The Anglo-Saxon Social Model

Yugoslavia (1945-2000)
The Lion, the Fox and the Eagle: Kingdoms, Republics and Wars in Yugoslavia
800px-Kabul_during_civial_war_of_fundamentalists_1993-2.jpg

Dubrovnik following its capture by the Army of the Homeland in May 1995


Since the country’s liberation in 1945, Yugoslavia had, along with Austria, come to be nicknamed the ‘crowned republic,’ a reference to the increasingly hegemonic Socialist Party and the country’s economic model, which was based on cooperatives and union-managed corporations. In this context, it also looked like one of Europe’s great success stories, with economic growth into the 1970s which kept pace with Italy (albeit from a lower base) and outpaced that of Spain. However, this covered up a series of ethnic and political disputes that roiled under the surface of Yugoslavian life, which mainly appeared in the form of a conflict between regionalists and centralists. Under the previous conditions of economic growth, however, these political and ethnic divisions could be tamped down.

Yugoslavia had had a privileged position when it came to trade with the countries of the Bucharest Pact and it was particularly badly hit by the events of the Bucharest Mutiny and the concomitant economic crisis that resulted from the Soviets’ forced dissolution of the Bucharest Pact countries and their replacement with a single, protectionist, CIS government. By 1971, it was estimated that over 200 Yugoslavian firms and cooperatives had gone bankrupt, with over 100,000 people laid off, in just two years. Military units stationed in Croat, Albanian and Montenegrin majority regions mutinied and marched on Belgrade. Under pressure, a new constitution, granting increased federal powers to non-Serb ethnic-majority regions, was promulgated in October 1971.

The constitution of 1971 pacified complaints of non-Serbian minorities but it was, in truth, an awkward compromise that everyone recognised as such. During the eleven years of the Federal Kingdom of Yugoslavia (as it was renamed under the ‘71 constitution), the country was beset by constant struggles between centralists (a strange coalition of statist socialists, businessmen and monarchists) and federalists (an equally strange coalition of libertarian socialists, liberals and republicans). This caused severe political instability, resulting in two brief civil wars and nine heads of government during this period. A fresh constitution was promulgated in October 1982, turning the country into a unitary regime and changing its name to the United Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Despite these changes, the United Kingdom fared little better than the Federal Kingdom: there are estimated to have been between six and eight armed rebellions in the year following the death of Aleksandar Rankovic, the first prime minister of the new country, in August 1983. Rankovic had made attempts to mollify federalist sentiment but his death left the country’s government in the hands of nationalist hardliners such as Branko Petranovic and Dobrica Cosic. What pretence there was of democracy in the United Kingdom was finally done away with in 1988, when the ‘82 constitution was amended to remove most of the legislature’s power and centralise decision-making in the person of King Alexander II and his Prime Minister Vasilije Krestic.

This new autocratic regime failed to solve the political contradictions of the Yugoslav state, however, and in 1992 another rebellion broke out in Albania. This one managed to survive the initial forces sent to put it down and, in August 1993, Alexander II issued a decree reinstating the constitution of 1971 and re-forming the Federal Kingdom of Yugoslavia. One of the new government’s first actions was to withdraw from NATO. Nevertheless, by this point there were few who had any confidence in constitutional order anymore and a series of rebellions sprang up in the provinces, collapsing the country into generalised civil war.

With the violence threatening to spill over Yugoslavia’s borders, the Soviets became increasingly concerned and, as such, began to funnel weapons and other supplies to the Serbian nationalist Army of the Homeland headed by Slobodan Milosevic. With the connivance of other security agencies in Italy, Austria and Greece (who, like the Soviets, were concerned about the potential for regional instability), Milosevic’s forces managed to seize control of the country by 1996. They promulgated a new, republican, constitution in November, which renamed the country the ‘Unitary Republic of Yugoslavia’ and which segregated it into different ethnic ‘homelands.’ The Army of the Homeland was condemned internationally for their harsh tactics to move people to their ‘proper’ homelands, which resulted in brutal treatment and the deaths of thousands, especially women and Muslims. During his rule, Milosevic committed massacres against Yugoslavian civilians, denied UN food supplies to starving citizens and conducted a policy of scorched earth, bruning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes. NATO mobilised on the Yugoslavian border in December 1995 but eventually stood down due to uncertainty as to what the Soviets’ reaction would be.

Under ethnic Serbian hegemony, Yugoslavia had finally reached a kind of stability, albeit one maintained by the near-permanent repression of non-Serbian minorities. With their far right government, Yugoslavia even became a Mecca for a certain kind of hard right ideologue. The country became home to dozens of right wing and white nationalist training camps, which were semi-authorised by Milosevic’s government. Only France, the Soviet Union and the CIS officially extended recognition to the Unitary Republic and Alexander II and what remaining loyalists he had (of which there weren’t many) continued to be recognised by the UN as the legitimate government of Yugoslavia.
 
Well, you weren't kidding about Yugoslavia. :eek:

I'm assuming the Serb-majority regions of Bosnia and Croatia are part of the Serb Homeland, with the Croat-majority regions in southern Bosnia being part of the Croatian Homeland. Has Kosovo been annexed to Serbia directly?
 
I'm curious if something like Project Cybersyn has been attempted. With soviets being richer and likely having greater computer manufacturing capability I can see something like that being introduced especially in the european countries under its influence

A few things to say on this: firstly, Project Cybersyn as such as not attempted. By the 1970s TTL Allende is living a peaceful retirement after a relatively uneventful presidency 1958-64. Instead, Chile was one of the countries which were connected to the internet by agreement in the 1990s. As we have seen, TTL's internet has far more government involvement from the beginning than OTL.

The OGAS was given extra funding in the 1960s and by the mid-1990s has become a kind of national network for the Soviet Union and its closest allies (i.e. the CIS, Manchuria, Turkestan and Mongolia). In practice, TTL's OGAS isn't quite as open as Glushkov wanted when he pitched it (either OTL or TTL) and before he retired Bukharin ensured that it was largely subsumed beneath the authority of the Finance Ministry (the hub in Petrograd is in the Finance Ministry building, for example).

Interesting stuff, but one question : King Alexander still ruled some territory or it was just some kind of exile goverment?

Government-in-exile, although in reality it's less of a government than his family's household and a few dissidents without anywhere else to go. He divides his time mostly between Monaco and Venice.

Well, you weren't kidding about Yugoslavia. :eek:

I'm assuming the Serb-majority regions of Bosnia and Croatia are part of the Serb Homeland, with the Croat-majority regions in southern Bosnia being part of the Croatian Homeland. Has Kosovo been annexed to Serbia directly?

Yes and no. As you might suspect, the 'homeland' idea is very influenced by the system in apartheid South Africa so the Croat, Bosniak, Kosovan etc. homelands are made as patchwork as possible in order to keep them down. So some of what's TTL Kosovo is a 'Serbian' homeland and other bits are Kosovar homelands.
 
First Beckett Ministry (1996-2000)
Finishing the Job: The Fourth Anglo-Boer War
link.robin.cook.jpg

Foreign Secretary Robin Cook forcefully arguing in favour of military action, March 1998


Beckett’s ministry would become most famous for its foreign policy, in particular its handling of the question of South Africa. Really since the formalisation of apartheid in the 1950s, the continued existence of South Africa had been something of an embarrassment for the Commonwealth: up to its expulsion, the presence of avowedly white-supremacist figures at the top table was undoubtedly a problem for a Commonwealth/British government trying to chart a smooth path to decolonisation; following the expulsion, South Africa’s further descent into hate, madness and violence didn’t leave a good taste in the mouth as an example of the British legacy on the continent.

The Third Anglo-Boer War of 1987 had satisfied the demands of many to slap the National Party down but the Commonwealth’s supposed abandonment of black South Africans outside of Zulu-Natal had created a lasting ‘war-party’ across the Commonwealth left. While Labour was out of office under the Steel-Mount coalition, the question of South Africa were paramount in the internal debates about the party’s future direction when it returned to power. When Robin Cook was appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary in 1994, and ascended to the full ministry following the 1996 election, the ‘war party’ was generally held to have won - possibly the reason why Rodgers’ premiership is occasionally more negatively regarded by the Labour faithful than its impressive record of domestic reform would suggest. At the time of the Anglo-Boer War, Cook had been a junior minister in the Foreign Office and a forceful advocate of continuing military action to overthrow the apartheid regime and he brought that energy with him when he returned to government.

In November 1996, Cook held a private meeting (whose existence was not disclosed until 2026 under the 30-year rule) with Generals Charles Guthrie, Maurice Baril, Pervez Musharaff and John Sanderson, the representatives to the ICS from the UK, Canada, Pakistan and Australia (respectively) and who were regarded as the leading figures in the organisation at the time. The meeting discussed military action against South Africa, including the question of justification. Beckett herself began to publicly make the case for military action at the Prime Ministers’ Conference in January 1998, where she argued that South Africa had reneged on its obligations to destroy its chemical and biological weapons stocks and that the country posed a threat to the region.

At first, the Commonwealth wanted to move through the UN but this foundered on the opposition of other permanent Security Council members. France, which had made extensive arms sales to South Africa over the course of the 1990s, opposed action and even the Americans and the Soviets, no friends of the South Africans, urged continuing negotiations. The Chinese, who under their President Wei Jingsheng had adopted a foreign policy promoting human rights, were generally supportive of the Commonwealth’s firm line, even if they weren’t quite at the point of favouring military intervention just yet. Only Japan and Brazil could really be called supportive of the Commonwealth line on military action. In February 1998 the Commonwealth tabled a resolution at the UN calling for, in effect, the immediate overthrow of the South African regime but they withdrew it a month later under pressure from the other permanent members of the Security Council.

With the UN avenue closed off, the Commonwealth instead worked its diplomatic channels and, this time, was more successful than equivalent efforts had been in 1987. In the end, Botswana, Katanga, Zulu-Natal, the Nordic Union, Korea, Italy, Japan, Brazil and Argentina joined what was colloquially known as the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ devoted to the immediate removal of the South African regime. Despite these diplomatic moves, the prospect of an invasion of South Africa was not uncontroversial, especially without a direct causus belli. Well into 1998, the majority of the Commonwealth population was telling pollsters that they were generally opposed to military action. Parliamentary opposition came particularly from isolationists in the Conservative Party but outside politics there was also widespread public concern about the potential fallout of invading a country that had, allegedly at least, a large stockpile of chemical weapons. Large protests were held in London and other Commonwealth capitals in January 1999.

By this time, however, Five Eyes agents had been operating in South Africa for nearly six months, preparing for the invasion and funnelling covert arms to opposition groups, including AZLU and the South West Africa People’s Organisation (“SWAPO”). SWAPO, in particular, would become vital on the western theatre of the fighting when the invasion came. The Commonwealth delivered their intention to pursue military action to the UN in February 1999 and the Commonwealth-lead invasion began the following month. Despite Hartzenberg promising “a war to define the age,” South African military forces performed poorly and the three capitals of Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town were all captured over the course of April. The country was fully occupied by coalition forces by the end of May. Hartzenberg was captured by Japanese forces as he attempted to flee Pretoria disguised as a woman. Derby-Lewis would go into hiding and be killed in a shootout with Commonwealth forces three months later.

The ‘Homeland’ system was immediately abolished and the South African army disbanded. The abrupt overthrow of the Apartheid regime saw a huge outpouring of gratitude towards the invaders but was accompanied by massive civil disruption and the looting of public and civic buildings. Furthermore, initial military action failed to capture all of the main apartheid military and political hierarchy: notable hardliners such as Eugene Terre’Blanche, Willia Marais and Steyn von Ronge managed to evade capture and began white nationalist insurgencies in the Velt.

Following the fall of the Apartheid regime, Coalition troops were rapidly forced to reconfigure themselves from an invading force into an anti-insurgency one. Peter Hain, a South African exile who had been living in London since 1966 and had been a Liberal MP since 1991, was appointed at the head of the Interim Administrative Authority which governed South Africa on a provisional basis. Hain would remain in office as a new constitution was promulgated in June 2000 and presidential and legislative elections would take place in January 2001. The United African Alliance won a narrow majority under the leadership of Zwelinzima Vavi, who became the first prime minister of the new republic. At the same time, the aged Nelson Mandela won the election to become South Africa’s first black president (now a largely honorary role).
 
So this is basically, an Iraq War-style situation...
Unlike Iraq, the Broederbond will not be able to meld into the general population. Guerrilla warfare and hit and run attacks are possible, but Iraq or NI style terrorism aren't likely unless a chunk of the black majority are somehow alienated by the occupiers (Remember Heath sent the Army into NI to protect the Catholic population).
 
I have caught up with this Timeline and wanted to say how much I have been enjoying it.

This is one of theirs AU’s I’d love to visit if the D-Hopper was working! It certainly is one of those where I wonder if I was even born!

How’s pop culture ITTL? Does jazz, big band etc still happen? Rock and Roll in this America? The Beatles etc? How much does the Commonwealth swing to bangra beats as well as punk?

Do RPG’s still get invented? Is the OTL backlash against D&D as big? Does the video game glut happen in the 80’s?

What’s on the Big and small screen please? Is there commercial telly? Oscars? Reality shows?

Without Thatcher in the 80’s has Britain’s industry been stripped away or was the movement to a service economy earlier and smoother?

How’s alternative energy doing given the amount of nuke plants? Electric cars?

Are people using High Streets Or has the Big Box Store still taken over? Is there still Milk Men or supermarket dominance?

Have places like Jamaica seen their trade overwhelmed by imports from the Commonwealth or is trade balanced to make their economy work, unlike OTL?
 
As I recall in TL there was a fully solar powered car released in the UK in the 1990's, therefore it stands to reason that the UK probably has a large number of electric cars more advanced than the electric cars of OTL, interestingly enough the fully powered by solar power assuming its on the actual car and not a gimmick like powering your radio or something suggest solar panels and PV tech is far advanced of even today's panels.
 
How’s pop culture ITTL? Does jazz, big band etc still happen? Rock and Roll in this America? The Beatles etc? How much does the Commonwealth swing to bangra beats as well as punk?

I've got an update on Commonwealth pop culture next week which will go into this sort of thing in much more detail. The short answer is that the broad contours of popular music in the twentieth century do look very similar but with important changes at the margins. Different race relations are particularly important: there's not really a hard and fast distinction between country 'hillbilly' music and RnB 'ethnic' music, for example, and Chuck Berry was, in his day, as big a star as Elvis. The Beatles' careers also panned out more or less as in OTL. After that, there are changes to illustrate how the various Commonwealth countries share a great deal of cultural interchange: the Rolling Stones record Exile on Main Street in Puerto Rico with Cesar Concepcion and Ismael Rivera; Bob Marley, John Lennon, Graham Nash and Neil Young form a supergroup in 1973. You're right to suggest that bhangra has increased in popularity around the Commonwealth and generally pop music is very syncretic. So when punk develops in the 1970s, for example, it's more 2 Tone than OTL. A good way of imagining pop music sounds by about 2000 would be to think about artists like the Specials, the Bhundu Boys or Yusuf Islam.

Do RPG’s still get invented? Is the OTL backlash against D&D as big? Does the video game glut happen in the 80’s?

Broadly speaking, yes to all of these. What I would say is that the politics of the Anglo-Saxon countries (leaving aside the fact that most of the Commonwealth states aren't Anglo-Saxon or even white - 'Anglo-Saxon' TTL is basically used as a shorthand for the Commonwealth and the US) simply isn't as reactionary as it is OTL. So the "video games/RPGs are melting our kids' brains and making them evil" stuff exists but in a more muted manner.

What’s on the Big and small screen please? Is there commercial telly? Oscars? Reality shows?

As with music, I have a longer update on this coming next week so I'll be brief. Television in the Commonwealth is dominated by the CBC, which has an enormous financial heft because of the Commonwealth-wide licence fee but it's also expanding into commercial television outside the Commonwealth (in particular, its coverage of the NHL is very highly thought of in the US). Commercial television does exist in the Commonwealth but is usually very regional and much smaller than OTL. The general structure of most television around the Commonwealth is CBC One, CBC Two, CBC Sport, CBC News and between one to a dozen commercial channels, who are awarded broadcast contracts by the CBC for a certain number of years (usually five to ten). The programming on CBCs One, Two and Sport vary from country to country, although there's significant overlap. CBC News is an English-language 24-hour news channel which is broadcast in every Commonwealth country.

Reality shows do exist as in OTL. They're particularly prominent on commercial channels where the funding pressures make them attractive. In more recent years the CBC has given producing them a go.

The Oscars don't exist but the Screen Actors Guild Awards fulfil the same role as the world's most prestigious movie awards.

Without Thatcher in the 80’s has Britain’s industry been stripped away or was the movement to a service economy earlier and smoother?

That's more or less the case. In practice most heavy industry has moved to other Commonwealth countries, notably Pakistan. As we've seen, there was significant economic dislocation in the 1970s but less so than in OTL. By 2000 the British economy has successfully transitioned to a service economy, with significant high-tech (and high profit) industrial jobs remaining in sectors such as nuclear and renewable energy and IT.

How’s alternative energy doing given the amount of nuke plants? Electric cars?

Fossil fuels now make up a tiny amount of the UK's energy mix, with that decreasing all the time. Nuclear has taken most of the load but solar, wind and tidal is making an ever-increasing contribution. As @Will1701 mentioned, Rootes produced a solar-powered vehicle in the 1990s (in practice a vehicle powered by solar-powered batteries) but that wasn't a success, mostly because the car itself was ugly and the owner was responsible for personally charging the batteries themselves, which people found inconvenient. The UK is committed to phasing out petrol/diesel-powered cars by 2010 and is on track to meet that. Instead, trains take up much of the slack (the UK has 10,000 km of high speed rail laid by 2000).

Are people using High Streets Or has the Big Box Store still taken over? Is there still Milk Men or supermarket dominance?

Yes and no. Basically the private-sector British workforce is split roughly 50-50 between cooperatives and unionised private companies. Domestic food production is basically the province of local cooperatives so, yes, your local milk man is still around and very much thriving. Many of the large aristocratic farming estates (especially in Ireland) have transitioned from the landowner-tenant model into cooperatives.

Have places like Jamaica seen their trade overwhelmed by imports from the Commonwealth or is trade balanced to make their economy work, unlike OTL?

Commonwealth imports are very common in Jamaica but Jamaica and the West Indies as a whole has a much more balanced economy than OTL. Jamaica specifically is the financial hub of the West Indies and Kingston is home to the Bank of England's office in the country (agreed as part of a political deal whereby the Federation's legislative bodies would be situated in T&T). The West indies as a whole has an advanced mixed economy with high quality of life and human development levels (in terms of quality of life, it's probably more or less equivalent to OTL Italy by the year 2000). Alongside its large and competitive agricultural and tourism sectors, the various islands are home to a large number of dynamic small and medium-sized businesses. This has produced a manufacturing sector often focused on the export of niche market and luxury products, particularly in fashion and design. The West Indies' major economic problem is regional inequality, with islands like Jamaica, T&T, Barbados and the Caymans having a significantly better time of it than other islands such as Montserrat.
 
Independence of Hong Kong, 1997
Cousins and Strangers: China in a New Century and the Last Days of the British Empire
800px-Flag_of_the_British_Overseas_Territories_(unofficial).svg.png

A new flag introduced in 1986 for the Commonwealth Overseas Territories


Following the Sino-Commonwealth Joint Declaration, the British government had turned its attention to the administration of the remaining Crown Colonies for the first time in many decades. Although Hong Kong (given that it had been guaranteed independence and Commonwealth membership within 13 years) was naturally at the forefront of these considerations, it affected the other colonies as well. As we have seen, in response to the nationalist and anti-colonial movements of the 1930s onwards, the British government had progressively granted independence (either as members of the Commonwealth or not) to a wide variety of countries. However, this left a handful of territories scattered around the world which were still ruled directly by a governor or some with the assistance of a nominated council. The only colony to have an elected legislative council was Bermuda, also the oldest one in the world.

Bermuda and the Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Mann were used as the basis for the future of the other colonies. The only other members of the Commonwealth with colonies and protectorates of their own were New Zealand and Australia and, in January-February and April-May 1985, British, Australian and New Zealand officials met at a series of round-table conferences in London with representatives of the Crown Dependencies, colonies and protectorates, as well as members of a committee of Commonwealth Assembly AMs created for this purpose.

The result was the passing by the Commonwealth Assembly, in February 1986, of the Commonwealth Citizenship Regulations. These regulations built upon previous legislation by the Assembly as well as various bilateral agreements between the member states. They created a single shared citizenship between all Commonwealth member states. Most importantly, for the colonies and protectorates, this communal citizenship was extended to the people who lived there too. With a few exceptions (to be discussed below), the colonies, protectorates and Crown Dependencies were transferred to a communal Commonwealth ownership and renamed Commonwealth Overseas Territories. All of the new Commonwealth Overseas Territories were ordered to set up unicameral (or bicameral where the size of the territory’s population justified it) legislative assemblies, where they didn’t have them already. Although the governor generals continued to be appointed from London and retained significant reserve executive powers, the territories became in effect sovereign nations but without UN delegations or an independent defence or foreign policy. (As many noted, this effectively converted them all into Crown Dependencies but with a fancy new name.) In 1994, the Commonwealth Assembly amended the regulations to entitle each of the Overseas Territories to elect one AM each to the Commonwealth Assembly.

The colonies and protectorates excluded from this reorganisation (the uninhabited atolls such as the Coral Sea Islands) were instead designated as Commonwealth Dependant Territories. The New Zealand, Australian and British Antarctic zones were amalgamated into a single Commonwealth Antarctic Territory. The former New Zealand protectorates of the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau and the British colony of the Pitcairn Islands were amalgamated into the Federation of the Pacific Islands, rather than forming their own Overseas Territories. A similar thing happened with the Turks and Caicos Islands, which became part of the Bahamas.

The remaining territory was Hong Kong, which was instead labelled a ‘Special Administrative Region’ in advance of its transition to independence in 1997. The first election was slated to take place in 1987, the second in 1992 and the final one, at which time Hong Kong democracy would be fully-formed (at least supposedly), in 1997 and politics would continue in the usual Westminster model from then on. The 1987 elections were the first ones to Hong Kong’s unicameral parliament, called the Legislative Council. The elections were for 18 members for ordinary geographical seats, 21 members from functional constituencies (i.e. constituencies for interest groups which were, in practice, rotten boroughs for elite commercial groups in Hong Kong), 17 members appointed by the governor, as well as the chief secretary, attorney general, financial secretary and governor, who all sat as ex officio members.

The first elections were deemed to have passed off reasonably well but they, of course, were some way from satisfying the democratic aspirations of many Hong Kongers. Therefore, many looked with interest at the proposed franchise for the 1992 elections, a white paper for which was due to appear in 1990-91. In 1990, Rodgers’ government appointed Robert Maclennan as the Governor of Hong Kong with a responsibility to see the reforms through. Maclennan’s proposed reforms finally appeared in April 1991 and radically altered the 1987 franchise. In the first place, the legislature was to be divided into a proper bicameral assembly (and renamed the Hong Kong Parliament). The lower house, the Legislative Council, was made up of 70 one-person-one-seat constituencies, with the appointed members abolished (the ex officio members remained before being due to be phased out in 1997).

The functional constituencies were all moved to the upper house, which was named the District Councils. Their number was expanded to 27 and the rules as to their membership were widened. In effect, every profession in Hong Kong was now included and most people in those professions were eligible to vote in them. Just under 90% of Hong Kongers went into the 1992 elections eligible to cast two votes, one in their local constituency and one according to their profession. This was a concession granted to the Hong Kong business community, which was concerned that the introduction of universal suffrage might upset their economic model.

On 30 June 1997, a ceremony was held to formalise the final sale of the New Territories from China. The year was a big one for China, more generally, as the ceremony came only a week after statisticions at the ICU revealed that China’s economy, measured in bancors, had overtaken the United States to become the second largest in the world (behind the Commonwealth, taken together). It was the culmination of a two-decade long project of political moderation spearheaded by the Democratic Socialists. Rejecting the nationalist ‘self-sufficiency’ drives of the Progress and Development Party in the 1950s and 1960s, the Democratic Socialist party returned to a majority in the Yuan in 1973 with Premier Zhou Enlai promising a ‘Cultural Revolution’ in Chinese attitudes.

The key facet of this new politics was the opening up of the Chinese economy to imports and foreign capital. With the concurrent loosening of its investment criteria, the SWF flowed into the gap as a provider of capital for Chinese companies. This dominance was only further cemented by the terms of the Sino-Commonwealth Joint Declaration. The dominant mind behind the reforms was generally taken to be Zhou’s Finance Minister Deng Xiaoping, who stepped into the Premiership in 1976 on Zhou’s death. Distrustful of the spotlight, Deng returned to the Finance Ministry in 1981 to hand over the Premiership to his protege Hu Yaobang (although without any meaningful reduction in his influence). When Hu died suddenly in 1989, Deng would once more be forced return to the Premiership until the Democratic Socialists finally lost an election in 1993. Curiously, during this period Progress and Development continued to find success in the presidential elections, with Zhao Ziyang (1981-89) being the only successful Democratic Socialist candidate during this period.

However, despite the size of the Chinese economy in the late 1990s, this obscured many underlying problems. In the first place, on a per capita basis it remained a relatively poor country as against its superpower rivals: with a per capita income of around 9,500 bancors, China was significantly poorer than the Commonwealth and the United States (both around 30,000 bancors) and the Soviet Union (25,000 bancors). There were still some subsistence farmers in the interior of the country who lived in conditions not all that far removed from the agricultural conditions of the late Qing. As the governor of the Bank of England at the time of China’s overtaking of the US, Lee Kuan Yew, rather contemptuously noted, the Chinese success was “a kind of accounting trick” reliant on its vast population to inflate the size of its total economy.

Furthermore, in its balance of trade, China was facing the reverse problem that had bedeviled its relations with the outside world in the 19th century. Namely, it couldn’t find a market for its exports. Deng seems to have believed that the low cost of Chinese workers would enable the Chinese economy to grow off the back of exports to the United States, the Commonwealth and the rest of the developed world. As it turned out, this never quite eventuated, albeit for a number of reasons. In the Commonwealth, productivity increases and rapid improvements in technology enabled companies and cooperatives to remain competitive and profitable without resort to outsourcing, while a strong union presence and a patriotic corporate culture largely prevented the same thing from occurring in the United States. In the French Union (before the crisis of the 1990s), it was easier for French companies to outsource to Francophone African countries or to the geographically closer Rhineland. In the Soviet Union the economy was much more closed anyway. The reasons were different but the result was the same: despite its total wealth, China faced continuing balance of payments issues which, combined with a shortage of native capital, threatened its position as a potential global superpower despite the sheer size of its economy. Recognising this, Zhu Rongji lead Progress and Development back to power in 1993 having campaigned on a promise to remedy these issues, although what the long term result of this would be was, by 1997, unclear.

Commonwealth Overseas Territories
  1. Aden
  2. Bermuda
  3. Chagos Islands
  4. Christmas and Cocos Islands
  5. Falkland Islands
  6. Gibraltar
  7. Guernsey
  8. Isle of Mann
  9. Jersey
  10. Norfolk Island
  11. Saint Helena
 
Interesting system for Hong Kong. Once you enfranchise the population in it, the election by profession isn't a bad idea. I imagine the 10% remaining are people without jobs or with precarious ones?
 
Interesting system for Hong Kong. Once you enfranchise the population in it, the election by profession isn't a bad idea. I imagine the 10% remaining are people without jobs or with precarious ones?

That's more or less the size of it. Also the unemployed.
 
Commonwealth Overseas Territories
  1. Aden
Is this just the city which was a crown colony or is it including the nearby former protectorates? 'Im assuming it's just the city in which case did the protectorates end up annexed to Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia or are they independent?

Edit: Just remembered there is no Saudi Arabia TTL. So I suppose it's the Kingdom of Arabia (Hashemite?) what are the borders of that country?
 
Top