I think there’s an American reference that can help to echo and reframe this debate: “If you didn’t have Malcolm, ain’t nobody would know Martin.”

In terms of arguing the historical point– even in an open democracy (let’s just assume pre-1960’s USA was one), you must have opposite sides of the spectrum to frame “public” discourse. White People’s fear of Malcolm X, drove them to embrance Martin Luther King Jr. and helped to support his rise and having a voice. You have to give people choices and show them the consequences of supporting either side. If supporting X leads to going to jail vs. supporting Y leads to less employment opportunities– you’ll get a much different make up of supporters.

Samething in Cn, you have to have your extremists that are willing to go to jail, attack the fundamentals of society in order to have a contrasting group which is at first marginal, then get a place at the table and work towards compromise with the Gov.

In Cn’s case, I would wager this group of “Martin’s” will come from within the Party or be affiliated with them. It’s unforseeable that you can simply rip the rug out of the Gov. This is not a tribal dispute, e.g. Congo.

Unless you are talking succession or some kind of far-off situation, there is no power that can remove or restructure a gov’t that 1.) has relative legitimacy with its people (e.g. 300 million out of poverty, entering the WTO, lots of nice places to eat and house to buy) and 2.) has full and immediate control of its army.

So, we should look and identify the Martin’s of Cn.
That’s my 2-fen.

Best,
FT

A good post overall – very thought provoking.

I have a small nit with this statement about the British colonizers in India which is somewhat tangential to your post:

“in historical context, in comparison to other colonizing powers, they were nicer.”

Uh, not sure you’ve considered the sacking and razing of Delhi in revenge for what the British call the “Indian Mutiny of 1857″ (and some Indians refer to as the “First War of Indian Independence”). The British retaliation on Delhi is a not-so-widely-known atrocity graphically described in William Dalrymple’s 2006 work “The Last Mughal”.

In Dalrymple’s words:
“Finally, on the 14th September 1857, the British assaulted and took the city, sacking the Mughal capital and massacring great swathes of the population. In one muhalla alone, Kucha Chelan, some 1,400 citizens of
Delhi were cut down. “The orders went out to shoot every soul,” recorded Edward Vibart, a 19 year old British officer. “It was literally murder … The women were all spared but their screams, on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful… Heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man’s heart I think who can look on with indifference…” Those city dwellers who survived the killing were driven out into the countryside to fend for themselves. Delhi was left an empty ruin.”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Last-Mughal-Fall-Dynasty-Delhi/dp/product-description/074758639X

Interview with William Dalrymple:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/destinations/india/article739273.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Review of Dalrymple’s book:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/nov/11/featuresreviews.guardianreview6

Also the wikipedia entry has some interesting bits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rebellion_of_1857#Retaliation_.E2.80.94_.22The_Devil.27s_Wind.22

“The December 1857 issue of Charles Dickens’ Household Words contained an essay by Dickens and Wilkie Collins in which Dickens says,…. “I wish I were a commander in chief in India. The first thing I would do to strike that Oriental Race with amazement….should be to proclaim to them that my holding that appointment by the leave of God, to mean that I should do my utmost to exterminate the race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested; and that I was there for that purpose and no other, …now proceeding, with all convenient dispatch and merciful swiftness of execution, to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the Earth.”

Amaresh Misra, Indian historian and author, goes further to claim that this was a holocaust where British reprisals involved the killing of 10 million Indians spread out over 10 years.

“”It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret,” Misra told the Guardian.”
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/24/india.randeepramesh

Not so nice and civilized. It’s kind of hard to say which colonizers were “nicer” when much of this history has been obscured by colonial historians and we don’t have a clear idea of what things they did. Doubtful that Gandhi would have survived the British massacre of Delhi in 1857.

I think the “reason for Gandhi’s success” sounds like face-saving rationalization: “we British gave up India because we were too civilized” – when the more likely reason is that post-WWII Britain was in ruins and too exhausted to fight to hold on in the face of Gandhi’s independence movement. Also I find that the Gandhi story is often trotted out to justify violence against a demonized enemy by diminishing Gandhi’s achievement, so I suspect its just one of these unprovable assertions that don’t mean anything.

On the other hand, I admit that I’ve no great knowledge on India other than reading Dalrymple. And I’m not saying all British were bad either – Dalrymple makes it clear there were genocidal fanatics among the British leadership and a bloodthirsty frenzy whipped up by the jingoistic British press in India and back home that led to the massacres. Not a shining example of a responsible free press.

Re media words and terms that bug. I shouldn’t get too upset about them. They’re minor details in comparison to detentions and people having to flee an unreasonable regime. Those are the things that should make you angry! Besides, I’m sure such terms will disappear when dissidents stop getting jailed.

I’m sure you didn’t overlook the Amritsar Massacre when you spoke of British civility in India.

“But I would not presume to offer advice on the best way to go about doing that when I am not someone who has to face the real consequences of those choices.”

Yup. Exactly my feelings.

It’s really a debate about tactics, and one that goes on within activist groups all over the world. What makes the debate more heated is the potential of the actions of those who challenge the party more directly to have a negative effect on everyone else working for change. However, the risk and potential reward of these actions is hard to know, so it’s impossible to know for sure where to draw the line between actions that are courageous and those that are irresponsible.

As outside observers, I think it is important for us to both support those who have made sacrifices for their ideals and respect the choices of those who say that people like Gao are “reckless.” In the end it is up to the people involved to decide on what tactics should be used and what sacrifices they are willing to bear. I am someone who loves China but is not Chinese, so I would support all of those working to reform the system. But I would not presume to offer advice on the best way to go about doing that when I am not someone who has to face the real consequences of those choices.