Ship of Fools: Is China more legitimate than the BBC?

Thread: Is China more legitimate than the BBC? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024140

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

I was reading an article on line the other day which argued that China may enjoy more legitimacy than western democracies. Where did I read this do you think? The Socialist Worker? The Weekly Worker? No, it was the BBC!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20178655

Has the BBC not caught up yet?

Dear BBC,

In 1989 there was something called the Tiananman Square Massacre during which peaceful protests were brutally suppressed. During the same year the Berlin wall fell and the East German government fell. There was a series of revolutions across Eastern Europe. Are you also suggesting BBC that the German Democratic Republic enjoyed more legitimacy the Federal Republic of Germany? Is your memory so short BBC or did 1989 simply pass you by?

Yours faithfully

Makepiece

Right, now that I've got that off my chest, why do we have to pay a licence fee? Interesting time to raise the issue of legitimacy on the website BBC. Have people dared challenge your authority recently BBC? The thing is the BBC doesn't really like democracy does it? It is a huge, wealthy organisation which collects the licence fee with no democratic accountability at all. It is an illegitimate tax because the people have no choice as to who is running the BBC or the content.

[ 06. November 2012, 20:00: Message edited by: Makepiece ]

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

It seems to me that you miss the point that this is an opinion piece, written by one Martin Jacques, not by 'the BBC'.

What on earth has it to do with licence fees?

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

The BBC published it! I don't see any mainstream organisations publishing such tripe. It doesn't relate to the licence fee it relates to the legitimacy. I was extrapolating the issue of legitimacy raised in the article and applying it to the BBC. Do you follow now?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Have you actually read the argument, Makepiece? He is arguing for the relative political legitimacy of the countries' governments amongst their people. He cites statistics.

He is simply framing the issue in a different way that normally used by western political thinkers of today. If the Chinese people see things primarily in this way, is it not at least beneficial to understand that? There are certainly other ways of looking at it of course and I am hardly a cheerleader for the current setup in China.

I have no idea what you are on about concerning the BBC. I expect to be challenged by an intelligent medium, which is why I no longer subscribe to a daily newspaper. When I want somebody else's same-old regurgitated prejudices, I have an infinity of public bars to visit.

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

Yes, the BBC published it. Worse, they broadcast it! And it's the fourth (I think) in a series of highly interesting talks, given by this man.

Is the BBC only allowed to broadcast and publish things you happen to approve of? I have enjoyed all four talks; they throw a new light on a not-very-well understood civilisation. One that it will be vital for the West to understand better in future.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

He cites statistics.

Oh yes! Of course I'd missed the statistics. Now my view is completely different. 90%!!! Gosh isn't that impressive. If only western democracies would cotton on that in order to gain high approval ratings you need to engage in more brutal suppression and censorship. I see it all clearly now. Thank you.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Inger:

Is the BBC only allowed to broadcast and publish things you happen to approve of?

No, but when they start to promote anti-democratic sentiment they cross the line in my book. Democratic legitimacy is a core value in the UK and I expect the country's quasi-governmental TV station to uphold this core value. It is not clear to me that non-democratic societies actually value legitimacy. IMO any government which has not been elected by the people but which wields great authority is illegitimate. I don;t object to a persons right to express such a view but I am shocked that a British institution would condone such a view. Perhaps I am not being objective because I can still remember the pain on the faces of those who fled Tiananmen Square and the joy on the faces of those who streamed into Western Berlin.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

FFS, Makepiece, are we reading the same article? It's talking about political legitimacy.

quote:
In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. (Wikipedia)

At an acceptance level of 95.9% for central government, that's a major difference from current western opinion - especially in the USA.

You are talking about the derivation of the governmental mandate, a subject on which I would guess we might agree.

Instead of vigorously hurling your toys out of the pram, why not pour yourself a stiff drink, get a good night's sleep and let's debate it tomorrow - ?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Makepiece
It is not the statistics you seem to miss, but the basic premise. He is not making a case as to ethics, transparency or many of the values westerners expect from their governments. If you read this link from the article, you can get a better sense of what is being discussed as legitimacy.
From the article:

quote:
Two clear trends are visible. Citizens ‘disaggregate’ the state and, while they express high levels of satisfaction with the central government, satisfaction declines with each lower level of government. While in 2009, 95.9 per cent were either relatively or extremely satisfied with the central government, this dropped to 61.5 per cent at the local level (see graph below).

This shows where the Chinese associate the corruption which the West sees as homogeneous.
This is not to say they are blind to the problems extant at each level, but shows where they see the main problems as originating.

[ 06. November 2012, 22:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

I would say having read the article that he is right in one important respect - almost all the Chinese people I have worked with see themselves as an important piece of the machine exactly where they are. In contrast a majority of Western people think that their overwhelming talent as the leader of the free world goes unnoticed. How often do we start an argument with the phrase "If I were prime minister/president...", the Chinese people I have met just don't think like that. Of course another thing is that the West is generally in decline, whether in spirit or in actuality, while China is for the moment, ascendant.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
If only western democracies would cotton on that in order to gain high approval ratings you need to engage in more brutal suppression and censorship. I see it all clearly now. Thank you.

(My bold)

You're the one who wants to ban the BBC from publishing views that challenge the political status quo.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I heard some of the broadcasts, and thought the speaker was nearly as naively uncritical and adulatory as the late Joseph Needham - who I also heard many years ago.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

At the risk of transgressing Godwin’s Law, I have to say that this endorsement of the Chinese dictatorship reminded me forcefully of the features which impressed observers of Germany 1933-9:

1. Seemingly miraculous economic expansion.

2. A mystical, organic union of people and leadership, in contrast with the unseemly bickering which characterized liberal democracies.

3. Massive popular endorsement of the government in plebiscites held in 1933, 1934, 1936 and 1938; in the most important, August 1934, 95% of registered voters went to the polls, of whom 90% voted in favour of the Nazi dictatorship.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Where did I read this do you think? The Socialist Worker? The Weekly Worker? No, it was the BBC!

Did you expect a significant difference of opinion between these?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
I would say having read the article that he is right in one important respect - almost all the Chinese people I have worked with see themselves as an important piece of the machine exactly where they are.

That's just a left wing way of saying they Know Their Place.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's just a left wing way of saying they Know Their Place.

Yes pretty much so but then doesn't this measure of legitimacy lump ignorance, apathy and complacency in with enthusuastic support? A lower level of support for more local tiers of government seems to indicate that people are more involved with local rather than national government.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
If only western democracies would cotton on that in order to gain high approval ratings you need to engage in more brutal suppression and censorship. I see it all clearly now. Thank you.
(My bold)

You're the one who wants to ban the BBC from publishing views that challenge the political status quo.

I don't want to ban them from publishing it. I just don't want to pay them to publish it.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
FFS, Makepiece, are we reading the same article? It's talking about political legitimacy.
quote:
In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a régime. (Wikipedia)
At an acceptance level of 95.9% for central government, that's a major difference from current western opinion - especially in the USA.

Yes but where popular acceptance has been achieved through suppression of information and people I do not believe that could be described as political legitimacy. For a start can the people be said to genuinely 'accept' the authority in the absence of any viable alternatives. Its like victims who fall in love with their kidnappers.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

Most of his arguments for the exceptionalism of the 'civilisation-state' of China could be applied also to India.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I don't want to ban them from publishing it. I just don't want to pay them to publish it.

Then don't. Get rid of your telly and stop paying them!

Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on :

A little knowledge is a useful thing.
Martin Jaques was formerly a significant figure within the Communist Party of Great Britain as a leading "Eurocommunist" (go look it up) and editor of Marxism Today. He was also a friend of Nina Temple who became leader of said CPGB in the eighties before first changing its name to "Democratic Left" then winding it up altogether.
He was described by Francis Beckett in his book on the CPGB (well worth a read) as the only person for whom membership of the CPGB was a successful career move.
He no doubt has an interesting take on Chinese affairs, about which he is currently a leading pundit (and visiting fellow at the LSE no less), and I would be interested in what he has to say: the article is entitled "A Point of View" after all, but I wouldn't necessarily take it on face value and it's best to bear all of the above in mind when considering his comments.
That said, if the BBC is going to give the likes of Anne Atkins or Melanie Phillps a platform now and again, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let MJ have his say. Y'know, free speech and all that.
Avanti Popolo,
Wulfstan

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:

That said, if the BBC is going to give the likes of Anne Atkins or Melanie Phillps a platform now and again, it doesn't seem unreasonable to let MJ have his say. Y'know, free speech and all that.
Avanti Popolo,
Wulfstan

Neither of these are the right wing equivalent, that would be Nick Griffin. Having said that Anne Atkins once defended the Oxford Union's decision to invite Nick Griffin to speak on the basis that

"When you say that the majority view is always right I think that is a deeply dangerous and disturbing thing to say. I am not for a moment saying that I agree with David Irving or Nick Griffin but I am saying that once you start having truth by democracy you risk silencing some of the most important prophets we have ever had."

I guess this is a view that you and Anne Atkins share in common. Whilst I do not object to freedom of speech I also, for the avoidance of doubt, strongly disagreed with Nick Griffiin's appearance on Question Time (another BBC show giving airtime to anti-democrats).

Interestingly the CPGB promotes democratic centralism which is the theory that a small, unchanging government is actually more democratic than, what they term, consensus democracy, on the basis that the people actually have more power that way [Killing me]

[ 11. November 2012, 18:04: Message edited by: Makepiece ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Interestingly the CPGB promotes democratic centralism which is the theory that a small, unchanging government is actually more democratic than, what they term, consensus democracy, on the basis that the people actually have more power that way

That sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

It's actually a euphemism for the dictatorship of the Politburo. The proletariat is, allegedly, too corrupted by capitalist hegemony to actually make decisions themselves. The theory goes that the Politburo will make decisions which 'empower' the proletariat and so it doesn't matter if any views which the proletariat have are contradict the decision of the p'buro.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

That's pretty close to the theory of the necessity of cadres, isn't it?

(PS - sorry to vanish without trace for several days but domestic circumstances intervened)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm not that knowledgeable about Marxist theory, but have alway understood that it was never envisaged the entire proletariat would exercise its dictatorship collectively, rather than that some single person, or Politburo would exercise the dictatorship on its behalf.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0