Skip navigation
Skip navigation

Democratising China and Taiwan: cultural and institutional paradigms

Chiou, C. L

Description

Maoist militant revolution died with Mao on 9 September 1 976. Deng Xioaping's political reform, in spite of the great expectations it raised by the 1979-89 modernization push, met an equally tragic death on 4 June 1 989, when he sent in his tanks to crush the peaceful pro-democracy demonstration in Tiananmen Square. Before 3 June no one foresaw that the 1989 pro-democracy movement would end up more disastrously than its equally famous forerunner, the May 4 Movement, exactly seventy years...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorChiou, C. L
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-01T03:09:34Z
dc.date.available2017-11-01T03:09:34Z
dc.date.created1993
dc.identifier.isbn0731515471
dc.identifier.issn1037-1036
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/132919
dc.description.abstractMaoist militant revolution died with Mao on 9 September 1 976. Deng Xioaping's political reform, in spite of the great expectations it raised by the 1979-89 modernization push, met an equally tragic death on 4 June 1 989, when he sent in his tanks to crush the peaceful pro-democracy demonstration in Tiananmen Square. Before 3 June no one foresaw that the 1989 pro-democracy movement would end up more disastrously than its equally famous forerunner, the May 4 Movement, exactly seventy years earlier in 191 9. Of course, there are many differences between the two movements, but there are also many fundamental similarities. The most salient and remarkable similarity between the two historic events, which should cause the most soul-searching among the Chinese people, particularly the intellectuals, is the tragic, almost fatalistic, way the intellectuals' attempts at democratizing China met a tragic fate at the hands of the similar traditional Chinese authoritarian political despots. In terms of democratization, which was the principal modernization goal of the May 4 Movement, the Chinese reformist elites, both cultural and political, achieved very little in their seventy year long and painful struggles.
dc.format.extent66 pages
dc.format.extent1.9 MB
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherCanberra, ACT : Dept. of Political and Social Change, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.
dc.relation.ispartofseriesRegime Change and Maintenance in Asia and the Pacific. Discussion paper series: No. 11
dc.rightsAuthor/s retain copyright
dc.titleDemocratising China and Taiwan: cultural and institutional paradigms
dc.typeWorking/Technical Paper
local.description.notesThis paper was originally presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference at the Australian National University, Canberra, in September 1992.
local.type.statusPublished Version
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Access
dc.provenancePacific Institute Digitisation Project
dc.provenanceRegime Change and Regime Maintenance in Asia and the Pacific Project
CollectionsANU Pacific Institute

Download

File Description SizeFormat Image
PSC_Regime_WP_11.pdf1.89 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  22 January 2019/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator