China: A Reality Check: Truth and lies in the Asian behemoth - a visit to China leaves the impression that the dictatorship remains firmly established

National Review, Sept 17, 2001 by John Derbyshire

JD: False comparison. Agitation for democratic reform didn't suddenly begin in those countries once they got rich. The two things developed together. And Taiwan had a strong basis of opposition from the beginning-from 1947, when there were mass riots against the Chiang Kai- shek government. That opposition was bound to work its way through to become, in time, an organized political party. China has no equivalent basis of opposition: If you are ever to get rid of the Communists, you must develop one.

WM: I never said political modernization has to follow precisely the path Taiwan followed. I'm only telling you that it can't get under way until our society reaches a certain level of maturity. We haven't reached that level yet. As you yourself know, we Chinese are a difficult and fractious nation, violent in our passions. Representative democracy was invented by the English, a famously cold people. We need an iron hand, at least until we have sufficient wealth and leisure to attend to these things in an orderly way. And who are you to tell us we "must develop" a democratic opposition? Easy for you to say from the comfort of New York! Do you know what this regime is like? Do you know the things they do to those they perceive as opposition?

JD: Yes, I know. But you can't get, or keep, liberty without martyrs. Look at Chen Shui-bian's wife. [Chen Shui-bian is the current president of Taiwan. In 1985, when he was working for political reform on the island, goons from the governing dictatorship organized a traffic "accident" that left his wife paralyzed from the chest down.] I'm sorry if it sounds callous or arrogant, but you know it's true.

WM: Perhaps so, but it's not really the central point. Sure, the fear factor counts. But it's not the main factor in China today, you can see that. The main factor is that we are all aware of the great progress we've made over the past twenty years-yes, under the leadership of the Communists. And we don't want to endanger that. It's not just fear, it's prudence. Look, consider the stakes for us. Suppose you are wrong. Suppose democratic reform, now or soon, does not make us a Taiwan? Suppose it makes us a Russia? Or an Indonesia? Or a Nigeria? Or some corrupt form of "democracy" controlled by military and financial interests, like in South America? Or suppose that, after democratic reform, the big decisions that we all know must be made-closing the state-owned enterprises, lifting restrictions on free movement of labor-can't be made because they are unpopular? Your program sounds fine in theory, but you see what a gamble it is for us. Contrariwise, suppose you are right. What do we have to lose by failing to reform? Only a few decades, that's all. See, we have too much to lose if you are wrong, and too little to gain if you are right. That's why, from a practical point of view, you are wrong even if you are right, and the CP is right even though they are wrong!

JD: And the higher principles of political life? Liberty? Justice? Constitutional government? Do they count for nothing in China?