From the Taipei Times today:

The former KMT regime and the former DPP administration had secretly funded overseas democratic movements, but following the accession of the Ma government there have been rumors that government-backed financial support was cut off.

Rebutting the claim, MAC officials said the Ma administration maintained close contact with such groups and continues to fund them.

Any funding would likely be channeled through the NSC which is not subject to any public scrutiny, so we can’t really know what the truth is. Like you though, I am not optimistic.

Fine. Sounds wonderful. So what are they DOING to help bring about the “democratic” part of the equation?

A paper like the China Post will simply say that democracy in China is “inevitable”, and leave it at that. Which is the lazy man’s way out. If something’s inevitable, you’ve got a built-in excuse for not actually doing anything to help make it happen. Why SHOULD Ma Ying-jeou speak up about Tiananmen Square. It’s MUCH easier (and less dangerous) to secretly wish upon lucky star!

I’m currently reading a book about Czechoslovakia between the World Wars. In the early ’30s, there was some wishful thinking at times. But the government was also busy funding democratic newspapers in Germany who were opposed to the Nazis.

They gave it a shot, and failed. But nobody can say they didn’t give it a try.

Thirty years from now, if some lucky historian gets into Taiwan’s archives, will they find that the KMT government was secretly funding democratic movements inside China?

If they do, I’ll be the first to offer my sincerest apologies to Ma Ying-jeou, et al. If I’m still around.

But, I’m sad to say, I suspect my hypothetical historian will find something very different. Instead of KMT politicians actively working for a better, democratic China, he’ll find instead that they were busy doing nothing more than cutting deals to line their own pockets.

I see public dissatisfaction with corruption and poor governance as the most likely factors to promote the development of an opposition. It could also be borne out of a basic desire by people to enjoy their civil and political rights.

You are making sense, but I just suggest you consider other possibilities. Taiwan and East Germany provide an interesting contrast.

At the moment.

The Communist government would have to choose to allow the formation of other political parties and then choose to allow them into whatever the political process is in much the same way the KMT did in the 90s.

This would probably require high levels of internal pressure. Some of this is already happening, thanks in large part to the shift in economy and modernization that has taken place over the past 30 years. But it’s not quite enough.

For people en mass to demand a new government it would take a perception of the government truly not acting in the people’s interests. It would take a populist perception of government irresponsibility. For example, the Tieniman square protests were spurred largely by a bump in the economy…the Communist system of economic governance was starting to fail in a capitalist global economy and the first to feel it were graduating students. The government has since shifted the way it manages the economy and the only real issues now are inflation, which has actually been made less of an issue by the global recession, and distribution of wealth.

The other area that might gain populist support is environmentalism, but the government isn’t acting completely, utterly irresponsible there, either.

Can you think of any issues that might get populist support in pushing for a change of government? “Democracy for Democracy’s sake” doesn’t work if the populous in general feels comfortable with the government.

Again, making sense or rambling?

You are assuming that the Chinese transition would be much like that in Taiwan where the authoritarian party still hangs on to power. If that is the case then they would have a great degree of control over the type of opposition that emerges. I have heard rumors that the KMT has plans to re-establish itself in China, presumably after doing a deal with the CCP by selling out Taiwan. However, how would the KMT build any meaningful support in a nation they have been in exile from for 60 years? They would be limited to token participation in a token democracy.

Given the right conditions Chinese civil society can flourish. There is no reason that the Chinese people can’t form their own opposition parties. In my international relations class I gave a presentation on reforms in China under Deng Xiaoping. I concluded by saying that for China to really reform or democratise it must do two things, (1) strengthen the rule of law and (2) allow genuine freedom of association. It is not a good idea to hold elections until these conditions are satisfied.

Another point is that a democratic China would not necessarily be friendly to Taiwan. It could see the emergence of ultra-nationalistic forces, unrestrained by the current norms engendered by the party-state. That said, it is still very important for Taiwan to engage with China. If (semi-)official exchanges are limited to sycophants like Wu Po-hsiung and Lien Chan then the Chinese will never understand the real opinions of the Taiwanese people. They need to hear voices from Taiwan that better represent mainstream opinions.

Let’s say that the stars align, the PRCs leadership sees the light, and the Peoples Republic of China becomes a multi-party Democracy.

Of course the leadership will form it’s own party…let’s call it the “Socialist People’s Party” and put forward it’s own candidates for (assuming a system based on the US Republic system of 3 seperate-but-equal branches) president and legislature.

Who’s going to jump in and be opposition party?

Why, the same political party that still believes that one day they will rule China again, the only other political party with the funds and strength to mount an effective challenge, and the only other political party in China’s history: the KMT.

What would that do to Taiwan’s sovereignty?

Am I making sense at all or just being a nutball?