I am really waiting for a NY Times article that has some angle about what China can teach us, not what they should learn from us.
For the last 30 years we have been getting continuous dispatches that Communism with Chinese characteristics will fail into economic collapse, that it's an enormous bubble, that the economy can't grow without democracy, that Hong Kong needs to be a model of democracy for the rest of China, etc. This mainly comes out of the "official narrative" mouth pieces known as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Whenever I see nytimes.com in the sourcee I'm always thinking, ok what's the new angle that everyone's supposed to believe now? It would be better if they just gave the byline to someone at the State Department or the CIA.
Other things, not so much.
And speaking of "democracy" is a two party system really all that much better or different than a one party system?
But, yes, even a two party democracy is better than a one party authoritarian regime.
The current government is IMHO doing a great job. Even on issues that they aren't great on, they are at least trending in the right direction. Why meddle and fix something that isn't broken?
Is that what your unhelpful 'lol' implies?
I really like the Chinese people, but... their gov. is f*king evil mess against them
To be fair, the current Chinese administration (Xi Jinping) identified back in 2012 corruption as one of the greatest threats to the Communist party (rightly so for any government imho) and began an unprecedented campaign to crack down on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under...
Right now they are having a hard enough time trying to control their citizens. They won't be a superpower until they topple a few democratically elected governments first.
Prof Lawrence Lessig of Harvard nails it when he calls this type of corruption of democracy as Tweedism.
Here's a quick summary of his thesis (2015): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
Here's a longer, more academic, version (2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFZEV7TeZBg
Both talks begin with the Hong Kong student protests of 2014.
But, all in all, I agree. As I've written in another thread: The grievances of HK's population are real: a political and business establishment dominated by property tycoons (and increasingly mainland Chinese political factions) keen on maintaining their privileged position; huge economic inequality; a slow erosion of political liberties ("salami tactic").
That all, of course, gave rise to the Umbrella Movement in 2014.
However, given that the Chinese Communist Party is not inclined to weaken its grip on power, and extremely protective of the (perceived) territorial integrity of China, I don't really see how this will end well. :-/ Here's hoping.
For perspective, BTW: In 1997, HK's GDP was about one sixth of China's (even though China has 200x the people), and HK was an important conduit between China and the world: HK's port had more volume than Shanghai and Shenzhen together.
Today, HK's GDP is barely 3% of China's, and the ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen together have 3x the throughput of HK. (Just have a look at these pictures: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai-por.... )
HK used to be hugely important for China. Now, it isn't, and with rising Chinese nationalism, HK is being seen more and more like an unruly and spoiled child.