This person you’re talking about was convicted for violating Chinese laws. I think his actions run counter to the principles of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Taiwan’s United Daily News recently ran an opinion poll showing that negative feelings toward mainlanders were on the rise among Taiwanese. As the United Daily News is a newspaper rather favorably disposed to the mainland, poll results like this cannot simply be brushed aside. When I spoke about this with a few Taiwanese who had regular contact with mainlanders, they said their negative feelings about mainlanders were mainly that they were insensible and unreasonable. Objectively speaking, there aren’t, proportionally, too many mainlanders who are completely unreasonable, and a lot of this stink, particularly over the conduct of mainland tourists, has to do with Taiwanese media themselves, which have exaggerated the issue and helped to form the stereotype.
If we’re honest with ourselves, however, we’ll admit that rudeness is something quite common in China. We see it all the time, as when someone cuts in line and then curses you to high heaven when you call them out. On China’s roads, reason must yield all the time as unreason cuts into traffic — how else can we avoid fender benders? In the virtual world of the Internet rudeness is par for the course, and 80-90 percent of comments are vicious attacks. People will spend half a day cursing something you’ve written without even bothering to first understand it. Sometimes reading the headline is enough to set them off. And unreason has now spread to the new medium of the microblog, where readers will curse you and all of your ancestors for a single line you wrote.
Bickering is the way of the Web in China. There are no rules of conduct, no preconditions or demands for logic and consistency. If you can bowl your opponent over with insults you win. This atmosphere of unreason is so all-consuming that even those who take pride in being reasonable are dragged down into the mud.
Certainly, I understand why things are the way they are. We spend our whole lives, from childhood to old age, in a culture and living context of unreason, so that we are totally habituated to it. To this day, our education system actively feeds animosity. Class struggle is no longer the iron rule, but struggle exists everywhere. We haven’t make a clean breast of our own history, and piled-up grievances still run amok.
Look at our films and television dramas and the way they portray war as a simple game of sticking it to the enemy. There is no soul-searching, no nuance.
Our government hopes we, the public, will remain calm and reasonable and not get worked up into an emotional frenzy, but in the practical course of daily life, the government lords it over us with complete unreason. You need only try to take care of business at a government agency to experience this utter deafness to reason. Or you can look, of course, at the peremptory insolence of the whole process of forced demolition and removal. On our internet, if Web control authorities are unhappy with something, they can delete a post just like that, not even bothering to give a reason. Where there is power, there is neither right nor reason.
But even though this is the world we live in, we must nevertheless learn to be reasonable. Each and every one of us, even as we act without reason, hopes to be treated reasonably by others. In moments of disadvantage, all of us, reasonable and unreasonable alike, hope that we will be treated with reason. No one can sustain the advantage forever, forcing others to eat humble pie. Cheat others too far and they’ll resort to violent resistance, playing a deadly game in which we all will crash and burn. In the havoc of unreason, everyone loses out, even those on the cheating end.
I’m quite sure the vast majority of people who pour out their curses online are actually people in positions of weakness in their actual lives, people who are trampled by unreason. They hope for democracy, but they have no idea how to even begin to change their circumstances.
But if we want to improve our lives, the only way is to improve ourselves. Our first step is learning to be reasonable. This is a process that begins with each debate or argument, each time we go online. If we cannot learn to be reasonable, even if one day democracy does indeed come, we will find ourselves unable to accommodate it. We will turn it into a mobocracy, something even more frightful than what we have now.
This essay originally appeared in Chinese at Southern Metropolis Daily.

Thirty years ago, as China’s economy tottered on the edge of insolvency, Deng Xiaoping stepped in and fashioned order out of chaos. He called for robust development of the economy in order to save both country and Party. It has never been smooth sailing, however, and voices have clamored from time to time about the need to be clear about our path ideologically, about whether China is “surnamed Capitalism or surnamed Socialism.”
At each critical juncture we have come to, the courageous Deng Xiaoping would pull out with his “black cat and white cat” theory. He would urge everyone to shut their mouths and stop bickering about whether China is “surnamed Capitalism or surnamed Socialism,” all the while actively pushing economic reform and drawing lessons from the experiences of other countries.
Today, thirty years on, China has reached another critical juncture. We have made wondrous achievements in economic development. But this development has, at the same time, exposed the unsuitability of our political system. Government controls are now seriously out of joint with China’s ever rising and expanding civil society.
In this moment, President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, among others, have emphasized repeatedly that China must move forward with the process of opening and reform, and that China must also deepen political reforms. And also in this moment, so reminiscent of the clamor thirty years ago, we hear certain people standing up and saying we need to distinguish clearly between socialist democracy (社会主义民主) and Western democracy (西方民主).
What a striking echo of thirty years ago! Which should we accept, and which reject? Remember, Yang Hengjun has taught us that when we cannot see the road ahead, we must turn our gaze back on the past.
The difficulties facing us now are no less significant than those that faced us thirty years ago. It’s only that the problem now concerns political reform rather than economic reform.
Political reform is reform centering on democracy, freedom and rule of law. It is something that concerns the fate of 1.3 billion people, the fate of our nation, and the fate of every member of the Communist Party of China. If we lend any credence today to those vested power interests that would hold our nation hostage, if we listen to those people sitting in their rooms and relying on a book written by some German more than 100 years ago to chart a path along which 1.3 billion Chinese must travel, well then, the “dead end” that Premier Wen spoke about can’t be too far off.
The most recent edition of Seeking Truth (求是) includes an article bylined “Autumn Stone” (秋石) entitled, “The Basic Character and Superiority of the Democratic Politics of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.” The article says that we must “make a clear distinction between the democratic politics of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the democracy of Western capitalism.” “Autumn Stone” is in fact the pen name for a certain Peking University professor working with several editors and journalists at Seeking Truth. The essay is a collective product of this group.
I’ve always had strong views on “refraining from disputation” (不争论). My feeling is that so long as everyone has the same basic animus, speaking up for our country and our people rather for their personal vested interests, then moderate, fair and reasonable debate should be encouraged. When I read this essay in Seeking Truth, however, I detected at many points an utter indifference to reality, a disregard for common sense, and even an outright spuriousness. I had to step up and say a few things, both as a citizen and as a Party member of more than twenty years.
Are there really only two kinds of democracy in the world?
To start off, I must acknowledge that the authors do concede that democracy is the global trend, and a goal Chinese have looked to for more than a century. As they point out, the key question is how to achieve democracy, and what kind of democracy. After that, they suggest that China has only two roads and models before it, one being democracy with Chinese characteristics, the other being a totally Western style of democracy (全盘西化的民主).
Having read up to that point I was completely at a loss for words, because they had — after the manner of a street fight — established their premise and then gone on to argue it through. Through this sleight of hand they remove the need for argument altogether. With their premise established at the outset, they’ve effectively won the argument.
Based on everything I know, the “totally Western” style of democracy the authors have such a problem with has precious few converts anywhere in our 1.3 billion population, including among those who are ardent supporters of democracy. Where are these people who are advocating the total Westernization of their country? Or advocating the total anything-ization of their country?
I would like to ask: When did America ever totally anglicize? Is French democracy a complete Americanization? Can the democratic systems of Europe and the democratic system of the United States be broad-brushed with this label “Western democracy”? Can we even say that Japan’s democracy, fashioned under the grip of the United States, is a “totally Americanized” form of democracy? The same question goes for the other democracies of Asia, Africa and Latin America, including Chinese Taiwan.
The authors use a falsely dualistic, black-and-white logic to establish a supposed “total Westernization” as their hated enemy. Then they set up democracy with Chinese characteristics as the only alternative to this monstrous enemy.
In fact, every country has its own unique character and circumstances. All countries show differences in degree of economic development. The qualities and characters of their people are different. Their historical factors are different. And this means that the democracies that emerge in various countries are different.
But the authors of the Seeking Truth article are concerned with more than just unique characteristics. Their objective is to launch an attack against the very concept of “democracy,” using nice-sounding phrases to steal away with the agenda. And who are you robbing of the agenda? If you really want to declare that “autocracy” is “democracy,” then the Chinese character for “black” might just as well mean “white.” Just wait and see how many countries in the world will argue this point with you.
What you really need to be clear about is this — Is your so-called democracy, regardless of its special characteristics, the same basic thing other countries with their own systems and understanding of democracy are talking about when they say “democracy”? If not, I suggest you use some other word. Why must you press your hot face against the cold backside of Western democracy? What is your purpose in trying to hijack the discourse power in terms of the definition of this word?
The principal here is simple. You can’t just pull an old, worn-out pair of shoes out from under the bed and say, look, this is democracy. You cannot brandish a rifle and force everyone to repeat after you, inculcating the idea into our children’s minds at school, that this old pair of shoes is “democracy.” What age do you think we live in? Calling an ass by a horse’s name is taking a page from the almanac of 2,000 years ago.
What is the “true people’s democracy”?
I don’t know where the fee came from for this great work in Seeking Truth, but not only does it call an ass by a horse’s name — it also plays the game of calling a horse by an asses name. The essay employs all sorts of terms that are neither here nor there. Like the “true people’s democracy.” You tell me, is that not a joke?
Democracy was defined in the Chinese-language dictionary long ago as “rule by the people,” but they want to take one “people” and use it to restrict another “people.” They don’t rest there either. They have to add on the word “true” as well. They leave our heads spinning. We can’t make out who “the people” are, or who the people who are the true people are. We’re all completely confused. They are the only ones who aren’t confused, because clearly it’s they who presume to represent “the people,” and to realize the “true people’s democracy.”
The authors say at the outset that they want to show that Western democracy is not the “true people’s democracy.” Actually, though, there’s no reason for them to bother. Look back decades and you’ll find that no Westerner has ever claimed that their form of democracy is the “true people’s democracy.”
The essay emphasizes over and over again that Western democracy is the democracy of the bourgeoisie, a democracy manipulated by the rich, and that “presidents are all people with money, or agents of people with money.” They offer no more evidence than that because one size fits all. If it’s the wealthy George W. Bush stepping into the presidency, he’s a rich man. And if it’s the once-poor Bill Clinton or Barack Obama stepping into the presidency, they are agents of the rich. You have only to step into the presidency to be an agent of the rich. Their logic is ever-triumphant.
They talk about the West’s democracy for-hire, and they talk about how Western publics have already recognized the fraudulent nature of Western democracy. They cite as evidence the fact that turnout for presidential elections in the United States stands at around 50 percent. This, incidentally, is the only place in the essay that they use figures from the West to disparage Western democracy. In China, of course, you can’t conduct polls, but you can in the United States. Wouldn’t you understand this if you just went over and asked Americans?
Not only does a weak public appetite for elections not suggest that the quality of democracy is poor, but quite the opposite, only in mature democratic nations would you see this sort of thing happen. In all newly-emerged democracies the level of election turnout is extremely high (just look at democratic countries outside the West), because these new voters want to get a handle on the direction of the country and ensure they get the leaders they want. But in the West, where civil society development is robust, election turnout is inevitably lower. Candidates standing for election all cater to the public, and their policy positions often show little clear difference, so voters find it difficult to make a choice. The vast majority of those who choose not to vote do so because they believe it makes very little difference who they pick.
To combat low voter turnout, Australia has imposed fines of 50 Australian dollars on those who fail to vote — that’s about 300 RMB — so Australia now has the highest voter turnout in the world. But Australia, with the world’s highest voter turnout, has now found itself in the same pickle, unable to distinguish the winners from the losers, with no party having a clear majority, much like the U.S. presidential elections 10 years ago. This tells us that the people have matured, and the candidates have also matured.
This attitude of apathy toward candidates is something quite different from what the writers of the Seeking Truth essay imagine to be hard evidence of the fundamental failure of democracy. These guys just can’t tell horses and cows apart. According to what they are suggesting, the voting “people” of the West have two choices before them. The first, everyone votes together and elects as president a candidate whose ambition is to realize socialism with American characteristics; The second, you advocate depriving them of this voting right they don’t seem to care for. I guarantee you that if you place these choices before them, every single American will spit in your face, and the whole country will turn out on election day.
Next year is the hundredth anniversary of the Chinese people’s pursuit of democracy and science. Over the past century China has traveled a winding and wicked path, one major reason being that our rulers have wielded false democracy to cheat the people, taking advantage of our lack of education and our economic frailty. Even today, this fraud is effective. But China has made progress toward democracy nevertheless, and we can see this in the progress the people of our country have made, in their ever-stronger sense of civic consciousness, and in the new appetite and understanding they have of democracy. They are no longer so easy to hoodwink.
And you choose this moment to reach under the bed and drag out this stinking pair of shoes. You say to the people of China, look, this is democracy.
I say to you as a Party member of twenty years, and as a citizen, that this “democracy” of yours will only bring chaos and destruction to us all.
This is a condensed version of an essay posted at Yang Hengjun’s Blog.
[Frontpage photo by Magalie L’Abbé available at Flickr.com under Creative Commons license.]

Why must you press your hot face against the cold backside of Western democracy?

In the following essay from the most recent edition of the official CCP journal Study Times, published by the Central Party School, Gao Xinmin (高新民) discusses the ways the Internet and other new media have brought subtle but important changes to China’s political culture.

The opportunities and challenges of new media for the Party
By Gao Xinmin (高新民)
Study Times (学习时报)
Over the past few years, linking up the process of Party building (党的建设) with new media of which the Internet is most representative form, has become an important trend in Party building. There have been many cases of leaders interacting online with with Web users. The provincial propaganda office of Guangdong province has cooperated with Guangdong China Mobile to launch “Online Study World” (网络学习天地), [a platform dedicated to the study of the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics]. Guangdong’s Zhanjiang City (湛江市) has reported live on reports on the work and progress of top Party leaders at the county level through television and Internet TV, allowing the public to directly monitor the ruling Party. The relationship between new media and Party building has drawn attention again and again.
In his speech to the 17th Party Congress, President Hu Jintao said: “The ever-increasing level of information networking today has presented challenges as well as opportunities to Party building.” New media, including the Internet, mobile phones as newly emerging forms of propagation media (传播介质), have not only changed the way people communicate, but have also changed the way people live and work, bringing a total transformation that directly raises a whole range of serious tests for Party building.
For example, against the background of a diversity of social values, new media have already become collection and distribution centers for thought, culture and information, and tools for the amplification of public opinion in society. They are a direct challenge to the Party’s thought leadership and to traditional methods of channeling public opinion. Traditional thought and education originates at the upper levels, with the representatives of organizations, but in the Internet age anyone can voice their views and influence others.
With traditional print and broadcast media, censorship of content and the use of specific organizational methods to channel and influence topics of communication is understandable. But the topics of Internet communication are far more diverse, and it is difficult to ensure that “organizational methods” are effective with all people. The times have changed, and this demands that the Party and government accommodate the times, channeling public opinion in ways that suit mainstream social demands, values and concepts and that people can welcome.
For example, the Internet has already become a channel by which the people express their own interests and demands, a platform for participation and discussion of state affairs. The presents a challenge to traditional modes of communication. In traditional communication the organs of the Party-state were the principal channel, and the flow was from top to bottom in a one-dimensional fashion, with the decisions at higher levels transmitted down layer after layer . . . But Internet communication means that any ordinary Party member or member of the public can communicate their own opinions and views at any time and in any place . . . Channels of communication for the people have been expanded to an unprecedented extent. The times demand forms of communication that are two-dimensional, combining top to bottom and bottom to top, a mechanism of mutual consultation. And the Internet provide the best means for this.
We can also see that the Internet demands much more in terms of the conduct and character of our leaders. Many factual instances of mass incidents are pushed by waves of public opinion online, and in many cases careless remarks from leaders precipitate a backlash of public opinion. The question of how to deal with online public opinion, and the complex question of how to deal with media is a comprehensive test of the human rights consciousness, democratic consciousness, rule of law consciousness and work ability of our leaders.
However, new media also present new opportunities for Party building.
These opportunities are manifested in diverse ways. First, [new media] can be tools for the propagation and channeling of the Party’s ideas and theories. Aside from the above-mentioned examples in Guangdong, I have been on a research tour to Tongzi County (桐梓县) in Guizhou province, where they have built an online study platform for Party cadres. All Party cadres, including businesspeople and migrant workers [who are Party members] can use this Party building platform to participate in all sorts of study sessions. Which is to say that while the Internet can lead to the expression of diverse values, it can also become a means to channel mainstream thought and ideology.