If there is any thorny issue for CCP right now, it is the economy rather than a documents signed by some thousands of people, which is a pretty small number by Chinese standards.

As for the idea expressed in the documents, I have to say, sadly, it just makes feel more skeptical about it. It’s not that democracy, rule of law and freedom are not good or I do not like; but because everything in that document just sounds too familiar to me.

To have a democractic China, the most important thing is to end one party rule;Freedom of expression, assocation, assembly are critical to the democratical system……

Sounds great?

You can easily find these kinds of things from CCP publications before 1949, at a time when they were the one being suppressed by KMT.(There is a famous article on internet called “找回解放前的《新华日报》—-关于民 主 政 治”, the title differs from blog to blog, but the contents are similar, kind like Charter 08. I have not investigate if these quotations from Xinhua Daily were true or not, but I did read some Xin Qing Nian from 1920s before at library, which were quite similar to these ones, so I do believe there are truth in them.

So here are my issue with this Charter. It sounds good, but that’s all. It sets great promises,yet these promises just sounds too empty to believe in. It could easily give the drafter a moral high ground, yet still not in a position of responsible for the real management of the country. If they do have the power to do what they said, being in a position to change the country the way they wanted, will they fulfill their promises? I doubt it. KMT and CCP have set the examples of what these noble people would become when they have the chance to interpret their words in their ways and actully have to power to do as such.

The system that they put so much effort to change and destory eventully turned themselves into another system that is even more powerful, centrailized and brutal. Because that is the only way to overthrow the previous regime. So the dilemma for these activists are that they either die as hero, or live long enough to become the villain (This is a line I really appreciate from The Dark Knight).

The real tricky issue for Chinese who do want rule of law and freedom is actully, I believe, whether they really like it or not and are willing to pay for the cost.

The cost I talked here is not money or the lives that are going to be taken for revoluation, but a way of life that most Chinese have been used to for thousands of years. It is a tradition, custom, and norm.
Will Chinese be willing to give up such things, at the risk of their(our) own identity.

It’s easy to talk about a clean and transparent government, but being the one who is in charge of making it is totally different. Because it is no longer about what he or she believes in, but what he or she decides not to believe and act in a way he is not really comfortable with. This Charter, unfortunately, addresses little of it.

January 7, 2009 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

If there is any thorny issue for CCP right now, it is the economy rather than a documents signed by some thousands of people, which is a pretty small number by Chinese standards.

January 7, 2009 @ 10:44 pm | Comment

Yes, but it’s getting a lot of media attention and it could well add to the financial crisis – activists around the world could latch onto this and use it to hurt China financially. It’s been done before. It may be a small number proportionally, but they are making a lot of noise.

January 7, 2009 @ 10:51 pm | Comment

As for the idea expressed in the documents, I have to say, sadly, it just makes feel more skeptical about it. It’s not that democracy, rule of law and freedom are not good or I do not like; but because everything in that document just sounds too familiar to me.

To have a democractic China, the most important thing is to end one party rule;Freedom of expression, assocation, assembly are critical to the democratical system……

Sounds great?

You can easily find these kinds of things from CCP publications before 1949, at a time when they were the one being suppressed by KMT.(There is a famous article on internet called “找回解放前的《新华日报》—-关于民 主 政 治”, the title differs from blog to blog, but the contents are similar, kind like Charter 08. I have not investigate if these quotations from Xinhua Daily were true or not, but I did read some Xin Qing Nian from 1920s before at library, which were quite similar to these ones, so I do believe there are truth in them.

So here are my issue with this Charter. It sounds good, but that’s all. It sets great promises,yet these promises just sounds too empty to believe in. It could easily give the drafter a moral high ground, yet still not in a position of responsible for the real management of the country. If they do have the power to do what they said, being in a position to change the country the way they wanted, will they fulfill their promises? I doubt it. KMT and CCP have set the examples of what these noble people would become when they have the chance to interpret their words in their ways and actully have to power to do as such.

The system that they put so much effort to change and destory eventully turned themselves into another system that is even more powerful, centrailized and brutal. Because that is the only way to overthrow the previous regime. So the dilemma for these activists are that they either die as hero, or live long enough to become the villain (This is a line I really appreciate from The Dark Knight).

The real tricky issue for Chinese who do want rule of law and freedom is actully, I believe, whether they really like it or not and are willing to pay for the cost.

The cost I talked here is not money or the lives that are going to be taken for revoluation, but a way of life that most Chinese have been used to for thousands of years. It is a tradition, custom, and norm.
Will Chinese be willing to give up such things, at the risk of their(our) own identity.

It’s easy to talk about a clean and transparent government, but being the one who is in charge of making it is totally different. Because it is no longer about what he or she believes in, but what he or she decides not to believe and act in a way he is not really comfortable with. This Charter, unfortunately, addresses little of it.

January 7, 2009 @ 10:57 pm | Comment

Sorry about the repetition, the first post did not make through at first.

January 8, 2009 @ 1:34 am | Comment

A document written by a few nerd intellectuals is going to topple the CCP? If CCP is that weak, it would’ve been toppled several times over in the past 50 years.

You think CCP won China by writing a few loser documents? Stop joking me. If the Communist Revolution in China were run by the writers of this 08 Charter, CCP would never had won China.

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. CCP has been trying to look for a worthy opponent all these years, from 6/4, to FLG, to all these democracy activsts overseas, yet no one can rise to the challenge?

I think CCP is getting lonely at the top for so long, and wanted to find a good opponent. Clearly there’s no hope.

I actually think the US is the most worthy opponent so far.

To those intellectuals, wash up and go to bed, it’s game over. Be smart and learn some useful skills to support your family, maybe Java programming or Microsoft .NET programming. I hear the job market for these are still good.

January 8, 2009 @ 1:39 am | Comment

@HongXing
“A document written by a few nerd intellectuals is going to topple the CCP”

Would you rather prefer something more violent?

January 8, 2009 @ 1:56 am | Comment

Of course, it would then mean they have more guts. They are man of action, not losers. Start a militia in the Shaanxi province and recruit local disgruntled farmers. If you can take one or two provinces in 2 years, I’d join you.

January 8, 2009 @ 2:11 am | Comment

Ha ha ha. Good luck with your repetition of history HongXing

January 8, 2009 @ 2:22 am | Comment

Or should I say,,, chairman HongXing?

January 8, 2009 @ 2:22 am | Comment

Ok, then you don’t have guts. Continue to sit at home and write some loser documents and masturbate, and get high every year on 6/4 anniversary thinking you have a chance this year.

Of course I cannot blame those writers. Due to the economic recession in US, their funding has been greatly reduced. I saw a few days ago in New York that FLG’s newspapers have reduced pages, and they cancelled a lot of their rallies. Budget cuts from NED, too sad.

So to avoid being laid off, they need to create some new project, to show NED that they are still worthy, that if they keep writing these documents one day CCP will collapse.

But the NED head told them in one of the meetings: “What have you accomplished in these years?!?! You losers! I pour millions and millions of dollars every year into your groups, and all you have is some %$@#! documents and a few blogs?! After Obama takes office, I don’t even know if we are going to exist. Next year, if you don’t show me progress, we disband you!”

That’s why I advised them to learn Java programming or .NET programming, if they get laid off in 2009.

January 8, 2009 @ 2:29 am | Comment

It’s funny how Hongxing so pitch perfectly captures the sentiments of Yuan Shikai, Duan Qirui and other politicans and warlords of an earlier era when they dismissed such “nerd intellectuals” as Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao. Reactionary anti-intellectualism is so tiresome, no matter what the age or medium.

January 8, 2009 @ 7:23 am | Comment

“If you can take one or two provinces in 2 years, I’d join you.”

Ahh, yes. That time honoured strategy; wait to see which way the wind is blowing then jump on board. A true revolutionary.

January 8, 2009 @ 7:35 am | Comment

[…] This CSM article at  gives a few more reasons why Charter ‘08 may yet give the CCP a bloody nose. Hat tip to Richard at Peking Duck. […]

January 8, 2009 @ 8:05 am | Pingback

It’s funny how Hongxing so pitch perfectly captures the sentiments of Yuan Shikai, Duan Qirui and other politicans and warlords of an earlier era when they dismissed such “nerd intellectuals” as Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao. Reactionary anti-intellectualism is so tiresome, no matter what the age or medium.

This sentence is more convincing if Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao were key members who helped win the Chinese revolution.

Unfortunately, it was Mao and his illiterate farmer-generals who pushed the KMT out of Mainland and won China. Not those nerd intellectuals. Imagine Mao was like that, and fantasized about winning China by writing a Charter. Then today China would not have been governed by the CCP.

To give you a sentence for free: “枪杆子里出政权“。

January 8, 2009 @ 8:11 am | Comment

Hongxing,

I would have thought you would have had a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of CCP history. Sad, really, that you don’t.

January 8, 2009 @ 8:13 am | Comment

你小子不是那08宪章签名人之一吧？ 不过要是是也不用害怕，土共不会把你一洋书呆子咋样的。 不过我看你这历史研究也别做了，做了也挣不了几个钱，还每年要担心被NED砍了Funding. 不如去学编程，比如 java 或者那什么 .NET 之类的，下半辈子也好有着落，你说是不？

你看得懂我写的吗？ 要是看不懂你还研究中国历史研究个屁啊。。。。

—-
You are not that 08 charter signatory are you? But don’t worry. CCP won’t do anything to a foreign nerd like you. But why continue this history research? How much money do you make? And you have to worry about funding cut from NED every year. Why not go learn Java or .NET programming, at least you’ll have a stable job for the 2nd half of your life. You know?

January 8, 2009 @ 9:25 am | Comment

Hongxing still lives in the past and believes in Mao’s myth that political power comes from the guns. Surely guns were the effective means to seize power from anther ruler when Mao’s was a rebel. Further past in history before guns were invented, political powers came from the swords, right?

In the modern era, guns are obsolete and no longer the effective means to secure and maintain power. This is evidenced by the revolution in the former Soviet Bloc and the faltering North Korean and Cuban regimes. As you know, pen is mightier than sword. By the similar token, peaceful revolution is mightier than guns.

If Chinese people are only concerned with the material life and indifferent to political freedom while the rest of 3rd world is striving for more democracy and freedom, then they could be deemed as a people with dubious worth rather than the one with worthy tradition and custom.

January 8, 2009 @ 10:14 am | Comment

Ah, money: the vulgar man’s score card. 子曰君子喻於義小人喻於利。The world needs merchants like you I guess, but for me…I’d still rather be a 书虫子 humbly teaching my subject and enjoying all that life has blessed me and my family with.

January 8, 2009 @ 11:11 am | Comment

While my points are not as extreme as HongXing, but I do believe that bringing Charter 08 mandates of will bring China further into turmoil. The Charter 08 mandates thinks that China’s problem will be solved when democracy in fact, it does not. Much of the economic growth during the last 30 years was done by the CCP government. Many of the overseas investors invested in China because the CCP has provided social stability and order within China. Many of those same investors would not invest in China if they turned into a democracy. If you look at countries like Thailand and Pakistan, they lost alot of businesses in the recent years because of political instability there. Democracy in China sounds good on paper, but will do China more harm than good.

January 9, 2009 @ 11:58 am | Comment

In seriousness, this Charter repeated says “the will of the Chinese people”. How do they know they represent the will of the Chinese people? 300 nerd intellectuals can represent the will of 1.3 billion people? Come on. The CCP always says in they “represent” this and “represent” that and you guys always ridiculous that phrase. Yet this 08 Charter uses these phrases even more frequently than the CPP.

Look at the text of this Charter. Lacks any depth or substance. Just repeating some old empty slogans. Even in the realm of nerd-intellectualizing, they fall way short. If you really want your movement to amount to something, you really need some “meat”, some substance, some comprehensive platform. Look at Marx, he’s the king of all nerd-intellectual. Does this Charter even have the 1/00 of the substance and depth of Das Kapital, of the Communist Manifesto?

Even just looking at the texture of the writing, just look at the language of the Communist Maniesto and compare it to this 08 Charter. You’ll realize why Marx is the King of all nerd-intellectuals. Full of energy, of blood, of excitement. “Prolateriat, unite, what you’ll lose are only your chains, and what you’ll gain is the entire world.” Hohoho, what a sentence!

So those 08 charter writers, you are not even good nerd-intellectuals. No one wonder no one listens to you.

January 9, 2009 @ 1:11 pm | Comment

it’s quite funny to assume someone doesn’t speak chinese and mock them for it when you can’t even think of an appropriate word for “funding” in chinese.

oh, yes, i think you’ll find the correct quote is ‘政权是由枪杆子中取得的’

January 9, 2009 @ 4:21 pm | Comment

Thanks for this post, Richard. I was blissfully unaware of Charter 08!

Commenter “A Chinese” wrote:
“(…) a document signed by some thousands of people, which is a pretty small number by Chinese standards.”

Given the risks involved in publicly signing such a document, it seems to me, that “thousands” are doing so is actually quite significant.

And if the comments I hear from some of the middle class Chinese white collars in my classes are any indication, the sentiments of Charter 08 are definitely not confined to a few thousands of people.

I get the impression that a lot of Chinese are increasingly fed up with one party rule, and especially corruption. They might not be out marching in the streets with protest signs, but it seems to me that more of them are thinking and talking – sometimes openly – about these ideas, significantly more so than when I arrived here eight years ago.

January 9, 2009 @ 4:35 pm | Comment

@pug_ster

Much of the economic growth during the last 30 years was done by the CCP government.

The economic growth during the last 30 was allowed by the CCP, once the lunatic Mao Zedong was gone and Deng Xiaoping had started introducing a minimum of pragmatism and common sense into the economic policies of the CCP. It was done by hardworking Chinese people who have two free days per month and earn hardly enough to live on – if they get paid.

Many of the overseas investors invested in China because the CCP has provided social stability and order within China.

Let’s say relative social stability and order (only a few thousand riots every year) combined with one of the cheapest workforces worldwide and the widespread belief that China was the new Eldorado.

Many of those same investors would not invest in China if they turned into a democracy.

Like who? Can you give any examples? Have you considered all those people who are not investing in China now, but would if China was a democracy?

If you look at countries like Thailand and Pakistan, they lost alot of businesses in the recent years because of political instability there.

Are you trying to say that democracy equals political instability and bad business? How is it possible, then, that all the most successful economies in the world, the most developed countries with the highest standard of living and also the highest degree of social stability, are deomocracies?

Democracy in China sounds good on paper, but will do China more harm than good.

The big question is: would a democratic system do more harm to the people in China than the actual authoritarian system is doing to them?

January 9, 2009 @ 6:42 pm | Comment

@HongXing

Look at the text of this Charter. Lacks any depth or substance. Just repeating some old empty slogans.

贼喊捉贼

January 9, 2009 @ 6:45 pm | Comment

> Are you trying to say that democracy equals political instability and bad business? How is it possible, then, that all the most successful economies in the world, the most developed countries with the highest standard of living and also the highest degree of social stability, are deomocracies?

—

Of course they often turn to socialism and bailouts when the going gets tough.

January 10, 2009 @ 5:08 am | Comment

Jake, that’s a fairly simplistic conclusion, don’t you think? I mean, countries may turn to weapons and violence at a time of war, but that doesn’t mean violence is the best way to handle things, that we should adopt a violent way of life. In extreme situations you have to do what no one wants to do – borrow money, fight wars, set up security checkpoints or whatever. The fact that a country in a time of crisis launches a bailout doesn’t mean that socialism is better than democracy. There is plenty of statistical evidence to show that democracies have historically had far stronger and longer-sustained economies than those of Communist countries.

A friend of mine recently told me I should just start deleting all idiotic comments that are made not to really share ideas but just to annoy, comments that are flat-out dumb. No explanation, no apology, just delete. I’ve always resisted this approach, but now I’m looking at all the time wasted trying to argue with comment bombers and I think my friend is onto something.

January 10, 2009 @ 12:03 pm | Comment

@ mor: “贼喊捉贼” Ha! That was priceless! Thank you!

@ Richard: I think your friend is onto something. 😉

January 10, 2009 @ 8:20 pm | Comment

If Chinese people are only concerned with the material life and indifferent to political freedom while the rest of 3rd world is striving for more democracy and freedom, then they could be deemed as a people with dubious worth rather than the one with worthy tradition and custom.

Most people in developing countries are concerned with the economy i.e feeding themselves and their families, procuring medicines, having access to water. We’re getting bored of people like you trying to use extortion in debate by suggesting that the Chinese are uniquely subhuman if they prefer to survive over voting. This goes to show that most “China bloggers” are laughably ethnocentric and simply retarded at times.

There is plenty of statistical evidence to show that democracies have historically had far stronger and longer-sustained economies than those of Communist countries.

I don’t believe anyone is arguing that Communist authoritarianism as an economic system is not a failure. That doesn’t mean that democracy is automatically the solution. You say that all of the most successful economies in the world now are democracies, but they weren’t always democratic. All of them, without exception, had a period of authoritarian capitalism with plenty of nationalism to go with it.

The problem is that democracies are less able to fend for themselves, all other things considered, on the international stage. Authoritarian systems can make painful sacrifices for hard power- those countries with a looser grip tend to collapse on themselves when pressured by foreign powers. e.g Democratic Congo and Chile voted for Communists- America bombed and burned them. That is, you can have democracy up until you vote for the candidate America opposes. “People power” rhetoric, or more pejoratively “nerd intellectuals” are ill-equipped to vie for the nation’s survival in opposition to an established superpower.

Once there are fewer external threats I’m sure you’ll start to see that China is better able to “afford” what would be seen as more democracy. However as America is hellbent on destabilizing any potential competitors (at the expense of their people), it’s unlikely that this will happen in the immediate future.

January 11, 2009 @ 6:10 pm | Comment

Your Guy/Ferin:

I agree with your condemnation of American foreign policy and military behavior around the globe. Too bad it doesn’t really prove what you’re trying to say.

To summarize your above point:

“Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy…We deny your internationalism, because it is a luxury which only the upper classes can afford; the working people are hopelessly bound to their native shores.” – Benito Mussolini

Just wanted to let you know who your intellectual compatriots were. Nice crowd.

January 11, 2009 @ 6:15 pm | Comment

Heh. Keep the ignorant masses ignorant….

January 11, 2009 @ 7:02 pm | Comment

1) I agree with ‘Yourfriend”s comment on how laughable it is to compare the strength of a democratic political system being sustained in a Western country as opposed to the strength of a Communist political system being sustained inside of an Eastern country. China’s government will not stand by the reign of democracy, thus it is laughable to believe so.
2) Nod at Richards ‘ignorant’ comment.

January 11, 2009 @ 7:55 pm | Comment

Overall it brings utter irritation to an outsider who has strong admiration of the present Chinese government to hear of such Charters being issued by mainland chinese citizens. It is incredulous to be ignorant to the fact that the Chinese government is currently the best most progressive and effective government in the world right now. Can the stupendous amount of growth in Chinese development, industry and economy not be proof enough to reason this point? There is not even a name for this kind of prosperous political system in which the Chinese government is using, it is completely new and different from all of the past systems which have been used. It is not quite Communist yet it’s still a republic for the people, and it still is government controlled with chinese characteristics. Companies love the Chinese government because it deliberately finds ways for companies to prosper and grow from.
-I still have more to say, but due to hydration I’ll have to save the rest for later.

January 11, 2009 @ 8:13 pm | Comment

Charlie, in regard to your first comment: I’m not quite sure who Ferin was actually arguing with. I don’t think there’s anyone in here who believes a Western-style democracy can be imposed on China and then just run smoothly from there.

In regard to the econd comment, please scroll down to the thread about corruption and tell me how this is the most progressive and efficient government. And read carefully the disclaimer at the end agreeing that America has done dreadful things, too.

China is many things. It’s growth is undeniable, but o too is the enormity of its problems, its corruption its environment. And I’m afraid at least a fair portion of the economic miracle was smoke and mirrors – often the result of dirty deals, and often the products making al the money ended up being second-rate at best. Anyway, we’ve been discussing these things for years, and no one in here is “ignorant” of what you reference. but not all of us see it the same way. There is no good or bad, right or wrong perspective, and yours is way too positive. This system you extol is on the brink of a pummeling that will test it to its limits. It will survive, I believe, but in the process we will see all the fissures in that mythological structure you so worship. It is not nearly as efficient or dazzling as you’d like to think, I’m afraid.

January 11, 2009 @ 9:15 pm | Comment

Jeremiah said: blah blah blah blah blah blah, I think I’m witty! You’re like Hitle- no, Mussolini!

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. – Plato

January 13, 2009 @ 3:41 pm | Comment

@yourfriend/Ferin

Jeremiah said: blah blah blah blah blah blah, I think I’m witty! You’re like Hitle- no, Mussolini!

Wow, Ferin, the way you are taking apart Jeremiah’s whole argument – just phenomenal!!! One has to admire your rhetorical skills.

January 13, 2009 @ 9:32 pm | Comment

Am I going to argue with the part where he agreed with me?

Don’t you think it was a tragedy when your grandparents voted for Hitler and caused millions to die?

I guess not.

January 14, 2009 @ 12:31 pm | Comment

@yourfriend/Ferin

“Don’t you think it was a tragedy when your grandparents voted for Hitler and caused millions to die?”

Thank you Ferin, one example of false ID usage was enough, you can take your name back now.

January 14, 2009 @ 12:49 pm | Comment