Your attitude to Myanmar is directly at odds with your criticism that people deserve the government they get. There's no difference between what the junta in Myanmar is doing now and what the CCP did to reformist protesters in Tiananmen Square. You can't say the Chinese people deserve that, but the people of Myanmar don't. That's completely inconsistent. Belarus is still under the control of an autocratic dictator despite many months of protests, which will almost certainly fail. Do the people of Belarus deserve to lose?
This is a good point. I would say there is a difference of degree, but it's very debatable.
My stance has been heavily influenced by my experience living in Cambodia. They have an authoritarian government. But they have also an authoritarian culture. Attempts to create a democratic government there haven't failed because the regime are a bunch of bastards (they are, but that's not the point), but because the people generally haven't supported it. Part of this, I'm sure, is their traumatic experience with the Khmer Rouge. I see so many parallels with what's going on with Myanmar. I don't see so many parallels with what's going on in China.
Can we measure the legitimacy of a government by the number of protesters it has killed? Seems like a better measure that "compatibility with Western economic interests" which seems to be the current measure.
I am from South Korea. This is the same "culture" bullshit argued about South Korea 30 years ago. Kim Dae Jung who dedicated his life to democracy in South Korea and who went on to be the first president elected from the opposition wrote a through rebuttal in 1994. Go read it.
Is Culture Destiny? The Myth of Asia's Anti-Democratic Values (Kim Dae Jung, 1994)
He went on to "write" an even better rebuttal by being elected in 1998 and building the foundation of South Korea as a fully functioning democracy in his term. Now the result speaks for itself.
I'll dig it up and read it, thanks for the pointer.
I heard this from several Khmer acquaintances - they're fed up of Westerners coming to Cambodia and trying to enforce Western ideas of democracy and "freedom" on them. There are a shit-tonne of White Saviours running around Phnom Penh trying to "save" Cambodia, so I totally get this.
A home-grown idea of Cambodian democracy, from Khmer people who are actually interested in what Khmer democracy would look like, is a totally different thing. If that's what happened in South Korea, then that's fantastic.
We should also remember that we are discussing a different civilization to that of the 'western' sphere.
Not in the orientalist sense of being incomprehensible, but by just by understanding the political history and hence the intuitive sensibilities of what is understood to be a just way of running a government being quite different.
This is not to claim democracy would not fit all, but rather, it is quite a different thing to introduce it to an environment which already accepts as its philosophical inheritance the democracy of Athens, the Republic of Rome, the Magna Carta, and so on, to one for whom these are exotic and foreign historical references.
And frankly, a stable government - no matter how legalistic or authoritarian - is almost always better than no government at all (ref. all the areas with failed states and ruled by warlords).
In a political environment that has never known anything but authoritarian rule, it is actually quite safe bet that any destabilizing forces are not trying to "improve peoples lives" but actually just to replace the existing authoritarian power structure with a one of their own.
So... while mistreating demonstrator is reprhensible ... the situation is not necessarily about "good v.s bad" but actually about "stability vs. chaos" and in both situations there are losers - only in the "chaos" case the number of losers is larger.
I will just quote from Kim Dae Jung which I mentioned elsewhere.
"The proper way to cure the ills of industrial societies is not to impose the terror of a police state but to emphasize ethical education, give high regard to spiritual values, and promote high standards in culture and the arts."
So no, authoritarian government does not lead to stability and democratic government does not lead to chaos. You get stability by educating the next generation and promoting the culture.
I totally agree with that - that it begins with education.
Cambodian education at the moment is corrupt. You bribe the educator to get into a course. You bribe the examiner to pass an exam. If your family is rich enough, you never need to even attend a class.
Changing this is not going to be possible from outside. The Khmer people will need to want to change. I don't think that's true at the moment. I hope they'll get it eventually.
I did not claim democratic government leads to chaos, but rather the absence of government that does. Perhaps I am not familiar with all the discussions about this topic (I believe democratic governance is the best possible but have not experienced non-democratic societies so have strong cultural bias).
This relativism is ridiculous. As much as western governments have their own problems - are you seriously going to pretend individuals are protected similarly between China and EU or US ?
I'm saying the Chinese people have the right to determine what government they should have. No-one else gets to decide that for them.
But saying that one government is "better" than another can be seen as imposing your standards of "better" on another culture. Especially if you choose to ignore some criteria and select others - the USA has by far the highest percentage of its population in prison in the entire world[0], so yes you can make a serious claim that China "protects its citizens" better than the USA.
The argument that local people have the right to determine what government they should have is true but a bit irrelevant in cases when they do not have the practical ability to do so. For example, Hong Kong; for example, another comment above who responded to a Russian's comment with "As a Russian you could try to change your government." which is laughable knowing the fate of opposition organizers. Asserting that "the people of X alone have the right to determine what government they should have" implies "the current government of X is what X should have" if and only if that government was democratically elected in fair elections.
As you say, "no-one else gets to decide that for them" - which also includes all the non-democratic regimes currently clinging to power after losing the consent of the governed. For example, look at Belarus - other countries don't have the right to unilaterally determine what government Belarusians should have, but, crucially, Lukashenka also does not have that right, he does not get to decide that for them.
Look, I get this. I'm not saying it's not a little bit tricky to depose a despot once he's got his grip on power.
But I see Westerners go to places that are culturally different, and ignore all those differences, and assume that the only reason the government isn't "non-authoritarian" is because the population need help deposing a despot. Sometimes it's not that. In Myanmar it is totally that, and we should be doing something, because the army are shooting civilians every day. In Cambodia at the moment, not. In China, probably not.
In Cambodia I was a CEO. Khmer culture means that you never contradict your boss. I had some really candid conversations with colleagues that I knew well, and who knew me well, I'd call them friends. They would still never contradict me, even if they knew I was wrong, and knew that I knew I was wrong. It's a different culture. You do not question authority there. That's not because authority will punish you, but because (as far as I get it as an outsider) social harmony depends on social stratification, and social stratification means not questioning those above you. It all sounds problematic to westerners, who go there and try and impose western ideas of justice, free thought and free speech. But they just come off as White Saviours, tone deaf to thousands of years of Khmer culture.
In Cambodia all this lead to the Khmer Rouge and a genocide. I see lots of parallels with what's happening in Myanmar. I think there comes a point where we do have to step in and say "I know you are an authoritarian culture, but this is too far, you're shooting civilians". Don't forget, this is Myanmar people enlisted in the military who are shooting other Myanmar people. The same was true in Cambodia - a lot of the trauma of the genocide was "how could we do this to ourselves?". It's a very complex situation. There's a huge difference between this and China.
I don't know enough about the situation in Belarus to comment. I don't trust Western media enough to present an unbiased view of it, and I don't know any Belarus folks to give me their view. I'd like to go visit - I hear it's beautiful there. But pandemic.
I think really all they’ve said is that different countries has different cultures, and that in turn result in different types of government being acceptable.
I’m not going to get involved in the details here, because there are many countries and governments out there, and everyone has different views on which is “best”.
I think the topic was overall quality of governance. This affects the lives of all citizens, not just those in the political opposition. There is quite large variance in the capability to govern with CCP and Tatmadaw.
What protection? And from what angle? Sure western governments do treat their own citizens better comparatively. But at the same time as soon as some country starts refusing to dance their tune they'd be more than happy to "democratize" it into oblivion and ruin with the bombing being cherry on top. They're also happy to prop and support murderous regimes when it suits their overall goals.
Outsider does not give a shit how well western countries treat their own citizens. If one comes home and starts picking up bits and pieces of their family members in the rubble that used to be their house they might hold very different opinion.
You can't really compare CCP with the likes of Tatmadaw or Lukashenko's clique. While all of them are authoritarian, the quality of their governance is quite different.
The difference with CCP and Tatmadaw (Myanmar army) generals, is that the CCP actually understands how to govern.
Tatmadaw is making things objectively worse for everyone economically, while CCP has succeeded in improving the lives of Chinese people. (Yes, and it is authoritarian and suppresses ethnic minorities but these qualities do not signify it as inept).
Or in DD terms, Tatmadaw is borderline chaotic evil while CCP is lawful evil.
The point in contention was legitimacy, not competence. The Myanmar Army is unquestionably making things better for themselves, their families and their commercial interests. The CCP is very efficient at expunging non-Han regional cultures, suppressing dissent and the institutionalising the rape of minority women, among other things. In both cases they are only interested in pursuing selfish goals.
Chaotic Evil is selfish anarchy. The Tatmadaw doesn't want anarchy, they want highly regularised, conformant subservience to their rules. If anything they find democracy too chaotic for them to stomach.
Huh - my Strunk & White-fu is rusty. "Obviously" I meant - 'As a ruler Tatmadaw is in many ways much more inept than CCP and thus more harmfull to it's citizens'.
>"After all, their laws means nothing without without a nod"
Let's say there is a trial in regards to some schmuk killing his neighbor over some argument. Do you think that Mr. Xi are hawking over judges shoulder making sure the outcome is proper? I have a news for you - he is not. Or look at this case for example: https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-house... . Where do you see big hairy paw of CCP?
I am pretty sure if outcome of some particular case really threatens CCP they'll interfere. But in the course of a normal life their laws do work.
Lawful evil in the context of DD does not mean "law abiding".
"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve."
I find this characterization quite fitting with the worst aspects of CCP rule.
Of course "order over human rights" is part of legalism as a framework for governance so labeling it as "evil" may or may not be culturally insensitive.
