Earlier this month Dissent Magazine hosted a debate between Daniel A. Bell and Michael Walzer about the international community’s role in China:
In the end, Bell has narrowed the debate such that it’s a bit of a trap. He agrees with Walzer “about the need for more freedoms of speech and association in China,” but adds “the argument here is whether the international community should support national level elections in China: meaning that the democratically chosen leader would hold all the trump cards.”
Surely there is more to democracy than this? What of local or provincial elections? What about encouraging China to end its tight control on the media and open discussion of sensitive topics, allow for free assembly, the right to peacefully demonstrate, and provide its citizens unhindered access to the courts to pursue these rights while freeing the judiciary to make decisions on the merits of the case rather than the political requirements of the local Party secretary? Do these not count as forms of democratization?
Jottings from a Granite Studio critiques the debate:
In the end, Bell has narrowed the debate such that it’s a bit of a trap. He agrees with Walzer “about the need for more freedoms of speech and association in China,” but adds “the argument here is whether the international community should support national level elections in China: meaning that the democratically chosen leader would hold all the trump cards.”
Surely there is more to democracy than this? What of local or provincial elections? What about encouraging China to end its tight control on the media and open discussion of sensitive topics, allow for free assembly, the right to peacefully demonstrate, and provide its citizens unhindered access to the courts to pursue these rights while freeing the judiciary to make decisions on the merits of the case rather than the political requirements of the local Party secretary? Do these not count as forms of democratization?
