,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
So, I'm pretty astonished by the results of this. I know it's only a Twitter poll, but my guess would have been pretty much the opposite of this:
If forced to pick a number I would go for between 30% and 45%.
Higher than 67% seems insane to me. Those sorts of numbers are basically never seen in democratic elections.
Higher than 67% seems insane to me. Those sorts of numbers are basically never seen in democratic elections.
Either people are discounting the premise of the question, ie. assuming the imaginary election isn't really free and fair; or as @MartinShanghai suggested, the wu Mao faction has been voting; or people have a really strong belief that mainlanders truly are brainwashed.
To put this in context, pretty much the only political party anywhere I know of to get more than 60% in free elections is the African National Congress.
Very dominant parties like Japan's LDP, the UK Conservatives, Sweden's Democrats typically get 40%-50%, occasionally up to 55%
Very dominant parties like Japan's LDP, the UK Conservatives, Sweden's Democrats typically get 40%-50%, occasionally up to 55%
There's interesting examples from Eastern Europe of Communist parties disintegrating on contact with democracy. @johnhhaskell cited Poland's elections on -- seriously -- June 4, 1989. Similarly Romania's Communiat Party dissolved soon after Ceausescu's fall.
So IMO <33% is a more plausible result than >67% and even 50%-67%.
But I suspect the best analogue would be newly democratised countries like South Korea, Bulgaria, Taiwan or Mexico where the former undemocratic rulers become a powerful democratic party.
But I suspect the best analogue would be newly democratised countries like South Korea, Bulgaria, Taiwan or Mexico where the former undemocratic rulers become a powerful democratic party.
OK it looks from my replies that people really just didn't buy the premise. "Miraculously" is not enough to encompass the sorts of popular changes that you saw in every Eastern European country in 1989.
Maybe I'd have got a different result if I'd buttressed the question with a detailed description of the democratization process! But as I said, I really was just after an idea of where people think public opinion really lies.
My real point was only to consider that when you hear mainlanders parroting the party line on Tiananmen, it's probably because a good 30% of the population would support the CCP voluntarily and ~10% are active members. Supporters of political groups tend to parrot the party line!
Add to that the fact that the CCP wants Chinese citizens anywhere in the world to fear they're under surveillance with possible consequences for their families back home, and it's not hard to see why the "we don't care or know" line on Tiananmen is pretty prominent.
Probably 30%-40% believe it with the same conviction that Republicans think the Mueller report found no evidence of wrongdoing. Another 30%-50% are just going to be extremely circumspect about stating views that could get them in trouble wherever in the world they speak them.
That may make it look like the vast majority of mainlanders are brainwashed into willed ignorance of Tiananmen, but I think the 1989 experience in Eastern Europe gives the lie to that. Once people got a shot at democracy, opposition to the regime tended to be surprisingly strong.
By the way, I think yesterday's demonstrations in Hong Kong are a pretty good example of why popular opinion is stronger than people think.
Despite the umbrella movement and this the "sensible, wise" position you always hear in HK is "HK people just want to make money/are mostly conformist/don't care about politics" etc.
If that's the case, why not test it in a non-gerrymandered election?
If that's the case, why not test it in a non-gerrymandered election?
