In the morning of June 4, just like millions of people in HK, we stayed up all night watching TV & listening to radio trying to get a picture of what's happening in the Square. What happened then was no doubt a shame and a tragedy in the modern Chinese history.
In the last 20 years, after witness what happened inside China and outside, I have gradually come to think that in the grand scheme of things, the suppression of political reform did bring great stability to the society, and allow the mainland citizens to focus on the most basic human rights - that is the right to survival, from poverty.
If you read the above 4 pages, the Naisbitts were trying to show that the root causes of the protest was more from frustration about the economic prospect and corruption, rather than simply demanding western style democracy.
In some people's mind, a western democracy would bring about a government that's effective in solving economic and social problems, because of the electoral pressure. Thus general election is the key to solve many problems. Yet what we saw in many poorer countries contrast greatly to this logic. When you basic needs to survive were not met, you vote can be bought. When you are not sure you can survive tomorrow, why do you care about the society in the long term? You just vote for whoever can give you the benefit now, even though at the great cost to the future generations and society in general.
In China's Megatrends, the Naisbitts went great length in the first two chapters to point out that the current Chinese government system allows long term planning, without worrying about short term elections or ratings. Throughout the book, the authors had made some keen observations and contrast to the conventional western thinking of what's "progress". I will try to quote some of the more interesting observations in future follow up posts.
