China’s ‘whole-process democracy’ explained
Curious that the word "democracy" has such power that China feels a need to defend it's democratic credentials...
China’s ‘whole-process democracy’ explained
Odd, too, if the quintessence of democracy is a woman needing a year to have a fetid dovecote removed from her roof.
When is a democracy not a democracy?
China’s ‘whole-process democracy’ explained
Odd, too, if the quintessence of democracy is a woman needing a year to have a fetid dovecote removed from her roof.
When is a democracy not a democracy?
Comments (200)
'Political democracy' minus – contra – economic democracy (inclusivist stakeholder control) equals oligarchy/plutocracy (exclusionist shareholder control).
So much democracy, it hurts.
— Banno
Are the people happy?
Do the people trust the government?
BTW, I read the article discover this forum while trying to find out Western response to China' "Whole Process Democracy."
So, there is "no upper or ruling class" in China, no multi-billionaires with links to the regime, and having just one party that seized power by force of arms in 1949 and has stayed in power ever since by suppressing opposition, constitutes "representative democracy".
Perhaps we should all emigrate to China then. I'm already learning Mandarin ....
You mean like Germans in 1938?
"Shareholder democracy" is not substantive democracy.
1. How long did Nazi German last after 1938?
Many in the US had predict China's collapse. However, China is getting better year after year for decades.
2. Did Hitler not gain power through Western democratic election?
China is not following German's example. What make you think China should be compare to German.
3. Do you believe citizens enjoying real democracy should be unhappy and choose not to trust their government?
I had tried to explain several hours ago why Chinese people understand the importance of democracy. And they are searching for the right kind of democracy. But I had provided a bloom berg link. And it needed to be approved by the moderator. If you are interested, search for an bloom article with the title of
China Is More Democratic Than America, Say the People
Democracy and billionaires are not mutually exclusive.
In China, one does not need to spend billions to participate politics meaningfully.
Not really.
At least no epidemic of despair.
Ok, so you implied here that a good democracy was one in which folk were happy and trusted the government. I cited pre-war Germany as an example of a country that is demonstrably not democratic but in which trust and happiness were evident. That is, to show that your comment was mistaken.
There's no point in your citing Bloomberg stuff if it is inaccessible.
I have great admiration fo the progress China has made, and the fortitude of the Chinese people. But democratic, China is not.
Add Tiananmen square, Tibet, The Xinjiang internment camps, crushing civil liberties in Hong Kong, manipulation of national boundaries in the South China Sea, Face projects producing empty cities - around 50 of them, as I understand it...
China is muddling on as best it can. Good luck to it. It's not a democracy. The pretence in the article cited in the OP was laughable.
Do I now have a profile with the Guoanbu?
Where is the statistics that Germans were in general happy and they trusted their government before the war. Don't think Germans would follow Hitler into the disastrous WWII if they were happy citizens. Happy people have too much to lose in a war. Unhappy and hopeless people have little to lose but a lot to prove for themselves.
Americans voting for Trump is more comparable. Many are frustrated, angry, and/or otherwise hopeless with the US government. Even Tucker Carlson admitted that point.
The article is readily available. The following cut and paste from the article.
"The disparity between those who believe in democracy and those who think they live in a democracy is the “perceived democratic deficit,” according to the Democracy Perception Index, an annual survey of 124,000 people across 53 countries conducted by Dalia Research, in collaboration with the Alliance of Democracies. The greater the deficit, the more citizens feel that their country fails to honor their democratic ideals. ...
The countries with the smallest deficits in 2020 include Taiwan, Philippines, Switzerland, Denmark and Saudi Arabia; those with the largest include Venezuela, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine and Nigeria.
Charted below are the survey results from 20 countries, and they illustrate some startling beliefs — not least that 73% of Chinese consider China to be democratic, whereas only 49% of Americans believe the same about the U.S."
This thread is about Chinese democracy. I will stick to the topic.
If you want to discuss other issue, start a new discussion.
Oh, indeed, and I did not claim otherwise. I asked "When is a democracy not a democracy?"
You replied:Quoting ltlee1
Now I took this to be a reply, such that you are claiming that the measure of a democracy is happiness and trust in the government. I think that is wrong, and to illustrate that point, I chose an example of a country which I suppose that we might both agree was not a democracy, but in which the population were generally happy and trusted their government - pre-war Germany.
End of that story.
Interesting that you should raise this. Here's a link to the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#cite_note-index2020-13
My country comes in at #9. The US comes in at #25.
China comes in at #151.
The Index does not help your case, if your claim is that China is a Democracy.
The point of this thread, so far as there is one, is my amusement that a Chines writer - Dennis Meng - would attempt to argue in an English Language version of the People's Daily, that China was a Democracy. I would have been more impressed had the argument admitted to China being a totalitarian regime and then argued that this was a better solution for China.
I found this: https://www.tbsnews.net/world/china-more-democratic-america-say-people-98686
It might be what you are referring to.
Given how far China is from being seen as a democracy, perhaps what is shown is that Chinese folk are unwilling to say that their country is not a democracy. At least those in Saudi Arabia and Iran recognise that they are living in an authoritarian state. I suppose the Chinese have not known anything else.
I wonder what the statistics would be, were we able to collect them for Honk Kong - a place that might perhaps have a better understanding of the nature of democracy than mainland China.
Quoting ltlee1
If memory serves me right, paraphrasing a comment once made by Darwin to the captain of The Beagle (the captain being vociferous about the benefits of slavery) as was recorded in Darwin's autobiography:
When a slave-master asks his slaves if they are happy, of course most will answer "yes". Even though, one would be tempted to believe, they answer "yes" because it is the only rational thing to do to avoid grave reprisals from the slave-master. And not because they are in fact happy being slaves.
Side note: Darwin was either incredibly courageous or stupid in so saying to the captain of a ship out in the middle of nowhere who staunchly disagree with Darwin's take on slavery. I readily choose to believe the former. At any rate, as it happens, young Darwin didn't accidentally drown on this voyage after so expressing to the captain.
At any rate, my question: Why should the self-reported happiness and the self-reported trust of a people be taken into consideration when appraising the question of "when is a democracy not a democracy". For instance, if such self-reports are to be deemed indicative of the truth regarding what is reported, then this would definitively prove that the majority of USA slaves in pre-Abolition days were exceedingly happy in so being slaves. Which history evidences is patently false.
And BTW, I'm all for the notion that "democracy" is nowadays becoming an Orwellian propaganda term which is in the process of losing nearly all meaning in, at least, the USA. Much like the "communism" (you know, a great big kibbutz-like loving community of comrades where fraternity rules) which never was in Europe, here pointing to a place I know best, except in places where the term had nothing to do with the reality.
Chinese students had been taught about the significancy of Mr De(mocracy) and Mr Sci(ence) for over 100 years.
The Nationalist government (i.e ROC) had also tried Western style Parliamentary Democracy about 100 years ago. Unfortunately, the experiment had failed badly. China won the civil war and the ROC flee to Taiwan.
In short, democracy is not anything new to the the Chinese people. They desire democracy then and now.The issue what kind of democracy is suitable for China. The following article shows how the Chinese see democracy and Chinese democracy.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-26/which-nations-are-democracies-some-citizens-might-disagree
Quoting ltlee1
Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that the Nationalist Government ruled as a one-party state - the Kuomintang never faced an election. Is that not so?
Specifically I'd be interested in your views on the imperative for social harmony and for serving the common good. Do you agree that these are central to the Chinese notion of democracy?
I tend to disagree with that statement.
1. For starters, China is a dictatorship. Perhaps not a dictatorship of one single leader, but still a dictatorship of the Communist Party.
2. Secondly, China's official policies are essentially national socialist and, to some extent, racist.
3. Thirdly, China is becoming more and more militaristic and aggressive in its rhetoric and foreign policy and has an expansionist agenda.
I think the similarities with Nazi Germany cannot be denied.
Democracy begins the people. Not committee from foreign countries. Whether a country is democratic is for the people to decide.
Implicit in you comment is that Chinese people are dumb. Hence they are willing to tolerate a government, however undemocratic, through thick and thin.
Please think again. If you won't tolerate such a government, what make you think 1.4 billion Chinese will?
Of course one can pass any judgement as one sees fit. My question is this:
Does he/she judge from a position of knowledge and expertise?
Or does he/she judge from a position of ignorance?
James Bovard, the author of "Attention Deficit Democracy" told the tales of American election is just reverse slave auction during which Americans are offered a choice between masters. I cannot tell whether James Bovard is totally right. However, I can say that he make the statement from a position of knowledge and expertise. After all, he is an America and he knows American people and politics well.
1. The US did not have opposition party at the beginning too. There were factions. Political parties was a later invention.
2. Post war Japan is largely an one party system. It is out of power for only 6 years from a total of 70 years.
3. Election is realistically speaking neither necessary nor sufficient for democracy. Not according to the Greeks. In addition, election did not confer the government the consent of the governed according to polls.
In the sense of no one should shout "Fire" in a crowded theater with normal movie goers. Harmony is important.
1. When is a dictatorship a dictatorship?
Are you implying Chinese are dumb? Hence they live happily under dictatorship.
2. Don't agree.
3. "militaristic and aggressive in its rhetoric and foreign policy and expanionist."
a. Every politicians make a lot noise. And it is their job to make a lot of noise to maximize China's gain.
b. Expanionist? Had China fired any shot?
They may not know any better. If they have been under a dictatorship since 1949, then they have no standard of reference by which to judge that there are better alternatives.
The dictatorship prevents the emergence of a political culture and consciousness that would result in an awareness of (1) alternatives and of (2) ways to realize them.
A bit like a frog in a jar that is unaware of the existence of ponds, lakes, and other larger bodies of water where it may enjoy a greater supply of food, mating opportunities, and other advantages of a free existence.
Not necessarily. However, it may be possible to reach that conclusion from the facts of the situation, as you yourself have just done.
And yes, China is getting more and more aggressive and expansionist. It annexed Tibet in 1951. It tried to conquer India in 1962 and there have been border skirmishes ever since. It is currently planning to annex Taiwan and other places in the Pacific, and is building a corridor through Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to get its hands on Mid East oil and attack Europe in preparation for invading America.
So, lots parallelz nazi german, as you say.
Do you know that one billion of Chinese had travel outside of China during the last decade?
And every years about 300,000 students had been studied in the US. About 100,000 more in the rest of the world. In general, I think Chinese know America and the rest of West well.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not true.
Regarding Tibet, it was recognized as part of China since all countries since the establishment of the ROC.
Regarding Tibet, China annexed it illegally. There was an uprising against China in 1959.
https://freetibet.org/tibetan-uprising-1959
It is obvious to anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of China that the regime has expansionist ambitions in the Pacific and has a clear plan to extend its influence into Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and other parts of the Mid East to grab oil fields and use the region as a launching pad for attacks on Europe as a preliminary step to attacking America.
Incidentally, it's a well-known fact that a lot of Chinese visitors to the West are spies and agents of the Communist Party sent by the regime for purposes of industrial espionage, infiltrating research universities, etc.
That was not my intent. But it seems at the least that "Democracy" must mean somehting quite different in China than in Australia.
China is an infant in terms of interference in other countries, compare to 'merica.
One assumes the Chinese have an understanding of The Art of War. The deft annexation of the South China Sea was exemplary. The war has been won before the West noticed.
How would you react if the Mexicans took back Texas?
Ceding Texas would be good for both the US and Mexico.
America complaining about Chinese interference in other nations is deeply disingenuous. It's as if there were no recognition of their history.
The Americans have a long history of thinking a lot of places theirs.
Here is a sample of China's activities for you:
Uncovering Chinese Espionage in the US – The Diplomat
American universities are a soft target for China’s spies - NBC
Chinese Malicious Cyber Activity – CISA
China Is Stoking Racial Tensions In America – Newsweek
:scratches head:
Manifest Destiny
OK, it goes back much further than that.
I did think that might be the purpose of the thread.
BTW the bat soup comment was meant as a joke. @ltlee1 didn't complain. Maybe he isn't Chinese?
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States
I didn't say it is stupidity. I said it is ignorance and lack of political experience which is to be expected after living in a dictatorship since 1949.
But if the thread is intended to promote the Chinese view, that's fine by me.
Come on Tim; That's just sad. What is "protecting our interests"? You are too intelligent to buy into that spin.
OK I was just wondering how @ltlee1 came across the thread and whether he/she is actually Chinese or something else. But it isn't a major problem either way.
Seems that it might be so.
Hence the approach of coaxing a substantive post from them.
I thought it was lightning quick. But as you say, if a substantive post can be coaxed from them, why not?
Here's my point, just to be sure: Americans complaining about Chinese expansionism is the pt calling the kettle black.
I'm not sure it's about "complaining". If German and Japanese expansionism was bad, why is Chinese expansionism good?
The richer people get, the more it takes to pacify them. This leads to social unrest which has been allowed to play out to blow off steam, but eventually they'll have to do something about all the disenfranchised people in Chinese cities. These people don't enjoy any sort of communist benefits because they left their villages. If you leave your village you're in your own. These people are coming to expect help from the government. This is something China has no experience with, so they're winging it.
This is all from a series on China from Curiosity Stream, so I can't share it.
Set out the non sequitur for me. Make it explicit. Otherwise it's a bland accusation.
The topic here is the odd nature of Chinese democracy. Defensive Americans are pretty irrelevant - that's the non sequitur here; the notion that the only choice is between the US and China.
I wonder why that is. British colonialism was bad, German and Japanese expansionism was bad, American hegemony is bad, but Chinese colonialism, expansionism, and hegemony is good?
Sure. But I think the real issue is China's foreign policy, i.e., militarism, expansionism, and neocolonialism. Unless the thread is pro-China, after all.
What I have written was explicitly the opposite.
I think you misunderstood it. It's not that Chinese people are yammering for democracy. It's that the Chinese government needs to become responsive to the needs of the people who are getting richer and expect more than they once did.
They're already experiencing protests and they know they won't be able to continue forever ignoring them.
Ignore this view if you like. I have no intention of looking back at that video to see who that Chinese guy was.
It is true, though. When people are in grinding poverty, they're too tired to protest. Their minds are numb.
Give them education and hope for a better life: now you have a problem.
Surely, Chinese "democracy" is directly linked to Chinese militarism and expansionism?
1. In order to keep the populace under control, the regime needs to guarantee a certain standard of living.
2. For this it needs a stable and rapidly expanding economy, and this means economic and political expansion abroad.
3. In turn, this needs to be backed by military power, hence militarism, expansionism, and neocolonialism.
In addition, the West is putting pressure on Russia, driving it closer to China, thus increasing Chinese power on the global stage.
Correct. And China's communist rulers know this. Hence the regime needs economic, political, and military expansion abroad to keep the developing internal tensions as well as international pressure under control.
Again yes, I understand. That's a standard liberal attitude - everyone will want democracy at some stage; when their economic needs are met, they want political autonomy.
It ain't necessarily so, and that's the question in this thread.
Shop? What are you selling?
The American says it's government of the people, by the people, for the people.
China takes out the middle part. It's of and for, not by.
Read the damn article you posted.
They're becoming a regional power on their way to superpower. The US is moving out of their way, so there will be two superpowers, which the political realist favors as the most stable global scenario.
You seemed to want to say that there's just no fathoming the Chinese heart unless you're staring out of Chinese eyeballs.
Since they own a fair portion of Australia outright, I think you'll soon gave that internal perspective.
Thanks. I do what I can.
I do agree that ideally, there should be an international balance of power. Unfortunately, China is applying the Maoist principle of defense, equilibrium, and offense, according to which (1) you start from a position of strategic weakness, then (2) you increase your own power until it matches that of the opponent, after which (3) you go over to the last phase in which you overpower and finish off your opponent.
There is not going to be a balance of power because China is spreading its influence in the Pacific, Europe, Mid East, and Africa and this will put the West in a defensive position. This is already the case economically. We are now in the phase where economic influence begins to be backed by political and military influence and power.
There are two sides to that, though. I'm not sure how to explain this.
Weaker entities congregate around stronger ones voluntarily. It's the nature of human social structure. Tribes, cities, states, regions, etc. are created this way.
If your bitch is that China is marxist, I disagree.
I think the "voluntary" bit is the key to the problem. It is hard to imagine Tibet voluntarily submitting to Chinese occupation, suppression of its religion and culture, exploitation of its resources, etc.
The same applies to Hong Kong, Taiwan, "disputed" parts of India, and other places. I know very few Americans, Australians, and Europeans that would be happy to "voluntarily" submit to Chinese rule.
China has been accused by many countries of deploying hundreds of fishing vessels in large-scale operations that are illegal under international law. So, not everything that China does is happening with the approval of other nations concerned.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/02/fishing-fleets-go-dark-suspected-illegal-hunting-study
https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/china-illegal-fishing-fleet/
I agree that sometimes smaller nations may congregate of their own accord around larger ones, but other times they may do so under economic, political or military coercion. This is the main distinction I would make, not that China is "Marxist", though it is officially run by a Marxist-Leninist party.
Sure. There are exceptions. I think it's still true in the main.
Quoting Apollodorus
And that's why it's fun for me to pick on Banno about China's dominance of Australia. I don't have to worry about it. Beijing will look like a moon crater before I live under Chinese control.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yea, my point is that China will become the regional lawmaker. That benefits everyone.
Quoting Apollodorus
And that's the other side of human nature. Some entities are just obstructionist in any situation. They just love chaos. They're going to grandstand until somebody breaks their necks.
True. That's why I thought they started the thread to promote the Chinese view for the sake of a bit of controversy. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we've got too many genuine Chinese to discuss the issue with ....
That would be nice. I work with a Chinese woman. She explains stuff about Hong Kong to me, although I have a really hard time understanding her, especially when she's wearing a mask.
:grin: Yeah, that has been my experience, too. Their accent can be hard to understand sometimes which makes discussion rather difficult. The ones I speak to tend to see the Hong Kong situation, for example, as "stirred up by the West". And in general, I think there is a certain degree of national pride that makes it difficult for them to see or admit any faults that to Western eyes may seem obvious. I doubt that will change any time soon though. Maybe, as others have said, we'll just have to start seeing things through Chinese eyes rather than the other way around.
The lady I work with just says there's 0% chance China will back down regarding Hong Kong.
Quoting Apollodorus
True, but I was kind of shocked when I brought up the Weegers on this forum. Nobody objected. They just said China's solution was for the best. British people said that. :scream:
I'm Chinese. I'd love to discuss this topic with you, but you know, my accent gets in the way. Oh wait. I don't care about this topic. OK. Never mind then.
I fully understand that you don't care. If I were you, I wouldn't care either. However, Frank and I do care. Indeed, we are very caring are careful people. And I suspect, so is Banno. So, let's suppose for the sake of argument, you did care. What would your considered (and caring) view be on this particular topic?
No, I don't think you do.
Crikey! Did I really do that? I only commented to try to make polite conversation and because I know how much Banno appreciates my comments. But now that I will be banned shortly for posting comments, I'd better stop before they ban me.
ok. Take a break.
It seems to me that posting a link would trigger moderation.
I won't post the link. Search youtube with
v=_tOtVQ7cNWY
The video clip was made by the US government during WWII entitled
Why we fight: Battle of China 1/5
The clip clearly shows the Tibet was considered part of China.
Give them education and hope for a better life: now you have a problem. — frank
"Correct. And China's communist rulers know this. Hence the regime needs economic, political, and military expansion abroad to keep the developing internal tensions as well as international pressure under control. "
The US has military budget several times that of China. In addition, it is clear that the US is currently highly polarized. It badly need an external enemy to achieve domestic unity.
Conclusion: What you had attributed to China is actually more applicable the US.
The US is backing down from military intervention right now. And though Americans are at one another's throats continuously, there's not really any significant threat of social breakdown at this time.
I'm impressed by the love Chinese people have for their country. They're doing something right.
To some extent, I suppose, that may be the case.
And, yes, maybe the US does need an external enemy to unify society. In that case, having an enemy may be a good thing.
However, isn't China doing the same by portraying all non-Chinese, including Tibetans, Mongolians, and even some Chinese, as enemy?
Chinese, like all other people, want good life or happiness which is an intrinsic good.
Political liberty like voting, at most, is an instrumental good.
Anyway, Chinese can join the CCP if they want to be involved politically.
The more I think, the more I get to the conclusion that rather than: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "Life and pursuit of Justice" may work fine if not better.
Western democracy is for reform retail.
At present, China's per capita GDP is about 1/6 to 1/5 to US. Per capita income is still lower. Implication, China still quite a lot of reform wholesale.
I read the following from a monograph on democracy. I cannot recall the name of the author.
Democracy is satisfying most of the people's needs and/or desires most of the time.
I am Chinese. I do understand that there are a lot of misunderstanding about China and things Chinese in the US. Your comment did not bother me at all.
Chinese do eat all kind of animals. However, I never heard about bat soup.
Bat sounds like "Blessing." Upside down is the homophone of "arrived".
So, some Chinese pin the picture of an upside down bat to their doors wishing for the arrival of blessing.
Right. In a sense, any healthy government is a democracy.
But if they join the CCP then they will have to be involved politically as mandated by the CCP. If not, they get kicked out or punished.
Criminal Code of the People's Republic of China, Article 105, Paragraph 2:
"Anyone who uses rumor, slander or other means to encourage subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years. However, the ringleaders and anyone whose crime is monstrous shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years."
In other words, anything you do that can be interpreted as "subversion of the political power" can land you in jail or in a concentration camp for life.
One can ask the same question about the US.
Americans, left and right, are not happy about the political system. Yet they are still proud of their democracy.
Looking backward, Chinese people see steady improvement of their lives. Looking forward, they see something better ahead.
I see. Now I understand. I thought they did that because they hoped to catch one.
But they made me delete my comment because it was alleged to be "offensive", so I'm glad you didn't find it offensive. Maybe Chinese people are brainier than others. So, I can see your point.
Oh, no.
Xi does do something new to the Uighurs. Xi himself was sent to live with peasant to learn about how they lived and how to lift them from poverty. Likewise, Xi sent some officials to leave with the Uighurs according to dissident websites.
This is not unlike US government sending anthropologists to Iraq to understand the local people better.
More intrusive, yes. But then the families were given to incentive to accept them. One of the recommendation is More training is needed. Hence the re-education school. According to what I can get from Chinese media. The total number of students should be hundreds to one thousand. And they had all been graduated. What they should have done is to have graduation ceremony.
It is impossible to put one million in some kind of jail for long. Too expensive. In the US, it costs about $35,000 to keep one prisoner. China would be lower. But no matter how low, that would be too high.
In addition, there were about 6 million Uighurs in Xinjiang. The region would immediately explode if 1 out 6 were suddently locked up.
Oh dear. You don't know. :grimace:
I'm afraid I must disagree on that.
If you put a million political prisoners in one concentration camp with little food and other maintenance, and make them manufacture cell phones, laptops and other electronic devices fitted with spying equipment and sell them all over the world, then you make billions from the sales alone, not to mention the value of the information stolen from all over the world.
Please read my first post.
I was searching response to China's "Whole Process Democracy".
Why?
No long ago, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had declared that democracy was not Coca-Cola that promised the same taste everywhere in the world and the United States should respect the path and system independently chosen by China. He said that it was wrong to describe China as “authoritarian” because the country’s democracy “takes a different form than that of the United States.” At the same time, Washington should refrain from using democracy and human rights as a pretext to meddle in other countries’ internal affairs or provoke confrontation that can lead to “turmoil or disaster,”
I found it odd that major media in the US had no response. Given that the US has treated China with great hostility. Shouldn't it watch like a hawk what Chinese government does and speak all the time?
Does silence mean the US does not know how to respond?
Well, this time, China fleshes out its democracy. Hint: Chinese democracy is as good if not better.
?ltlee1
Frank, "The US is backing down from military intervention right now. And though Americans are at one another's throats continuously, there's not really any significant threat of social breakdown at this time."
The following from article excerpted from MSN article "A quiet battle is raging in Congress over how the US will respond to China's growing power."
"Prominent among these are measures and rhetoric that appear to create a fundamental change in US policy toward Taiwan.
...
The bill clearly implies that a separate Taiwan is a vital US national security interest, and even critical to the defense of Hawaii. It also calls for joint US military training and exercises with the Taiwan military, an unprecedented step which would directly escalate tensions in the Taiwan strait.
Such fundamental changes in US policy not only risk military conflict, but also make progress with China more difficult in every area of mutual concern, including trade, climate change, and managing future pandemics."
US domestic situation is still very bad. I wish I could be as optimistic as you. Mass extremism. Gun sales up. Still large percentage of Republicans believed Biden had stolen the election. And of course, still unresolved racial issues.
MSN article:
"U.S. gun sales in the first five months of 2021 surged 26% to 19,188,494. This makes it among the largest figures since sales were first recorded in 1998. ...
Growing civil unrest may have prompted people to buy guns for personal and family protection, many social scientists have posited, although this remains a matter of debate."
Not really. It's just bluster. Nobody on either side wants war.
Quoting ltlee1
Yeah, it's terrible. We're circling the drain.
What they do if they have nothing to lose?
Wont they fight to the death? What next? River of blood.
So far the so called genocide is still bloodless. Are you sure you are not a CCP secret admirer?
I like that.
It's a shame that the conversation juxtaposes Chinese democracy and US democracy. The US is not an especially democratic nation. Look instead to Australia, New Zealand or any of the Scandinavian countries for better examples. Social cohesion is much stronger, social policies lean far more to the left, and they don't shoot each other in school.
No, just ashes. :lol:
Actually, we were beginning to think that you might be an acquaintance of Banno, that's why he changed his identity to deflect attention from what's going on. However, now that you are saying that we are CCP secret admirers, there may be some truth in it ....
The core issue here may be one of translation. What you are calling democracy is not what is called democracy in English, and in other European languages.
Democracy is not "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". It is not Quoting ltlee1
Democracy is where people vote directly on issues of concern to them.
They might vote badly, they might misunderstand the issues, they might vote against their own best interests, they might vote against satisfying most of their needs and desires most of the time; there's no guarantee they will get it right.
So the article cited in the OP comes over as disingenuous. That is, it comes across as insincere; as saying that China is democratic when really it is understood that it isn't; it's as if the author were pretending not to understand the word "democracy" in order to argue that China is democratic.
To put it bluntly, the article could not be taken seriously by a reader of English; in fact, it is quite funny.
Take the example chosen in the article - taking a year to remove a dovecot from a roof. Here, there would never be a dovecot on a roof int he first place, and were one found, it would be removed immediately.
Why is it like this? Because the folk who make and enforce the law get kicked out at the next election if they do not "satisfying most of the people's needs and/or desires most of the time".
We don't have to wait until the party hierarchy realise that there underlings are incompetent.
Claiming China is democratic when it so obviously isn't, is laughable.
Yes to your overall post. I however take democracy to be pivoted on a checks and balances of political power among citizens. This either via direct democracy (as one example I find remarkable, in later ancient Athens many public offices were elected by lottery, presupposing the requisite that all citizens in the lottery were capable of holding the given office for the allotted time, with all such citizens holding the potential to exert the same degree of political power) or via representative democracy, wherein - at least as the USA was envisioned to be by its founders - checks and balances are meant to occur both between a) representative factions themselves as well as between b) representatives and those they represent. A voting citizenry would then be a necessary consequence of “a checks and balances of political power among citizens”, but democracy seems to me to be defined by the latter and not the former. Voting could for example occur in oligarchies, but to me this does not make them democratic.
Curious if you’d disagree and, if so, on what count.
Quoting Banno
Let's repeat that again.
China is a tyranny and it ought to be boycotted for its human rights abuses against Tibet and Uighurs, the treatment of democratic leaders in HK, the silencing of critical media, sham court proceedings, disappearances of citizens and threats to the sovereign nations of India and Taiwan etc. I can go on but the crimes are numerous.
...makes the same point. The advantage of democracy is the feedback from the governed to the government, which cannot happen in an autocracy — it only just happens in our representative democracies. I was working towards making this point. You call this "checks and balances"; same thing.
Itlee1 knows they're using the word differently from westerners. The idea is that it's a better way.
This is the confidence of the naive, and they need it. They're taking a leap into the dark.
I deeply, deeply dislike this definition, which confuses a mechanism of democratic rule with democratic rule as such. If democracy is the exercise of political power by the people, this is a principle which can be cashed out in many ways, of which 'voting' is a minimal and barely sufficient one.
As for the notion that China is simply 'using the word differently' - well sure, but it is the kind of different that ought to be contested and opposed at every turn. As utterly empty as "Western" claims to democracy are, China is expressly anti-democratic at all levels, and cedeing to propaganda is a stupid move.
:up: In the west, laws are made to protect people and they're immediately subverted by wealthy entities.
The power of the people is really found in the threat of insurrection, even in the west.
Quoting StreetlightX
As I mentioned, China has change ahead of them and they have no recipe. They're making it up as they go.
Yes, they seem childish at times, but it hasn't been that long ago that the US was the new bumbling fool on the world scene. So I cut them slack. In a few generations they'll be more mature.
I think this view is both paternalistic and naive. China commands an extremely well oiled state apparatus that has proven time and time again to execute on long term strategy with results in hand. The idea that China is some wide-eyed baby fawn may have passed muster in the 70s, but that time is long past. it certainly has far more strategic vision than anything the West can muster up in response, which has been a confused mix of total economic dependency on China combined with stoking up xenophobia as a response to internal failures all around. The West as it stands is undergoing a process of regression to juvenilia with respect to China's own maturity of state. The US is a bumbling fool on the world scene, not 'was'. With democracy already a walking zombie in the West, the last thing anyone needs is to give it up to an out and out authoritarian superpower.
American corporate strategists were aware in the 70s that China was the last great economic frontier. Westerners have been trying to figure out how to become part of it since then. What did you think the Nixon overture was for?
Quoting StreetlightX
Sure. The US sees it's former self in China.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yeah, note Itlee's sense that China can take on the US military. He was confused about why the west ignored Chinese provocation.
Like you, he's not clear on what the US actually is:
This song is best listened to while following a bunch of idiots across mexico on a yamaha, but
Even more so, for such a process to even start to become remotely feasible you need to be able to:
1. assemble in groups
2. access to information
3. freedom of speech
None of these are available.
1. Free assembly? Not allowed; see HK, Tibet, Uighurs, only one political party. A state-mandated union (eg. a union dress-up). State owned media. etc. etc.
2. Access to information. State-controlled.
3. ...
A mall cop for corporate interests. Nothing more.
For now. Things change.
Correct. The leading strategists were the Rockefellers. David Rockefeller visited China in 1973 and returned full of praise for its “dedicated administration and efficiency”.
From a China Traveller – The New York Times
The Rockefellers at the time were expanding their global oil and banking empire, for which purpose they founded the Trilateral Commission. Their main man in the Nixon administration was Henry Kissinger, another admirer of China. As Secretary of State, Kissinger orchestrated the opening of relations with China.
Kissinger had already visited China in 1971 to prepare the ground, when he announced that after a dinner of Peking duck he would sign anything.
Seeing that Marxism wasn't getting them anywhere, the Chinese introduced Lenin’s concept of communist-controlled state capitalism – funded by Western investment and credit.
Without financial and technical assistance from the Rockefellers and their associates, China would have gone the way of the Soviet Union.
A Chinese friend told me (over a Peking duck dinner) :wink:
Did you know Kissinger's family escaped from Nazi Germany?
Is there a reason why I shouldn't know? I disagree with his policies and those of the Rockefellers, or corporate groups in general for that matter. But that's another story.
I'm interested. Maybe another thread?
Maybe.
1. Please distinguish between Democracy and Western Democracy.
China does not claim its version of democracy is Western Democracy. Rather, Wang Yi, China's Foreign Minister, noted, “Democracy is not Coca-Cola, which, with the syrup produced by the United States, tastes the same across the world. The world will be lifeless and dull if there is only one single model and one single civilization.”
2. What is the must have for a system to be must have?
Democracy simply means "rule by the people." To the extent that direct democracy is unworkable and/or not desirable, representative democracy is inevitably. It also means rule or govern according to the will of the people.
3. Is ritualistic voting the ONLY way to access the will of the people?
My answer is "NO". I agree that voting could be a way for a group of people to access the will of the people. But this is not the only way.
As another poster had pointed out, voting for representative is really new. Greeks often did not vote for their representatives for obvious reason. The procedure favor the rich and the powerful. Western style representative government is, a relatively speaking, new invention.
Some background information is in order for those who insist that democracy must be narrowly tied to voting.
"In the early 1990s, the intellectual historian Bernard Manin
described one of the quickest, most striking changes in the history of
constitutional theory: in a matter of decades in the eighteenth
century, elections became universally accepted as the sole strategy
for selecting leaders.39 In Rome, order of voting among the tribes was
partly determined by lottery.40 In Renaissance Florence, simple
lotteries and multistage mixed lottery-election systems were used to
choose leaders.41 Republican Venice continued to use lottery into the
late eighteenth century, when its government finally fell.42
Philosophers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—Harrington,
Montesquieu, and Rousseau—all devoted attention to selecting officials
by lottery.43 And yet, in debates after the American and French
Revolutions, lottery is almost completely absent.
Lost in this transformation from lottery to election was an important
argument about economic class. From the Athens of Aristotle to the
eighteenth century, political philosophers believed that elections
were inherently aristocratic, and lotteries inherently democratic.44"
(The CRISIS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS CONSTITUTION)
Doesn't really matter how old anything is. The way you're using "democracy," any functioning government is democratic. That makes the word useless for us.
Realty check: During the past 10 years Rasmussen had carried out multiple polls asking likely voters whether the U.S. government had consent of the governed. The following headline is typical.
"Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed".
Chinese democracy passes Chinese people's smell test.
In contrast, the US claims to be democratic. Does it pass the American's smell test?
That's because you accept dictatorship. We can't do that.
Quoting ltlee1
Not at the moment, but our definition informs our goals.
One may naturally ask, given that U.S. voters had already given their consent to the winning administration, how come only 1/4 said the U.S. government had consent of the governed? If they didn't vote, were they not given implied consent?
Well, the answer lies with how legitimate is legitimate.
The Ash Center policy brief "Understanding CCP Resilience" has the following title for its conclusion:
"Conclusion: Continued Resilience through Earned Legitimacy"
The implication is that CCP resilience is earned by delivery what the people want and desire. As soon as it fails to deliver, it would have no legitimacy.
Popular voting gained rapid ascendancy for one reason. It is supposed to give the government natural legitimacy. Or legitimacy by origin. In contrast to earned legitimacy, legitimacy by origin is in reality unearned but still accepted. We the people create the government not unlike parents give birth to a child. Of course, the government is legitimate by origin. And naturally resilient.
How about a couple of ethnic background E keep having kids of non-E complexion features? Would one or both partners not doubt their kids' legitimacy?
Please tell you conception of dictatorship.
Then ask yourself this question:
If you don't accept dictatorship, what make you think Chinese including me will accept dictatorship, HERE and NOW?
Your government is a dictatorship. You accept it because you're used to it. You have no experience with anything else.
We're just different. We have a different histories, but we're locked together now. We rise and fall together. The sooner you realize that westerners are just people, fundamentally just like you, the better.
Of course, everyone can say "Two legs bad, four legs good."
Again, the question is whether such opinion is based on knowledge or expertise. Wishful thinking has no value for anyone.
Jimmy Carter said, "America is not a democracy." I believe him.
I'm not the one who suggested you should look to a western model. That was Banno.
I think China has to make its own path. Continue worrying about the well-being of Americans if you like. We also have to follow our own road.
And that is, if not absent, then at least minimal in China.
A demonstration - what dd it take to remove Trump? What would it take to remove Xi Jinping?
Lies to children, maybe.
Democracy is a way of evaluating the decisions made by the government, using institutions that feed back information about the populace to the government; and ensuring that the evaluation is acted upon. Elections are one obvious way in which this happens. There are others.
And to some extent @ltlee1 has a point, in that there are some feedback mechanisms in place in China - the Message Board for Leaders is prima facie a positive thing, if you need the bird shit cleaned from your roof.
Not accurate. China should go it's own way. I am just pointing out that China claiming to be democratic is laughable.
On the contrary. I think China would lose badly in the beginning IF there is a war between the US and China.
"A demonstration - what dd it take to remove Trump? What would it take to remove Xi Jinping?"
Who in China is comparing Xi to Trump? In addition, Trump might win handily if not for the pandemic. As a matter fact, some three percenters in Trumps rally yesterday had promised future violence unless the presidency is reverted to Trump, the legitimate winner.
Any way, a better comparison would be with FDR. And you have a good point.
I would say settling term limit is a process of trial and error. No reason not to have a great leaders holding on to the job longer. It took the US more than 100 hundred to settle on term limit. Shouldn't one cut China some slack on this issue?
" I am just pointing out that China claiming to be democratic is laughable. "
Many Chinese also think the US is not a democracy. And Trump is the symptom rather than the cause of undemocratic US. Unfortunately, some Americans also agree this assessment.
The difference, China does not criticize American democracy. Yet the US keeps making Chinese democracy an issue as if as long as China is not an America look alike, it must be evil.
I guess population-wise, the US is like one tiny corner of China. Still, democracy is layered here. The closest democracy to a citizen is either their county or city government. We elect judges, city planners, environmental managers, mayors, etc. We vote on how much money to put into the public schools and other local decisions.
Above that we have state governments which deal with bigger issues. Each state has a legislature and a governor who are elected.
Last, there's the federal government. It's not so much that it's not functioning. It's just that we have problems we don't currently know how to solve.
It's odd that you know a lot about Trump's supporters but you don't know what's happening to the Uighurs. You don't have freedom of the press.
China would lose badly period.
How do you remove a US president, or a British, Australian or NZ Prime Minister, if they are not doing so well? By a vote of the people.
How would you remove a President in China, if it were for the common good? What happened to that "two consecutive terms" clause? By a vote of the NPC... that'll happen.
Quoting ltlee1
I don't think much of US democracy, and have pointed out several times that you might learn more about democratic process by looking elsewhere.
"It's odd that you know a lot about Trump's supporters but you don't know what's happening to the Uighurs."
Not at all. I am not living in Xinjiang. Of course, I don't a lot about Xinjiang. Especially for made up events. I am living in the US. Hence I know a lot about the US.
In contrast, people who did not live in X and don't know the local language but somehow get the idea that they know everything about X is odd or worse. A certain American professor had written a book with the title of "How the News Makes Us Dumb: The Death of Wisdom in an Information Society."
OK, that book 1999 book written before the digital age may be dated. The newest versions are "How America lost its mind: The Assault on Reason That’s Crippling Our Democracy," and "The Death of Expertise:The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters.
US media is indeed more entertaining than Chinese news. But also exacts a heavy price. IF the US is in decline, US media is partly to be blamed.
Again, you have a valid point.
I met Hong Konger in discussion forum who complained that the Chief of Hong Kong government was somehow appointed by China. I suggested to them. Hong Kongers should ask for the right to fire him or her before the term's end? If China keeps sending wrong people to lead Hong Kong, they all would be fired by the Hong Kong people. China would be embarrassed and would make sure its candidate would meet Hong Kongers's demand in the future.
However, I would distinguish between voting a person and voting a person out. The two are not the same. Voting in is mostly based on expectation, voting out is based on experience. No one can really tell the future. But they mostly know what have already happened to them, good or bad.
Again, the Chinese have decide themselves how to remove bad leaders.
"I don't think much of US democracy, and have pointed out several times that you might learn more about democratic process by looking elsewhere."
Whatever you think or don't think, most in the US, especially politicians, still think US is a democracy, perhaps the best. Again, the US is treating China as evil because it is not "democratic" like the US. The more the US not democratic, the most it would emphasize its democratic credential. This is the seed of a hot war. A war of good and evil.
"Whether or not the US is a democracy - it is not - has no bearing on whether or not China is. Not one bit."
The issue is how to really judge whether a country is democratic or not. Democratic would be vacuuous if the same standard could not be used. Is American criteria set a good criteria set. To the extent the the US America is not a democracy, its favor set of criteria cannot stand as universal.
Practical concern. Currently America is using it democratic credential to unite US society and to act hostilely to China internationally in the name of saving liberal democracy.
G John Ikenberry, had published a new book entitled "A World Safe For Liberal Internationalism."
The following is how this is book is introduced by Amazon.com:
"One of [the Biden team's] chief manifestos for change, as some of the incoming Bidenites have already privately conceded, will be G. John Ikenberry's new book, A World Safe for Democracy. . . the crowning achievement of the Princeton University's scholar's decades long work explaining and defending the liberal international order."
Uh huh.
And whether the US is democratic or not is totally irrelevant to this. I take it as obvious that the US is an excellent example of what to avoid when aiming run a democratic nation. If the US is doing it, it should probably be avoided, whatever 'it' is.
"Last, there's the federal government. It's not so much that it's not functioning. It's just that we have problems we don't currently know how to solve."
When could it be solved?
How so?
Are you suggesting a double standard?
Next paradigm shift. Could have happened in 2008, but Obama's guy fixed it.
But that new way will also eventually get old and ugly.
"Whether or not A is rubbish has nothing to do with whether B is rubbish."
You are absolutely right if A and B do not communicate with each other.
But currently A insists and many believe certain procedure X will make a country not rubbish. The claim is that a fair procedure X confers the government the consent of the governed.
According to the above thinkng, if fair procedure X is carried out in A --> A is not rubbish.
If fair procedure X is not carried out in B -->B is rubbish.
How could an indifferent third party determine whether A is right? He compare what happen to A and B in the real world.
Observations:
1. A carried out procedure X
Results: People do not think their government has the consent of the governed. Large number of people are unhappy and the majority do not trust their government.
2. B does not carry out procedure X.
Results: People think their government has the consent of the governed. Most are happy and trust their government
Conclusion, procedure X is irrelevant to whether a country is not rubbish
How else could one determine whether procedure X is relevant of irrelevant to preclude being rubbish?
You're being obtuse. Whatever the US says about itself or others is totally irrelavent to assessing democracy in China. Democracy is not, and has never been, an exclusive American posession. Especially given that America's political structure is in many ways explicitly anti-democratic. If you cannot bring yourself to talk about China's lack of democracy without having to detour through the US, then you are incapable of carrying out a discussion on the topic.
Anyone stupid enough to take the claims of a stupid person telling everyone else that they are not stupid at face value is the stupidest person in the room.
So, you're denying that Uighurs are being sent off to concentration camps, oh sorry "vocational training camps", in a concerted effort to commit cultural genocide? Or that the Chinese government is harassing Uighurs abroad because they are trying to tell the world about it when they managed to escape that atrocity?
Are the people round up randomly?
If not, they had to be round up according to some criteria.
If Xi's experiment in sending officials to live with Uighurs was part of the identification process. There could not be too many. No matter how careful, these anthropological studies would inconvenient the families involved. This naturally limits the scale of the project.
Physically build the structure to house 10,000, let alone 1 million people, is not a small project. It takes a lot times and space, a lot of labor and money. After all , Xinjiang is not Afghanistan. Sporadic terrorist acts once or twice every few years. Yes. But in no way a huge threat. Improving people's living hood has a longer time horizon. If the experiment was successful, such reeducation school could continue year after year. No reason to build all the housing units all at once.
Understand you point of view.
Thank you all for allowing me to express some of my thoughts in this forum. Please forgive my obtuse writing.
If any of the you want to enlighten me on issues related to China or America, I frequently post my view on soc.culture.china.
True. Democracy needs drag mechanisms to avoid having the will of the people become the will of the mob.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037.amp
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/31/1001936433/who-the-uyghurs-are-and-why-china-is-targeting-them?t=1625078923562
https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/ook-in-nederland-worden-oeigoeren-onderdrukt-door-de-chinese-overheid~bef14078/
The people rule through laws. One way to create a drag on lawmaking is to require a super-majority. Another is to allow filibusters. Another is to have two different lawmaking bodies, a House and Senate.
None of these tactics would keep land in the hands of a ”daddy” if the people have a strong enough will to take it.
The theory isn't bad. The practical application has mixed results.