The February 2020 Democracy Cafe saw discussion of two topics:
1. Can we trust things that come out of China?
The latest thing to come out of China is of course the coronavirus and it was this that was discussed first. Given levels of secrecy in China, are we getting the full picture of the seriousness of the situation? Reports seem to suggest that the Government is being more open about the spread of the virus and is taking serious measures to try to contain it. It was suggested that this was perhaps due to concerns from the Chinese Government that if they don’t deal with the situation it may present a threat to their authority. This is the view of Richard McGregor writing in the Observer this week. The coronavirus, along with the protests in Hong Kong, may be seen as undermining the authority of the ruling party.
There was discussion of trust in relation to Chinese trade and their economic strategy. It was suggested that historically the Chinese have expanded their political influence through trade, rather than through military endeavours. Are we seeing this today in Africa and South America, where Chinese economic expansion is extensive? Does the way that the economic expansion is carried out amount to exploitation, or are there mutual benefits for the countries concerned? It was generally agreed that the goods that China is exporting are now more trustworthy than they used to be because they are higher quality. They used to be known as ‘junk’ and tat but know we routinely buy high tech goods from China. It was suggested that the Chinese economic strategy of government intervention to improve living standards and reduce absolute poverty has been successful in building the trust of Chinese people in their Government but the slowing of economic growth may represent a threat to the consent that they have been given.
It was suggested that whilst discussing this topic we might need to be mindful of how our perceptions of China are shaped by our own media and by opinions coming out of the USA. Trump’s trade war with China has generated a rhetoric of mistrust, as has the discussion over Huawei. It was pointed out that trust in governments and the operation of states is an issue in other countries as well, including our own and the US. Examples were given of how authorities in the UK and the US routinely track transatlantic messages. It was suggested that “information is the new oil” in terms of its’ value. The Chinese authorities recognise this value and exert control over social media.
Trust is an issue for China over its’ treatment of minorities and reference was made to the Uighur people and the appalling way that they are being treated. Perhaps there is a need to take the Chinese authorities to the International Court over this issue, but which country would be bold enough to do so? Is it a case that the Chinese regard this as their century and are willing to override the wishes of others in order to become the dominant world power? This lead to a more general discussion about when do we reach a point that the actions of the state are so bad that we stop trading with them bearing in mind that multinational corporations are so influential.
One thing is for sure, China’s behaviour will continue to be a major talking point in the coming decades.
2. Is positive discrimination a help or a hindrance?
The assertion was made that if someone is appointed to a post due to positive discrimination and they perform badly this reflects negatively on the process of positive discrimination. Some comments were made suggesting that the best person for the job should be hired and reference to various strategies, such as the anonymising of applications, was made as a way of reducing negative discrimination in the recruitment process. It was pointed out that appointing the best person for the job often meant appointing someone who fitted in with the predominant culture in the work place and not “rocking the boat” which would preserve the dominance of white middle class male culture. It was suggested that there will often be more than one candidate who seems suitable and in those circumstances it may be sensible to positively discriminate in favour of a member of a minority group.
The discussion moved on to the importance of creating a more level playing field through a more equitable education system and by raising the aspirations of members of minority groups so that they are more likely to apply for high powered jobs. Reference was made to the predominance of private school alumni in positions of power.
It was mentioned that there are an increasing number of women heads of state around the world, examples being Finland and New Zealand and Angela Merkel in Germany. It was noted however, that even when a woman is the head of state they do not necessarily advance the cause of women, as with Margaret Thatcher who did not appoint a single woman to her Cabinet.
Our next session is on Saturday 14th March at 10am at Salisbury Playhouse. This will not be the same as our usual Democracy Cafe. Instead it will be a TalkShop activity on how we in Salisbury can tackle the climate emergency.
