Some posters have suggested that "democratic" India is doing better than "authoritarian" China.
Having to prepare for my last exam last tuesday did not allow me to answer previously, but I have now sought some hard facts, relying principally on an article by Amartya Sen, published last year (2011) in the New York Review of Books:
Http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/quality-life-india-vs-china/?pagination=false
May I also point out that the terms 'democracy' and 'authoritarian' are quite relative. India elects governments by popular plebiscite, but what does that mean is a high percentage of voters have little understanding of the choices they are making. Does 'democracy' automatically mean that you get better governance. Ask the ancient Athenians who were ruined by a popular vote?
And, what does "authoritarian' mean in China? In villages, and in some urban areas there are already elections for village and town councils. That will increase and extend.
China has one party rule, but within that party there are factions, and a increasing number of positions are filled by elections. The CPC has a membership of 83 million. That is something like one party member for less that every 20 people. Some want to see that as permitting a high level of control, which is not born out by the observations of people on the ground in China. Much more likely, this facet of Chinese governance permits a strong knowledge of what the ordinary Chinese person is thinking and what concerns them. Certainly, polling by groups like the American Pew Consulting suggest a high rate of approval for the Central government, usually over 80%. Local governments however have a lower level of approval.
From another perspective, India was 'given' democracy by the exiting Imperialist British. The Chinese inherited 'chaos' from the western penetration and exploitation of China during the 19th Century and the subsequent collapse of the Qing government in 1911. Subsequent attempts to form a national government were made by arbitrarily appointed representatives of provinces. Dr Sun Yatsen, the first President of China was forced from office after a short while by General Yuan Shikai, who became President and stated his intention to commence a new dynasty with himself as first emperor. He failed. Chinese governance collapsed into warlordism. In the 1920's Dr Sun Yatsen formed a new government, effective only in southern China. With advice from the Soviet Union he formed a a military training college with Chiang Kai Shek in charge. Dr. Sun Yatsen, although in the beginning leaning to the United States as a model, had become disillusioned with the US at what he saw happening as the US killed so many in the Philippines Independence Movement. So Sun Yat-sen accepted more and more Soviet advice, and eventually accepted members of the new Chinese Communist Party into his own GMG (Guo min dang) more often known to westerners as the KMT.
About this time, a decision was made that greatly affected the future of Chinese politics. Both the GMD/KMT membership and the CPC agreed that the best way forward, in view of China's weakness and inability to defend itself against Western aggression, was to seek to form a (authoritarian, if you like) government that would first unite and then to modernise and strengthen China so that it could resist the West. At some point after modernisation, a more democratic form of government would be introduced.
Sun died in 1925 and Chiang became President. He decided to break with the Communists, which he did so by force leading to the so-called "Long March" in which the remnants of the CPC fought their way to Yanan in Shanxi Province, which became their HQ for the way against the Japanese invasion in the 1930's and against the continued attempts of Chiang Kai Shek to destroy them. A full civil war brokle out after the end of WW2, with the Communists winning major support from ordinary Chinese, leading to the formation of the PRC in 1949. Immediately in the USA, a purge broke out as the American elite attempted to fix blame for "who lost China."
1949 gave the Chinese an opportunity to commence building a new society in China, more oriented toward ordinary people than the past governments were. However, within the CPC debate continued over the best method to build a strong, modern state. Itseems that the Party divided into two factions. There coalesced around Mao those who saw the Soviet model as offering the quickest wayto build a strong Central State by focussing on building heavy industry first. The opposing voice wanted to harness the energy of ordinary people to do something like that.
As the "new" China grew, the debate see-sawed, with Mao eventually being side-lined by the CPC after criticism by Liu Shaoqi. In response Mao encouraged the so-called "cultural revolution" which brought China to a stand-still. Only after the death of Mao could the process of re-building re-commence. Which occurred under Deng Xiaoping, resulting in the strong China that we see now.
At what point, and in what form the present Administration will seek to implement some form of government that permits greater input by the governed, remains obscure. But published articles seem to indicate that pressure builds for that.
OK! I've typed more than I intended, so I'll post the China-India stats separately.
