as long as the regime is strong. The regime is strong as long as they have the support of the people. The people support the regime as long as they are kept happy. In the past monarchies have kept people happy by good governance and fair distribution of wealth. But when that was not possible monarchies/oligarchies have done one of the following:

1) Brutal suppression of discontent
2) External wars and campaigns to shift the blame on outsiders and get more loot
3) Allow the country to split.

The CPC is doing 1 and 2. Not 3. 1 screws the Chinese dissidents and nobody else needs to give a damn. But 2 is what causes wars.

There is an alternative to 3 and that is democracy. Democracy allows the dissidents and malcontents of a nation to have a voice and have a say. The CPC is not powerful enough to allow that yet. That is the route Russia took - leaving the CPC and North Korea as the sole torch bearers of communism.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 07:36

shiv wrote:
Communism has just one single state - China with 1.3 billion.
...
The real question to a person who lives outside of a communist country is how long communism can last as a political force.

It's an insult to your own inteligence to keeping calling China Communist. Communism in China died in 1989. The June 4th martyrs killed it.

shiv wrote:
China does not need politicians, but China has politics. If you have politics and do not allow politicians what do you get? You get an oligarchy or monarchy.

I give you a thrid alternative.

Meritocracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Nov 2010 07:43

X-post Future thread:

Tony,

Why did the Han adopt Confucianism where as the Qin followed Legalism?
Seems from your writing that you are more enamored by Legalism

What is your opinion on Mohism seems some of Mo Tzu's teachings line up with that
of the Buddha, curious as to why it was rejected yet Buddhism seemed to have thrived?

PS: Why not Mohism as it prescribes meritocracy?

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 07:46

X-post Future thread:

Pulikeshi wrote: Why did the Han adopt Confucianism where as the Qin followed Legalism?
Seems from your writing that you are more enamored by Legalism

Confucianism and legalism are closely related concepts. I'm enamored by both.

Pulikeshi wrote: What is your opinion on Mohism seems some of Mo Tzu's teachings line up with that
of the Buddha, curious as to why it was rejected yet Buddhism seemed to have thrived?

I don't know enough about Mohism to make a constructive comment.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Nov 2010 08:00

TonyMontana wrote:
It's an insult to your own inteligence to keeping calling China Communist. Communism in China died in 1989. The June 4th martyrs killed it.

Denial is a river in Egypt. A nation headed by a communist party that allows no other political system is a communist country no matter which way you try to dice it.

TonyMontana wrote:
shiv wrote:
China does not need politicians, but China has politics. If you have politics and do not allow politicians what do you get? You get an oligarchy or monarchy.
I give you a thrid alternative.

Meritocracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination

Lovely example. But they have worked only under the umbrella of a monarchy. And have died out. Lot's of kings have tried to foster meritocracies that died out after the dynasty. The problem was the dynasty.

I don't think you and I need to agree on this but what you seem to be suggesting is that Communist party in China is trying to foster a meritocracy? Or are you trying to say that communism is dead and that China is now a meritocracy? Looking from the outside neither seems to be occurring. Just a bloated communist party playing it by ear. Blowing hot and blowing cold as the situation seems to demand.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Nov 2010 08:06

Tony,

There is a lot of difference between Confucianism and Legalism, but it is not the topic of this thread.

What is relevant is not even democracy, lets say we agree its a bad word (it is not for me!).
If China were to become the leading hegemon of Asia, if not the world, (it will not for me!)
then what world view inspires others to follow?

If the expectation is everyone else will cover in fear to the empire -
it is a rather unfortunate miscalculation of the knowledge world that surrounds us today.
The shrines of the future will be built to the ideas that endure and lead.

Communism, Meritocracy, Islamism, whatever is interesting only if others are willing to buy the cool-aid.
Especially those that have become used to living in free societies where
knowledge and information have very low barriers.

If you did not get my drift - Mohism which advocated meritocracy died out in China.
Would be a shame to continue to redo that experiment without first understanding why it failed first time.

Finally, as long as the Communist Party (even if in name) rules China.
China is and will be a communist country.
Now they can be horizontally Capitalist and vertically Communist

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 08:18

shiv wrote: Denial is a river in Egypt. A nation headed by a communist party that allows no other political system is a communist country no matter which way you try to dice it.

[facepalm.jpeg] Communism is a economic theory. The word you're thinking of is authoritarian country.

shiv wrote: Lovely example. But they have worked only under the umbrella of a monarchy. And have died out. Lot's of kings have tried to foster meritocracies that died out after the dynasty. The problem was the dynasty.

A man can dream right?

shiv wrote: I don't think you and I need to agree on this but what you seem to be suggesting is that Communist party in China is trying to foster a meritocracy? Or are you trying to say that communism is dead and that China is now a meritocracy? Looking from the outside neither seems to be occurring. Just a bloated communist party playing it by ear. Blowing hot and blowing cold as the situation seems to demand.

I like to think meritocracy is one of the "wisdom of the ancients" of the Chinese people. Like what Athenian democracy is to Europeans. My dream is not for China to become a democracy. My dream is for China to become a meritocracy. IMHO, this is also the case for scholars in China since ancient times. This is what confusian thought and to an extend the Chinese people, IMHO, see as the ultimate goal for China.

China today, in mid to lower government, IMHO, is trying to practice meritocracy. We still have exams for government jobs etc. Sure there's nepotism and corruption, but by and large, meritocracy is what we're trying to do with our administrators. Like I said, China is a work in progress.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 08:26

Pulikeshi wrote:

If the expectation is everyone else will cover in fear to the empire -
it is a rather unfortunate miscalculation of the knowledge world that surrounds us today.
The shrines of the future will be built to the ideas that endure and lead.

No. Not fear.

Reciprocal Duty. Like Father-Son. Emperor-Subject. Knowing your place in the world. So to speak. If you recall, more often then not China gave more to the tributory states then what was given to China. Lest we lose face in front of the tributory states and have them think we're poor or stingy.

As for shrines of the future? Add up the years that democracy is a popular thought and add up the years confucianism is popular.

Pulikeshi wrote:

If you did not get my drift - Mohism which advocated meritocracy died out in China.
Would be a shame to continue to redo that experiment without first understanding why it failed first time.

Confucianism advocate meritocracy too. Look it up. It didn't die out. Thoughts?

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 01 Nov 2010 08:45

shiv wrote:
Denial is a river in Egypt. A nation headed by a communist party that allows no other political system is a communist country no matter which way you try to dice it.

Lovely example. But they have worked only under the umbrella of a monarchy. And have died out. Lot's of kings have tried to foster meritocracies that died out after the dynasty. The problem was the dynasty.

I don't think you and I need to agree on this but what you seem to be suggesting is that Communist party in China is trying to foster a meritocracy? Or are you trying to say that communism is dead and that China is now a meritocracy? Looking from the outside neither seems to be occurring. Just a bloated communist party playing it by ear. Blowing hot and blowing cold as the situation seems to demand.

Communism isn't dead, it was never alive. There have been plenty of governments disguised(poorly) as communist though.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 01 Nov 2010 08:46

TonyMontana wrote:Reciprocal Duty. Like Father-Son. Emperor-Subject. Knowing your place in the world. So to speak. If you recall, more often then not China gave more to the tributory states then what was given to China. Lest we lose face in front of the tributory states and have them think we're poor or stingy.

So clearly, your belief in meritocracy is limited to applying to within China? How about expanding to the international sphere and allowing the most deserving nation to lead, and the rest of the countries get to know their place in the world as vassal states? And if China were among the latter, so be it?

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Nov 2010 08:58

Confucianism's idea of meritocracy is very different from the 'utilitarian' ideals of Mohism.
Example: In Confucianism, the who and relationship matter whereas in Mohism, the idea
was of 'Universal impartial love for everyone'
Of course you can see why each dynasty had to rely more on Confucianism/Legalism

This one will be no different and will apply meritocracy as judiciously as the previous.

The idea of subservient states that pay tribute, etc. seems to be a romance to relive
ancient history. Such thoughts and dreams are forces that come out of a deep set fear
of having been subjugated and conquered and having been forced to pay tributes.
Ironically, India seems to have escaped this 'hell hole' for the most part and there is
belief in achieving true meritocracy both internal and external. Perhaps one of the many
reasons, Indian's have an affinity to the US and show no such affinity towards the current
dispensation in China. Meaning, if you are selling the cool aid of meritocracy others
(outside China) will have to buy it too... Not sure if they will buy it being vassals.

TonyMontana wrote: Add up the years that democracy is a popular thought and add up the years confucianism is popular.

You will be surprised to know that democracy has existed for a long time since even
before Buddhism. Western democracy is a myth, its origins were in the ancient pagan
states of India and Greece. So, it can compete pretty well if longevity is a criterion.

TonyMontana wrote: Lest we lose face in front of the tributory states and have them think we're poor or stingy.

China has had the misfortune to suffer the tyranny of repeated dynasties both native
and foreign. In this, she is no different than any other ancient civilization.
On the face of it meritocracy is really mobocracy isn't it?
Yet the audacity of the pauper boss to pay the chowkidar to salute him!

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 08:58

Arjun wrote: So clearly, your belief in meritocracy is limited to applying to within China?

Yes. Like Athenian democracy worked best in Athens. Meritocracy with chinese characteristics works best in China.

Arjun wrote: How about expanding to the international sphere and allowing the most deserving nation to lead, and the rest of the countries get to know their place in the world as vassal states? And if China were among the latter, so be it?

As I said, like democracy, meritocracy are best practiced with similar cultures that believes it. The Arabs don't believe in democracy, it will be foolish to try to make them democratic. They worked best under a just religious government. To each their own.

P.S. No country is allowed to lead. They simply lead, or do not. There is no allow.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 09:01

Pulikeshi wrote:Confucianism's idea of meritocracy is very different from the 'utilitarian' ideals of Mohism.
Example: In Confucianism, the who and relationship matter whereas in Mohism, the idea
was of 'Universal impartial love for everyone'Of course you can see why each dynasty had to rely more on Confucianism/Legalism
This one will be no different and will apply meritocracy as judiciously as the previous.

Don't know that much from Mohism. But from what you told me, it suffered the same problem communism had. Unrealistic expectations of human nature.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Nov 2010 09:17

TonyMontana wrote: Don't know that much from Mohism. But from what you told me, it suffered the same problem communism had. Unrealistic expectations of human nature.

You are missing the point that Confucianism/Legalism have not resulted in a stable
single empire for China either, it has produced the same tyrannies of the next mob!
You can be assured that you will endure this one, only for the next one to try the
same Sisyphean ordeal one more time!

TonyMontana wrote: As I said, like democracy, meritocracy are best practiced with similar cultures that believes it. The Arabs don't believe in democracy, it will be foolish to try to make them democratic. They worked best under a just religious government. To each their own.

This is what the ancient Indian's referred to as the "law of the fishes" - that is the bigger
fish devours the smaller, the smaller devours the even smaller, ad infinitum.
It has taken humanity thousands of years to get to governance mechanisms that go
beyond this 'base' state of nature. It is without merit to regress back into this state.

Here each fish lives by a different system, with strength of survival deciding its size and fate.
A sad day for humanity if this comes to pass again... A poor vision if this is the China you wish to represent!

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 01 Nov 2010 09:24

TonyMontana wrote:P.S. No country is allowed to lead. They simply lead, or do not. There is no allow.

That is the whole point of meritocracy.... A guy / gal writing an exam and being declared first is allowed to call herself the best because of a system of rules and everyone agreeing on applicability of those rules. These are preconditions for a meritocracy - otherwise you would have a person coming in with a gun and simply forcing everyone else to agree to himself being the leader.

So, essentially you are outlining clearly that you belive in meritocracy internally and mobocracy externally. Anyway, was just trying to understand if there was some degree of reciprocity in your thinking and wanted to understand your psyche better. Thanks for the answer. I know now where you stand.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 09:26

Pulikeshi wrote: You are missing the point that Confucianism/Legalism have not resulted in a stable
single empire for China either, it has produced the same tyrannies of the next mob!
You can be assured that you will endure this one, only for the next one to try the
same Sisyphean ordeal one more time!

Well said. The cyclical nature of China is as you discribed. There is no such thing as the thousand year old reich. But some Chinese dynasty lasted for hundreds of years before the blood letting renews. That's stable enough for me. For now.

Pulikeshi wrote: This is what the ancient Indian's referred to as the "law of the fishes" - that is the bigger
fish devours the smaller, the smaller devours the even smaller, ad infinitum.
It has taken humanity thousands of years to get to governance mechanisms that go
beyond this 'base' state of nature. It is without merit to regress back into this state.

Modern science call it the theory of evolution. We are a product of evolution, so "law of the fishes" are our heritage too. I agree with you. We need to move beyond it. But at the same time not be ashamed that it made us what we are today.

Pulikeshi wrote: Here each fish lives by a different system, with strength of survival deciding its size and fate.
A sad day for humanity if this comes to pass again... A poor vision if this is the China you wish to represent!

Please let China be the fish that we want to be.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 01 Nov 2010 09:28

Arjun wrote: So, essentially you are outlining clearly that you belive in meritocracy internally and mobocracy externally.

I'm just being realistic. I believe China has the potiential to be a meritocracy. Internally. I do not foresee a co-operative world that works under a meritocracy.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Nov 2010 09:39

TonyMontana wrote: Please let China be the fish that we want to be.

Sure Tony, at the mercy of other fishes - Karma is a ...

Careful what you fish/wish for, stay thirsty!

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 01 Nov 2010 11:32

TonyMontana wrote: I give you a thrid alternative.

Meritocracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination

Meritocracy is not a system of governance. "system of government" is something that is decided by details of how a hypothetical meritocracy will: resolve disagreements, enforce rules, punish and deter crime, and create/remove/change laws, etc. The devil (i.e system of governance) is in the details not in some casual hand waving.

If meritocracy dictates that a scientist who comes up with a life changing invention should be allowed to make billions off his invention, human nature dictates that the children, relatives, and friends of this billionaire scientist will enjoy undue influence, power, and wealth beyond their actual merit thereby undoing any meritocratic system. Human nature is the inherent contradiction in meritocracy.

Meritocracy has never existed and never will. the one and only way to govern is through "common sense" irrespective of the labels (democracy, kingdom, authoritarian, religious, spiritual, etc) that may be used to characterize a government.

TonyMontana wrote: I'm just being realistic. I believe China has the potiential to be a meritocracy.

Being realistic means realizing that there is no such thing as a "meritocracy" in reality. Its an abstract hypothetical concept.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 01 Nov 2010 12:01

Dhiman, does this also mean that you support reservations in government jobs for 'underprivileged' groups regardless of merit?

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 01 Nov 2010 12:41

abhischekcc wrote:Dhiman, does this also mean that you support reservations in government jobs for 'underprivileged' groups regardless of merit?

IMHO, success in life can generally be defined as: Success = Merits x Opportunity Available where 0 <= Merit <= 10 and 0 <= opportunity available <= 10. So if someone has no merit and all the opportunities in the world (i.e privileged) their success factor is: Success = 0 (merit) x 10 (opportunity)= 0.

Similarly if someone has all the merit in the world and zero opportunities (underprivileged) their success factor is still zero: Success = 10(merit) x 0 (opportunity) = 0.

So now, lets say someone has no merit, but the government maximizes his opportunity gap of being unprivileged through reservation. So we have Sucess = 0 (merit) x 10 (maximized opportunity through reservation) = 0. Hence, the chances of success are still zero. So I don't support reservations regardless of merit

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Nov 2010 23:04

Majority of Chinese back political reforms, says report

Nearly eight out of 10 Chinese, who took part in a national poll said they believe China should stay on the path of political reform while according top priority to stability to avert a collapse similar to that of the erstwhile Soviet Union in 1991.
Significantly, the survey focused on political reform was conducted by the Global Poll Centre under the state-run Global Times, which is one of the organs of the People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party.Since the founding of the People's Republic in 1949, China's Communist Party has monopolised political power. The polls assumed significance as the People's Daily in its editorial few days ago came out strongly against political reforms, saying the idea that China's political reform is seriously lagging its remarkable economic development and achievements is contrary to objective facts.
Political change can't have "pompous and empty slogans," it said. It was interpreted by some as open opposition to Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's recent calls for political reforms to back up the economic restructuring, dumping the erstwhile state-run-socialist economic system. Wen said economic gains faced the danger of loosing out if they were not backed by political reforms. He, however, has not outlined what he meant by political reform, whether it meant permitting multi-party democracy.
The campaign for political reform also gathered momentum after the recent award of Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, the jailed Chinese dissident campaigning for democracy in China. Several senior Communist Party activists and academics called for lifting of censorship to expand the scope of free media in the country.
The poll conducted in Beijing [ Images ], Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Changsha, Xi'an and Shenyang from October 28 to 31, which is prominently featured in the Global Times, said a total of 78.4 per cent of the 1,327 respondents supported further political reform and just five per cent expressed an opposite opinion.
Another 16.7 per cent of respondents said they had no strong opinion on the subject. In terms of the goal of political reform, both items -creating a democratic political system with Chinese characteristics and exploring development - were supported by more than 50 per cent of the people. Only 15.5 per cent felt a Western democratic political system should be implemented

http://news.rediff.com/interview/2010/n ... eforms.htm

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 02 Nov 2010 02:04

Dhiman wrote:
Being realistic means realizing that there is no such thing as a "meritocracy" in reality. Its an abstract hypothetical concept.

My understanding of meritocracy is different. You're talking about a meritocractic society. I'm talking about a meritocractic government. Only.

In the case of China, the theory goes like this:

A country is like a corporation. It has certain goals. Economy, defense, human development..etc. There goals should be a reflection of the will of the people. The government itself, however, should be ran by able adminstrators, instead of politicians, who are more interested in job retention. By having adminstrators, your job retention is merit or results based. You do well, you get to stay in your position and reap the benifits. Ie corruption, influence. You failed the results, you get rolled.

An imperial examination type of system allows people from ever walk of life to compete for entry level government positions, with the best of a particular year placed in "fast-stream" positions.

This is how it's done in imperial China. I don't see how we can't do it again.

p.s. Did you know that every member in the Chinese governing committee were trained as engineers?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Nov 2010 02:35

The top-cats seem to be closely related to and descendants of previous party top-brass. Does talent then run in genes? In that case what is the use of mandarin exams?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Nov 2010 02:49

Tony, it is only theoretically a meritocracy. of course, as Dhiman said, meritocracy is not a form of government. what you have in china is oligarchy.