Blog:Nobel But Misguided Sentiment
<digg/>
Anna Kist, Diplomatic Correspondent, 11th December 2010
The award of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident and political prisoner Liu Xiaobo was a deliberately provocative action on the part of the prize committee. The purpose was served as it outraged the Chinese government that issued threats of retribution to any country, including the UK, that attended the ceremony. In all honesty, had they just ignored the event it would have received a fraction of the attention; the big news is the ludicrous over-reaction rather than the award itself. Shame on those countries that bowed to Chinese pressure and absented themselves too.
Those that support the award, however, should be careful what they wish for. Democracy, as we know it, is far from efficient, often unfair, corrupt, and incompetent. Countless British governments have ruled with barely a third of electors voting for them, the current Coalition excepted. Bush became President of the USA with fewer votes than Al Gore, Russia is run by gangsters, South Africa is effectively an ANC-dominated one party state, Italy is governed by a playboy media baron, and so on. Elections in many parts of the world mean violence and vote-rigging. Even in stable democracies where power genuinely and peacefully changes hands the results are hardly encouraging. Can it really be a good thing that our NHS and education system have been in a state of constant “reform” for the best part of 30 years? What of the continual US interventions and interference in the last 50 years in countries that don’t bow to their business and political interests? Robert Mugabe had a greater legitimately democratic claim to lead his country than Gordon Brown ever did. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in. Meaning whilst various vested interests and elites may gain from a change of government the ordinary citizen rarely sees any positive impact on their own life.
Consider the risks that China might face, with over 2 billion citizens and countless ethnic and cultural divisions stabilised only by the ever-powerful Communist Party, should it introduce Western-style multi-party democracy. Corruption would abound, currently kept in check by the death penalty for offenders. Civil war would be inevitable in Tibet and some Muslim-dominated provinces to the West of the country. Is it really in anyone’s interests, including those of the Chinese people, to destabilise the governance of a quarter of the population of the world? I am not saying Liu Xiaobo deserves to be imprisoned for saying he wants change, but when you think about it properly is the change he wants going to result in peace or anarchy, corruption and mayhem? Sensible analysts would say the latter is the better bet.
Most people living in developing countries are interested not in intangible political freedoms to choose between candidates at an election, but in tangible freedoms and rights – food, housing, protection from crime, then to be free to make a living, to travel, to make choices about health and education, and so on. Is it that important, does it create happiness and contentment, to be able to select between three candidates whose views only vary at the margins. The vast majority of British parliamentary seats are considered safe for one party or another, meaning the reality is the MP is selected by a handful of activists on one party’s selection committee. How different is that from China?
Singapore, one of the wealthiest per capita countries in the World, lauded by the West as a shining beacon of capitalist success is not a free country. It is highly planned, highly centralist, has a high degree of social welfare, and opposition sued out of existence rather than prosecuted. The people live safe and comfortable lives with decent housing and all the consumer goods they want. But they don’t have a free vote at nominal elections. Would they want to go back to the impoverished backwater the British left 50 years ago? Undoubtedly not. China appears to be following the Singapore model in terms of economic freedom. They haven’t yet moved to the concept of suing opposition rather than prosecuting it but that will come in time. Cuba was a corrupt Mafia run country that only served American commercial interests. Most of the population were incredibly poor until Castro seized power. Today, despite the US embargo, it has the highest literacy rates and life expectancy in the region.
If a state delivers wealth, health, education, safety to its citizens then is it not fulfilling its purpose? Is democracy always the better option regardless of the cost? I enjoy my right to free speech, that is actually curtailed by a wide range of legislation that forbids me to express dissident views on race, religion, gender or sexuality. But I am happy to comply with those restrictions as I do not hold dissent views on those topics. Do I have full freedom of speech? No. What about the USA and its constitutional guarantee of free speech? Well no, many Americans would like to jail or even execute Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for his expressions of free speech and the Patriot Act gives the US Government all manner of weapons to suppress dissidents.
There are democracies that murder their own citizens and dictorships that look after their citizens. The world is not black and white in this respect. The Chinese have a way to go to become a respectable and benevolent government but they have to do it their way. It would be good if they released Liu Xiaobo and stopped over-reacting to predictable Western provocation but then I am not running a country of 2 billion people. So far the Chinese have made giant strides in economic and social freedoms yet maintained stability and had a relative peaceful transition; perhaps they know what they are doing. Whilst Liu Xiaobo’s imprisonment may offend our sense of fairness and justice, perhaps it is possible that this is the price of Chinese stability and progress at this point in their development.
© Evrose, 2012
