Australia has always treated China seriously. I know from being part of the Australian government in China (Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong) from the mid-seventies to the late nineties, that we put a lot of effort into understanding China. Our diplomats were known (are known, to this day) as being deeply trained in Chinese politics, language and culture.
And those of us in the business, the business of Australia-China relations, never thought that China was aiming to become another Jeffersonian democracy. Sure the politicians may have harboured such fantasies, but not us. And that's there in our writings at the time: the ambassadorial dispatches, especially by our first ambassador to China, Stephen FitzGerald, with whom I served; in the embassadorial memos and "cables" (as they were then); in our talks and speeches and briefings.
So, this article is talking about the politicians when it talks "original aims" as being China the democracy on the hill. We were never so deluded and that's in the record.
And we must ask if it's such a bad thing that China is a hybrid and plans to remain so. Corruption, censorship, being horrid to Muslims in the west, don't have to be part of the model, even if Xi Jinping is making it so now.
But the article is mainly about how Australia tracks its relations with China and public perceptions of them, whereas Britain is complacent towards China "verging in indifference".
/Snip:
China under President Xi Jinping is clearly not on an easy path to becoming a multi-party democracy – at least not any time soon. At most, it wants "democracy with Chinese characteristics". And like the "socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics", that is going to be a hybrid, novel product – not the one any American or European who was keen on promoting engagement to see political reform happen in the 1980s might recognise as a successful fulfilment of their original aims.
