[benpenguin]

Yes, that is why most developing countries (Barring the few ones we have territorial desputes with), will be a lot more comfortable dealing with the Chinese. That will gradually empower the CCP position's validity.

The downside of the lack of ideology is, China will lose badly in the battle of propaganda, as the mob respond well to "sound bite politics", to which China is unable to offer much.

I am viewing this from the prism of my home town Hong Kong, where disgrunted young people - mixed with a highly incompetent colonial government who lost their master, and a stagnant economy - readily become hordes of anti-China zealots. I have witnessed the horrible damage during the event and the far reaching aftermath, and realized China needs to present some form of digestable ideology. So far, I couldn't see any viable solution to this mess and things are sadly going down a bottomless spiral with no end in sight.

[Potemkin]

The downside of the lack of ideology is, China will lose badly in the battle of propaganda, as the mob respond well to "sound bite politics", to which China is unable to offer much.

I am viewing this from the prism of my home town Hong Kong, where disgrunted young people - mixed with a highly incompetent colonial government who lost their master, and a stagnant economy - readily become hordes of anti-China zealots. I have witnessed the horrible damage during the event and the far reaching aftermath, and realized China needs to present some form of digestable ideology. So far, I couldn't see any viable solution to this mess and things are sadly going down a bottomless spiral with no end in sight.

I agree with this. Every modern nation-state needs some sort of official (or even just semi-official) ideology which can be packaged in an easily-digestible form for the average (wo)man-in-the-street. For example, it was Tsarist Russia's lack of such an ideology (and its failure to understand that it even needed such an ideology) which contributed to its downfall in 1917. The same can be said for Imperial China in 1911. Chairman Mao understood this point very clearly, hence his 'Little Red Book', which was enormously popular at the time. The brutalities and the ultimate failure of the Cultural Revolution have probably contributed to the current Chinese government's aversion to overt ideology and populist sloganising. In my view, this is understandable, but I think it is a mistake.

[annatar1914]

I agree with this. Every modern nation-state needs some sort of official (or even just semi-official) ideology which can be packaged in an easily-digestible form for the average (wo)man-in-the-street. For example, it was Tsarist Russia's lack of such an ideology (and its failure to understand that it even needed such an ideology) which contributed to its downfall in 1917.

Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Alexei Khomiakov, Konstantin Leontiev, Lev Tikhomirov, Nicholai Danilevsky, and Ivan Illyin might disagree with you Potemkin .

Nonetheless, you are absolutely correct that some sort of Ideology or Theology must be central to proper functioning and harmony of society and the state.

[benpenguin]

The brutalities and the ultimate failure of the Cultural Revolution have probably contributed to the current Chinese government's aversion to overt ideology and populist sloganising. In my view, this is understandable, but I think it is a mistake.

The Chinese government does plenty of overt ideology and populist sloganising. The problem is:
1. China's current ideology is not well defined to begin with, and is difficult to summarize, as explained above.
2. Their skills at propaganda is really, really bad. Till this day, they are still using "in your face" big red posters with bright yellow characters that is often way too long and most of the time void of meaningful context.
3. CCP is quite the practicalist and is very goal oriented, so the danger of sloganizing is that it might come back to bite you later when you contradict yourself. It is pretty hard to gain a balance there.
4. While essential to national security, the overzealous censorship policy is severly restricting the growth of our cultural output, i.e. media and entertainment industries, when these things are the most integral part of maintaining a strong propaganda presence - and Xi is seeking to further tighten it.
5. CCP officials are not populists and has traditionally no need to become one. Most of them understand marketing very poorly.
Their skills are gradually getting better, but still not evolving fast enough to combat the onslaught of liberalism.

[Potemkin]

Konstantin Pobedonostsev, Alexei Khomiakov, Konstantin Leontiev, Lev Tikhomirov, Nicholai Danilevsky, and Ivan Illyin might disagree with you Potemkin .

Indeed. But the ideology of guys like Pobedonostsev never became the official state ideology (despite the fact that he was an adviser to three Tsars and became the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod). Neither the aristocracy nor the middle-class, upon whose support the Tsarist system depended for its survival, bought into his reactionary ideology, and the vast majority of the population certainly didn't. As I said, such an ideology, to be effective, must have an appeal to the broad masses of the population, and these were precisely the sorts of people whom the Tsarist system disregarded, thinking of them merely as a "dark mass" to be shaped and ordered about as they saw fit. The fact remains - Tsarist Russia had no populist ideology with which they could control the minds of the masses.

The Chinese government does plenty of overt ideology and populist sloganising. The problem is:
1. China's current ideology is not well defined to begin with, and is difficult to summarize, as explained above.
2. Their skills at propaganda is really, really bad. Till this day, they are still using "in your face" big red posters with bright yellow characters that is often way too long and most of the time void of meaningful context.
3. CCP is quite the practicalist and is very goal oriented, so the danger of sloganizing is that it might come back to bite you later when you contradict yourself. It is pretty hard to gain a balance there.
4. While essential to national security, the overzealous censorship policy is severly restricting the growth of our cultural output, i.e. media and entertainment industries, when these things are the most integral part of maintaining a strong propaganda presence - and Xi is seeking to further tighten it.
5. CCP officials are not populists and has traditionally no need to become one. Most of them understand marketing very poorly.
Their skills are gradually getting better, but still not evolving fast enough to combat the onslaught of liberalism.

You make some good points. However, I had discounted these official "slogans", because of their obvious and almost total ineffectiveness as propaganda. They clearly aren't even trying. The populist slogans from Mao's Little Red Book, on the other hand, were highly effective as propaganda - Mao had a gift for a good turn of phrase, and he knew how to appeal to people's minds and hearts. The lack of any effective populists among the CCP's officials is a problem - especially given the fact that any such populists who do appear are usually Maoists nostalgic for the "good old days" of mass enthusiasm for Communism and for the project of "building socialism" in China. Needless to say, such people usually have to be slapped down again.

[Godstud]

I think the real question is should China ever WANT to be a democracy...

[Andraste]

I agree with Godstud. The question itself of "Do you think China really CAN become a democracy EVER?" presumes that democracy is in fact desired for China. This is hard to believe since China has become the second largest world economy in less than 50 years and uplifted more than a billion people from poverty with its own political system despite numerous foreign challenges, an achievement that no country "democratic" or otherwise has been able to mirror.

[DrSteveBrule]

What are some cultural, historical, social, etc. reasons to base your answers? Personally, I think China is unlikely to become a democracy due to the political environment (the censorship, mixed economy, etc.)

How does a mixed economy preclude political participation?

Generally, democracy is led by enlightenment era ideals, which don't seem to be tolerated in Asian cultures. In this case, I would say that the prospects of a democratic government in China are unlikely. However, the forces of liberalization exerts pressure via economic activity, so it is likely that China will improve on it's human rights in measures such as accountability and compliance with international agreements on human rights, such as freedom of expression.

I agree with Godstud. The question itself of "Do you think China really CAN become a democracy EVER?" presumes that democracy is in fact desired for China. This is hard to believe since China has become the second largest world economy in less than 50 years and uplifted more than a billion people from poverty with its own political system despite numerous foreign challenges, an achievement that no country "democratic" or otherwise has been able to mirror.

The United States has made some impressive developments, despite it's extraordinarily young age. I would say that the achievements of America gives China a run for it's money.

[UnusuallyUsual]

Of course China can become a democracy.... it practically started to become one briefly during the 1910s but tons of factors coincided to destroy that. Taiwan is a democracy though... and it's essentially a miniature version of China (without a lot of the "baggage" and with a lot more rich people of course).