Philosophy Now Forum

We could divide the whole rich world countries into just three categories by the number of ruling parties each country has:

1. Multiparty democracy ：France, Norway... ...
2. Two-party democracy： United States
3. One-party democracy: Singapore

It is very likely that China will be a one-party democracy, here is my reasons:

1.At this rate of development, China will be a middle to high income country by the year 2030, ,the middle class in China will expand to be as large as American middle class.

2.With the expansion of Chinese middle class, the demand for the rule of law, respect for human rights and private property rights would push the evolution of China into a one-party democracy.

But this is just prediction of future, things might not be as good as people wants, or will the reality be very different?

Only a few years ago you would have had to include Japan* on your list of one party democracies, but that party lost in the end. The same could happen in Singapore because it isn't a single party state as China is, but a multi party democracy where it just so happens that one party always wins (as is also true of many middle income countries such as South Africa, Russia and Malaysia).

The possibility of losing power in an election forces a choice. You can go the Russian (and latterly Turkish and Venezuelan) way and rig the elections or the courts until you degenerate into a single party state in all but name. Or you can ensure your state institutions are responsive enough to the demands of the people that they won't opt to vote for the opposition, who will helpfully remain disorganised and committed mostly to in fighting if they are dispirited to see you do a good job.

The expansion of the middle classes in China has clearly had some useful effects in softening the behaviour of their government. But even in 2030 they aren't likely to have a proportionally equal middle class to America's, rather more likely they will have a numerically equal set, which would be about a third to a quarter in proportional terms.

But there's a pretty good chance that China won't make that leap either. They could go the way you describe in which case it is quite possible. But economically they are at the limit of what they can sustainably achieve with a centralised economy in which the government makes the banks it owns lend all the money its citizens save to the firms it owns at rates which deny the citizens any interest payments once you factor out the horrible non performance numbers on that balance sheet.

It is possible that they have already gone so far that there may be no way out of the middle income trap for them now, in which case thy won't have the job creating GDP growth that has permitted the loosening of only a small part of the party's grip on authority. So they may need to tighten it again to maintain order in a low growth environment.


* and prior to 2006 in Sweden one party held power for 65 out of 74 years largely thanks to repeated displays of competence.

FlashDangerpants wrote:Only a few years ago you would have had to include Japan* on your list of one party democracies, but that party lost in the end. The same could happen in Singapore because it isn't a single party state as China is, but a multi party democracy where it just so happens that one party always wins (as is also true of many middle income countries such as South Africa, Russia and Malaysia)..

Is Russia and Malaysia (a Muslim state!!!) even democracy? you are kiding me ?
Singapore is a single party-state, as far as I know, the ruling party of Singapore does not tolerant multi-party competition, but it is a democracy in a sense that Singapore respect human rights and the people there live more or less a wealthy life.

FlashDangerpants wrote:The possibility of losing power in an election forces a choice. You can go the Russian (and latterly Turkish and Venezuelan) way and rig the elections or the courts until you degenerate into a single party state in all but name. Or you can ensure your state institutions are responsive enough to the demands of the people that they won't opt to vote for the opposition, who will helpfully remain disorganised and committed mostly to in fighting if they are dispirited to see you do a good job.

If you judge democracy by how many political parties they have in their election, you are kidding me
if this is so, countries like the democratic republic of the Congo could be called democracy
The multi-party system in a country like Congo is merely a tool by which different families compete for the control of a country's wealth.

FlashDangerpants wrote:The expansion of the middle classes in China has clearly had some useful effects in softening the behaviour of their government. But even in 2030 they aren't likely to have a proportionally equal middle class to America's, rather more likely they will have a numerically equal set, which would be about a third to a quarter in proportional terms.

But there's a pretty good chance that China won't make that leap either. They could go the way you describe in which case it is quite possible. But economically they are at the limit of what they can sustainably achieve with a centralised economy in which the government makes the banks it owns lend all the money its citizens save to the firms it owns at rates which deny the citizens any interest payments once you factor out the horrible non performance numbers on that balance sheet.

The Chinese system is a state-capitalism system, but it does not mean it is centralised in a sense the USSR is, if you look at the private sector it is more a free market system.

The system has one major edges against the American system, that is it did not suffer financial crisis as America did in 2008, because the government owns the land, heavy industry and banks therefore it could control flow of money with ease.

It is possible that they have already gone so far that there may be no way out of the middle income trap for them now, in which case thy won't have the job creating GDP growth that has permitted the loosening of only a small part of the party's grip on authority. So they may need to tighten it again to maintain order in a low growth environment.

Yes, the middle income trap would be a danger for China.

Above us only sky wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:Only a few years ago you would have had to include Japan* on your list of one party democracies, but that party lost in the end. The same could happen in Singapore because it isn't a single party state as China is, but a multi party democracy where it just so happens that one party always wins (as is also true of many middle income countries such as South Africa, Russia and Malaysia)..

Is Russia and Malaysia (a Muslim state!!!) even democracy? you are kiding me ?
Singapore is a single party-state, as far as I know, the ruling party of Singapore does not tolerant multi-party competition, but it is a democracy in a sense that Singapore respect human rights and the people there live more or less a wealthy life.

You are mistaken. Singapore is a democracy in the proper sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... _Singapore

Yes, those are democracies. No, I am not kidding. No, they aren't the best ones.
Being a Muslim state does not necessitate three whole exclamation marks in this context.

Above us only sky wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:The possibility of losing power in an election forces a choice. You can go the Russian (and latterly Turkish and Venezuelan) way and rig the elections or the courts until you degenerate into a single party state in all but name. Or you can ensure your state institutions are responsive enough to the demands of the people that they won't opt to vote for the opposition, who will helpfully remain disorganised and committed mostly to in fighting if they are dispirited to see you do a good job.

If you judge democracy by how many political parties they have in their election, you are kidding me
if this is so, countries like the democratic republic of the Congo could be called democracy
The multi-party system in a country like Congo is merely a tool by which different families compete for the control of a country's wealth.

Don't straw man me and then pull that "you are kidding me " trick, it makes me get all sarcastic and mean.
I didn't write that having multiple parties is sufficient condition, only that it is necessary. All of that Congo stuff is therefore immaterial.

Above us only sky wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:The expansion of the middle classes in China has clearly had some useful effects in softening the behaviour of their government. But even in 2030 they aren't likely to have a proportionally equal middle class to America's, rather more likely they will have a numerically equal set, which would be about a third to a quarter in proportional terms.

But there's a pretty good chance that China won't make that leap either. They could go the way you describe in which case it is quite possible. But economically they are at the limit of what they can sustainably achieve with a centralised economy in which the government makes the banks it owns lend all the money its citizens save to the firms it owns at rates which deny the citizens any interest payments once you factor out the horrible non performance numbers on that balance sheet.

The Chinese system is a state-capitalism system, but it does not mean it is centralised in a sense the USSR is, if you look at the private sector it is more a free market system.

The system has one major edges against the American system, that is it did not suffer financial crisis as America did in 2008, because the government owns the land, heavy industry and banks therefore it could control flow of money with ease.

Your first bit there says China is not centralised to the extent that it was in the 60s (no argument here).
The second part says it is still incredibly centralised with state direction of major industries (which I obviously agree with as well).
We also seem to agree they were able to put a massive stimulus package in place which got them through some tough times my adding to debt rather than jobless lines.
I suppose I am a bit more dubious than you are about whether they could repeat that trick though.

Above us only sky wrote:

It is possible that they have already gone so far that there may be no way out of the middle income trap for them now, in which case thy won't have the job creating GDP growth that has permitted the loosening of only a small part of the party's grip on authority. So they may need to tighten it again to maintain order in a low growth environment.

Yes, the middle income trap would be a danger for China.