After reading The Elephant and the Dragon immediately one cannot help but feel anxious about the emerging economic powerhouse and world power that is China. The United States seems to be the only superpower at the moment, but this is going to change according to Robyn Meredith. She speaks extensively about China and India’s growth over the past few decades and why they are both potentially great powers (military, politically, economically). The argument is made that these nations’ growth will do nothing but good for the world--the world economy is growing, economic interdependence is preventing conflict, and regular Chinese people are increasing their individual wealth. However, the big concern, specifically with China was the lack of fundamental freedoms of the Chinese people and the growing differences in welfare between the rural and urban populace. The question that should be at the forefront of China’s growth is whether or not reform and democracy should be installed. Not many argue that China should never have democracy, but the answer many Chinese leaders give is that the nation is too large and there are too many problems to install a democracy or start major reforms, something that should be completely unacceptable to the international community.
Although Meredith draws the conclusion that India’s struggles to jumpstart their economy is due to their democracy, I believe that democracy and justice is more important. It seems as though the author tries to make some argument that a democratic China would not have been able to strengthen the economy to the degree at which it is under an autocratic system. However, one of the most telling stats given in the book was that can be a counterclaim to the argument presented is that Chinese GDP per capita has doubled in the cities from about $1000 to $2000. This might seem impressive that they are doubling GDP per capita, but this increase does nothing to shift Chinese welfare up in the ranks in the world. For example, the United States, the largest economy in the world, has a GDP per capita of $43,000. That is more than twenty fold the amount the average Chinese person makes. Of course China has the largest population in the world, but this does little to deter me from my convictions that the growth in the economy is large but it is used as a preventative measure against democracy. Although the days of Mao’s Cultural Revolution are over, Chinese people are not free in any large sense of the word. The lack of basic freedoms as that of speech or religion outlines the fundamental problems with the society. The common Indian is arguably better off than the common Chinese person because they have political and civil rights. What is the good to have increased money if you cannot do simple things like worship whichever god you wish?
Thus, the initial anxieties I had with the rise of China (especially) were lessened significantly. Many people in China are extremely unhappy because they are either completely neglected by the government when it comes to economic issues, while at the same time they are completely restrained when it comes to basic human rights. As China becomes more powerful, the international community has continued to take a harder look at China as a nation. Many see the tragedy of the common Chinese citizen as the fundamental reason for wishing to change Chinese society and its government. One also has to see the rocketing growth China has undergone has resulted in horrible environmental problems and has also forced millions away from land they were given under the revolution or, in some cases, have been working upon for generations. Whereas I completely see the merit in recognizing China’s rise to power, it must also be closely analyzed for the things that it is doing incorrectly. It is these growing pains which has created fetters on China, therefore not allowing the country to become a superpower on par with the United States in the near future.
1 comment:
I agree entirely with Mr. Buffone. Although China's
Communist Party has succeeded in using economic growth as a justification for one-party rule, it is notable that that most authoritarian states around the world (eg, Equatorial Guinea, North Korea, Zimbabwe) do not follow this pattern, instead exhibiting widespread poverty and appallingly low rates of economic growth. I would argue that on the whole democratic freedoms and political rights are better guarantors of economic success. This is because hungry stomachs do not translate into happy constituents. But even more importantly, political freedom is an intrinsic good that every person should be entitled to.
Post a Comment