I'm no Bill Bishop, but I know China pretty well, and I have some thoughts.
There was a time when China could have been democratized, but Tiananmen Square ended any prospect of that happening. Zhao Ziyang, who at the time was the head of the CCP, supported gradually democratizing in the same way Deng's early reforms had gradually "reformed and opened up" the Chinese economy.
The Tiananmen Square protest 1989 (along with other, lesser ones throughout the country) initially looked like a chance to move forward with that agenda. If they had made their point and then left, I think it's likely that's how Deng and the other top leaders would have seen it. The leaders in fact made some minor concessions to the demonstrators, hoping that would end it.
It didn't, and Deng became convinced that they were threatening the entire CCP-led system. That's when the June 5th crackdown occurred, and all hope of peaceful democratic reform died. Zhao Ziyang was removed from power and spent the rest of his life (1989-2005) living in strict house arrest.
Since then, the Chinese government has as a fundamental principle that dissent = threat to their existence. They've spread that message to the populace, with such effectiveness that almost no one I met in 15 years living in China believed that democracy would be good for China.
*If* the CCP government collapsed, which I don't think it will, then the odds that a charismatic democratic leader such as Sun Yat-Sen (leader of the revolution that took down the last Imperial dynasty) would arise are vanishingly small. What is much more likely is that another authoritarian regime would take the place of the CCP-led government.
What's easier? Democratizing maga or democratizing China?
I'm no Bill Bishop, but I know China pretty well, and I have some thoughts.
There was a time when China could have been democratized, but Tiananmen Square ended any prospect of that happening. Zhao Ziyang, who at the time was the head of the CCP, supported gradually democratizing in the same way Deng's early reforms had gradually "reformed and opened up" the Chinese economy.
The Tiananmen Square protest 1989 (along with other, lesser ones throughout the country) initially looked like a chance to move forward with that agenda. If they had made their point and then left, I think it's likely that's how Deng and the other top leaders would have seen it. The leaders in fact made some minor concessions to the demonstrators, hoping that would end it.
It didn't, and Deng became convinced that they were threatening the entire CCP-led system. That's when the June 5th crackdown occurred, and all hope of peaceful democratic reform died. Zhao Ziyang was removed from power and spent the rest of his life (1989-2005) living in strict house arrest.
Since then, the Chinese government has as a fundamental principle that dissent = threat to their existence. They've spread that message to the populace, with such effectiveness that almost no one I met in 15 years living in China believed that democracy would be good for China.
*If* the CCP government collapsed, which I don't think it will, then the odds that a charismatic democratic leader such as Sun Yat-Sen (leader of the revolution that took down the last Imperial dynasty) would arise are vanishingly small. What is much more likely is that another authoritarian regime would take the place of the CCP-led government.