In a recent Wall Street Journal article Dave Shambaugh predicted the collapse of the Chinese communist system.  in this article he states that the parties days are limited and the countdown to disaster has already begun. This may seem extreme but drawing a look at history the Chinese state has never been as stable as they like to present. Throughout its history China has been ravaged by Civil War, internal strife and power struggles. This predisposition for violence coupled with a growing divide between the two systems in China could set the state up for collapse. Over the past two decades the PRC has experienced reforms in all aspects in life. The economic reforms, however, have been much more extreme than the reforms in governance. This has led to a growing divide between the economic elite and the average citizens and even government officials. He also states that many of these elites have stronger roots in the United States and Europe than in China and would be likely to leave the mainland at the fist sign of trouble. Mr. Shambaugh also comments on the problems of corruption and repression but these factors can all be summarized in one statement. Political stability  relies on consent of the governed. In China public toleration of the government is tenuous at best. President Xi must work to strengthen this feeling if the state and the party will continue to exist.

Following Wednesday’s virtual exchange with the students in Hong Kong I would like to take a moment to reflect on what was said. There was many shared opinions regarding the necessity of democracy to hold a government accountable. For the most part both sides felt that democratic elections were important for government accountability but are not the only or even most effective way to hold governments accountable to their citizens. There was one group who did state that they did not feel that elections were necessarily useful in holding governments accountable and accountability can very easily be achieved without democratic elections. They supported their stance using the dictatorship in Singapore which is very in tune with the needs of its populous and discounted the necessity of democratic elections using failed democratic systems in Greece and Thailand. This is a problematic method of research by comparing the best case scenario of authoritarianism and the worst cases of democracy cannot truly by comparable. The main complaint of many of the students was about the election of the chief executive in 2017 that there will be free elections in Hong Kong but the candidates for the election will be chosen by the PRC. This seems like a very foreign idea but the point must be made that the republican candidate for the Governor of Virginia was not chosen by the populous by instead by a committee within the party itself.  This trend should be watched to preserve the American democratic system.

“One country; two systems” has been the motto for the relationship between China and its partially autonomous territories of Hong Kong and Taiwan since the 1980’s. The British took over Hong Kong island in the 1840’s following Chinese defeat in the first Opium war. Hong Kong was a British colony for over one hundred years until it was handed back over to the Chinese government in 1997. When the British took over the island they also acquired a 99 year lease on the northern peninsula that sat just above the island. When this lease expired the British government sought to renew the lease and continue occupation of the territory. However the Chinese government refused to extend the lease and therefore the British decided to hand over the entire territory when the lease formally expired in 1997. In the years leading up to the handover the British government made many advances in democracy on the island to undermine Chinese influence in the region. They started democratic elections and established a system known as the basic law, while also further developing a capitalist economy in the city. China was forced to maintain these freedoms that the citizens of Hong Kong enjoyed after the takeover so they developed a policy of one country; two systems. However, now that China is more powerful why does it not try to bring Hong Kong politics closer to that of the mainland. The first reason that cannot be discounted for the Chinese tolerance of this system is the pressure from the international community, especially the United States and the United Kingdom. The bigger reason, however, is the economic benefits that the mainland receives from the capitalist economy of the island. Any forceful change of freedoms for the people of Hong Kong would certainly be incredibly distributive for the economic benefits that are gained by Chinese businessmen with investments on the island. Therefore, the reason that China does not bring Hong Kong closer to Beijing is a classic case of if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.