Over recent weeks, media attention around the world has focused first on stories of unrest in Tibet, then on the consequent protests during the Olympic torch relay. What are the prospects for democracy and human rights in China? Does China even need democracy? Outrage such as that seen at Tiannamenn Square, and the 2003 demonstrations in Hong Kong against the Anti-Subversion law, suggest that there is a genuine appetite for democracy. Democracy is necessary to uphold human rights; it is the only system of government that provides sufficient accountability to stop power being misused.

The desire to integrate and interact with the West is a powerful spur to achieve human rights- focused reform in the country. However, China does not conform to internationally-accepted standards of democratic protocol and procedure. Election to the Upper House (the People’s Congress) is restricted to party members. China still continues to imprison and execute thousands for political crimes each year. Indeed, it performs 90 percent of the world’s executions, according to Amnesty International.

Moreover, China’s treatment of prisoners, particularly political prisoners, remains a cause for concern. Torture is widespread. Amnesty has found that the use of electric shock treatments and sleep deprivation are common. Investigations by leading human rights activist, Gao Zhiseng, indicate that prisoners’ organs are removed for transplant while they are still alive. This is not an exclusively domestic issue. Thousands of people travel to China each year to receive organ transplants. More generally, torture in prisons remains an intractable problem. On this issue, the West has lost much of its moral high ground, as a result of detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition flights. Therefore, opposition to non-democratic practice in China is best directed through non-governmental human rights groups.

China is frequently criticised for disregarding human rights in its pursuit of economic growth. China is the largest investor in Sudan and it receives 80% of the country’s oil output. At the same time, it is the one of the few nations to provide active military and political support to the Sudanese government. Over the last four years, Chinese opposition at the Security Council has prevented the deployment of UN forces to police the fragile ceasefire in Darfur, arguably also to the relief of many other nations too ‘proud’ to confess their lack of interest in involvement in the crisis. In addition, China has been the strongest supporter of the government in Burma. This has clearly prolonged the life of one of the world’s most detested regimes.

Concerns have been raised about the human rights of religious minorities. The most disturbing claims of all relate to the Fallongong, a religious movement that combines aspects of Buddhist and Taoist philosophy, founded in 1990 by Li Honzihg. At first, the government was very supportive, awarding the movement a prize for improving public health, because of its practice of a strenuous form of yoga. By 1999, when it had 70 million followers in China, the government suddenly turned against the movement, branding it an “evil cult,” a label rejected by all independent experts. Thousands of practitioners were arrested and sent to government labour camps, and survivors report that there was a systematic and cruel programme of torture in place to force practitioners to renounce Fallongong. This is evidence that governmental secularism lives on in modern-day China. Significantly, all this took place under the leadership of Jiang Zemin, a man who instigated economic liberalisation. It seems that amongst China’s political elite economic freedom and religious freedom are considered separate issues, though they are clearly rooted in the same basic ideology.

On a provincial level, there are some positive signs. Yunan province has accepted 20,000 Rohingya Muslims refugees, fleeing the persecution of the Burmese junta. The group has been well-treated and has become one of the most prosperous minority groups within China. By contrast, China still maintains an iron grip over Tibet. Mistreatment of independence activists continues. There is great concern for the welfare and whereabouts of monks who took part in recent protests. The biggest worry for the international community is that the campaign for Tibetan independence might turn violent. Images of Chinese businesses being looted only provide ammunition for crackdowns on the people of Tibet. For this reason, it is critical that world leaders rally around the Dali Lama and his call for peaceful resistance.

There have been improvements in press freedom. The Party has recently allowed its citizens to access the BBC news website. This is a crucial step, for increased press freedom can only fuel demands for democracy. It also continues to tolerate press freedom and public demonstrations in Hong Kong. However, further lifting of censorship restrictions is far from inevitable. In recent local elections on the mainland a number of high-profile independent candidates have been elected, and only time will tell whether they can maintain an independent voice. The outlook, however, is not good; the Party still excludes candidates it deems too radical.

In 2005, individual landowners were given the same property rights as the state. This should help prevent corrupt officials forcibly removing land from rural farmers for urban development. In the long term, to maintain high rates of economic growth the government will have to deal with the high level of corruption and the lack of an adequate social safety net. If growth slows sharply, the public mood will turn against the government, particularly amongst the Party’s key support base, the aspiring middle class.

What are the implications for the Beijing Olympics? According to its charter, “respect for universal ethical principles” is a cornerstone of the Olympic movement. There is international consensus that the abuse of dissidents and lack of democracy in China violates these principles. What, then, is the international community’s best response? A boycott of the Games would be deeply damaging. If leading nations did not compete, then China’s leaders and its people would view it as a grave insult to national pride. China would respond by becoming more inward- looking. The government would blame democratic activists and minority rights groups for undermining The Games and inflict even worse abuses on them.

A more effective approach might be for world leaders to boycott the opening ceremony, in the way that Nicolas Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton have intimated. For, in an effort to save face, China might be forced to make significant concessions, freeing dissidents and allowing opposition groups freedom to protest. However, the challenge would be to make sure China would not revert back to its old ways after the Games have finished. Therefore, the key for the international community is to focus its diplomatic pressure on winning tangible long-term commitments from the Chinese government- most importantly- self-government for Tibet. Contrary to widespread cynicism, this is a realistic goal. It was the international diplomatic and media attention around the Seoul Olympics that caused dictator President Chun to resign and call elections that precipitated South Korea’s move from military dictatorship to full democracy.

There are clear precedents for athletes to lead protests. Most memorably, in 1968, the medal winners Tommie Smith and John Carlos made the famous Black Power salute to protest against a racist Olympic team coach, apartheid in South Africa and lynchings in the American South. A similar one could make a profound mark on the Beijing Olympics. It would be most effective if Chinese athletes were involved, as this would stop the Chinese government claiming that human rights protesters were imperialist foreigners imposing their own values upon China.

China’s human rights record remains poor and its political system is far from democratic. In the short term, the main stimulus to the movement for democracy and human rights is coming from external forces. In particular, Beijing hosting the Olympics has led to far closer scrutiny of China’s human rights record by the international community. This increased attention has been heightened by the recent unrest in Tibet. The Olympics provide an outstanding opportunity for the international community as a whole, to take a stand against human rights abuse in China and push for a resolution of the conflict over Tibet. In the long term, greater prosperity will fuel the democratic movement within China. Indeed, China may actually need economic reform to maintain the rapid rate of economic growth that its people are becoming accustomed to.