China did do crash privatization in the 90s IOTL.Well, I do not that a democratic China would necessarily go to shit, but I would definitely caution against excessively optimistic "democracy, yay!" predictions. Even if China goes out of a successful Tianamen with an oustanding level of political stability for a post-communist state, a certain degree of political instability is bound to exist, and that is surely not good for the economy. Best case scenario is if China falls under some kind of "Democratic Socialist" regime which develops the economy in the same lines as OTL. You definitely don't want crash privatisation and 1990's Russia-styled economic policies. That would be disastrous.
If TienAnMen protest succede in demand for free and fair election, which include multiparty system you would see:
1. Breakup of party along ideological (marxist, maoist, militarists, national socialist, social democrats etc.), regional and ethnic lines. Similar to USSR and Yugoslavia. CIA warned about it.
2. Return of fragmented China as in first half of XX. century.
3. Massive investment in welfare and military/police would prevent economic reforms.
4. No chinese wonder of 10 % GDP growth based on foreign investment and laxed labour, envirement and urbanist/property law.
5. If China survives through Yeltsin style years, with half of population in powerty (like in Russia in 1990`s), it would be even harder because of population size to install some one like Putin.
6. North Korea could have even invade weak China !
DEMOCRACY is not equal to PROSPERITY.
Just remember XVIII century Poland.
You honestly think that a second Warlord period would begin after the protests? Not to mention your whole post reads as dictatorship = good, democracy = bad.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161662In August 1967 the CIA again forecast Mao's political demise. The agency told Johnson: "Mao is riding the tiger with his Cultural Revolution but refuses to get off because of the tremendous loss of face and political power that would follow an end to the revolution. Given that situation, we see even greater trouble ahead with, perhaps, a collapse into total anarchy." It predicted that "before final chaos" one of two scenarios would occur: "China will return to the sort of warlord regionalism that marked the 1920s, or there will be a coalition of more 'moderate' military and Communist Party leaders who will ease Mao aside--using him as a symbol, but keeping his hand off the throttle." The agency concluded that "the second course is more likely, and that it may come to pass within the next year."
Counterpoint: Eastern Europe.Than I advise better reading comprehension.
What should be clear to everyone after disasters of imperial collapses, including african postcolonial dictators, iranian revolution 79., Arab socialist revolutions of 1950`s and Arab spring, you can not make democracy succesfull if you do not have a functioning state and society. Enlightened absolutism was unavoidable step in every succesfull democracy, on the road to parliamentary democracy.
Also CIA shared opinion that breakup of China was possible.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161662
tbf there's pretty big difference between 1967 and 1989 China, 1967 China was in the midst of a quasi-civil war called the cultural revolution same wasn't true of 1989 ChinaThan I advise better reading comprehension.
What should be clear to everyone after disasters of imperial collapses, including african postcolonial dictators, iranian revolution 79., Arab socialist revolutions of 1950`s and Arab spring, you can not make democracy succesfull if you do not have a functioning state and society. Enlightened absolutism was unavoidable step in every succesfull democracy, on the road to parliamentary democracy.
Also CIA shared opinion that breakup of China was possible.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161662
And the article linked demonstrates how very wrong the CIA was about the situation in China and therefore doesn't make the case that China could've fractured.tbf there's pretty big difference between 1967 and 1989 China, 1967 China was in the midst of a quasi-civil war called the cultural revolution same wasn't true of 1989 China
tbf there's pretty big difference between 1967 and 1989 China, 1967 China was in the midst of a quasi-civil war called the cultural revolution same wasn't true of 1989 China
The United StatesName me one multiethnic state that survived. This all collapsed: Soviet Union, Chehoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Austro-hungary, Ottoman empire, British empire, French empire (Algiers)... Sometimes even shared language and history are not enough.
Most Chinese now speak Standard Chinese.China has been divided between North and South for Millenias. Mandarin and Cantonese are different languages. I would like to hear any evidence that chinese people would freely except todays imperial bureaucracy system if you have some.
And most of world speaks english. Does not mean a thing.The United States
Most Chinese now speak Standard Chinese.
If the Berlin wall could fall in 1989, it's at least plausible for the same to happen in China. So what if it did happen and China was able to transition to democracy just like Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland etc.?
-Does this cause a domino effect that brings an end to communism in North Korea and Southeast Asia?
-With China now a democracy, does this allow them to fully supercede the US as the leader of the free world?
-What happens with Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau?
-How are the Russians effected?
If China is a democracy, the people of Taiwan could be much less hesitant about rejoining the Mainland.Probably not.
Not until their economy surpasses the US one.
There might be less risk of a war over Taiwan in the long-run with a democratic China. Also, maybe a democratic China would be willing to grant more autonomy to Tibet.
Otherwise, no changes.
The Russo-Chinese relationship might be slightly less close, but even that's not guaranteed.
There's probably no significant changes.
Good point.If China is a democracy, the people of Taiwan could be much less hesitant about rejoining the Mainland.
Polish, Irish, German, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Mexican...how many other groups do you want me to name? The idea of the melting pot gave way to recognizing differing ethnic backgrounds in the 90s. You've also clearly never been to ethnic enclaves here in the US.United States ? LOL !
First of all, USA is NOT a multiethnic state ! Everyone shares English language, American nationality and historical identity, and are far more religious than europeans.
It is not multiethnic state by historical and political standards. It has a lot of people of different origin, but none of them are native (except Native Ammericans, in reservations), they do not claim exclusivity. USA is an immigrant nation based on english language, british common law and political institutions. It had single point of origin. Assimilation into english speaking and American identity is almost universal. Only exception to this is a large Mexican minority from California to Texas. And those states have very similar problems to those of multiethnic states.
Secondly, USA is barely 250 years old. Spanish empire in Americas lasted longer.
What is economic surplus?