What's new

A democratic China would have been like India at best: Xinhua

CONNAN

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
3,381
Reaction score
0
Country
India
Location
United States
Democracy would have been catastrophic for China, state media has said, adding that had it adopted the democratic system, China would have been like India “at best”.

Like India, China would have been saddled with millions of poor people, the commentary added.

In a scathing and sarcastic commentary on the western-style democratic system, state-controlled Xinhua said a bipartisan political system would have led to endless political bickering and political dysfunction in the country.

“Should China have adopted a system that facilitated lobbying among interest groups, policies on domestic infrastructure to bills that had worldwide implication would be caught in a self perpetuating cycle of limitless debates,” the commentary, published to coincide with the ongoing session of China’s rubber-stamp Parliament, said.

At best, China would have been another India, the commentary said, indicating exactly how China’s state-controlled media views India.

“At best, China would have been another India, the world's biggest democracy by Western standards, where around 20 percent of the world's poorest live and whose democracy focuses on how power is divided,” the commentary said.

“In 2014, India registered a per capital gross domestic product equal to a mere quarter of China's GDP,” it added.

“Hindsight shows us that the Western political system, which is not inherently problematic and was designed to encourage "freedom", would have been incompatible to a country where efficiency has driven remarkable economic growth and social development,” the commentary said.

Political lobbying would dilute the unique strength and success of socialist China's "concentrating resources to do big things".

Taking a critical view of democracy, it added that a system that “allows plurality is fertile ground for election rigging, vote buying and the silencing of minorities. In a country as ethnically and geographically diverse as China, the fires of opposition would have been stoked and the nation divided”.

“Even in comparison with the Republicans in the United States, filibusters in Chinese Congress would have made any health care or poverty reduction bill extremely difficult to pass.

Further, China's feat of becoming the first developing country to halve its population living in poverty would have never been accomplished,” the commentary said.

A democratic China would have been like India at best: Xinhua
 
.
the definition of poor is different in world. They start comparing the standard of living. In India if people are earning less this does not mean.. they are poor. They have value for money when buying consumer goods.
 
.
Well it's better to breath air of freedom than life of captivity.
Caged parrots..
 
.
Why not take it one step further and make your leaders dictators for life like North Korea and progress would have happened in a few years and not decades.

You were still inefficient.

Oh wait that didn't work...
 
.
the definition of poor is different in world. They start comparing the standard of living. In India if people are earning less this does not mean.. they are poor. They have value for money when buying consumer goods.

Everything is cheaper in China, so we earn more and pay less.

Also poor is poor. The standard is America if you must have a definite standard, that has always been the bench mark.

Well it's better to breath air of freedom than life of captivity.
Caged parrots..

Yes, caged parrots. That's exactly what Chinese are.

Why not take it one step further and make your leaders dictators for life like North Korea and progress would have happened in a few years and not decades.

You were still inefficient.

Oh wait that didn't work...

That's a stupid thing to say, that's like saying to the Seahawks why not spend 5 bucks and change on offence and everything else on defence because the defence is what won that one championship.

Everything is relative.

If we had been NK, which we were, we be poor. If we were India, which we also were for a while, Japan almost took us over.

Am I for democracy? Not necessarily, though I am also not against and I do think democracy has a lot of good ideas.

Back when America became the super power that it is, Kennedy said "Asked not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Americans went to the moon and created the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen.

During the beginning stages, even Americans needed a bit of centralization to achieve what you achieved.

Now consider China, America is like a place with more churches than priest, while we are a country with more monks than temples. Resource is even more scarce here per capita.

If all we did was spread the wealth, which we had little, instead of concentrating the wealth and creating more wealth, would it really have worked?
 
.
Everything is cheaper in China, so we earn more and pay less.

Also poor is poor. The standard is America if you must have a definite standard, that has always been the bench mark.

For you ..
 
. .
What's your definition, if you're alive you're not poor. If you didn't stave to death you are not poor.

in India the mentality does not revolve around standard of living, it revolves around saving and not using in luxury, well you will also find people who spends a lot of luxury but they are very few. (this does not mean that they are the only rich ones)
 
.
in India the mentality does not revolve around standard of living, it revolves around saving and not using in luxury, well you will also find people who spends a lot of luxury but they are very few. (this does not mean that they are the only rich ones)
Essentially you are still measuring it in money. It's just somehow you got this weird idea that saving isn't part of earning.

You can only save what you earned.

China also saves more, by all indicators more than India or US, but that doesn't make China richer than US. In fact the saving points to a crap safety net, be it employment, health care, and more.

Also don't revolve around standard of living? Really. I like to live there, cause all the Indians I came across which is a lot due to where I live, standard of living is definitely a factor, a big one.
 
.
the definition of poor is different in world. They start comparing the standard of living. In India if people are earning less this does not mean.. they are poor. They have value for money when buying consumer goods.

Although the defination of poor in different parts of word is different , but there is no denying the fact that there are people in India , in millions who dont get proper food , by proper i mean 3 times , they are lucky if they get it twice a day.
Pls talk about reality here my friend. What value for money is it mate when the prices of everything are through the roof , and many people arent getting proper compensation for the work they do , daily wager?

I went back home last year , after a gap of 4 years, i went to a shop to buy some fruits , filled my bag with fruits (mid sized bag) with a kilo of apples , half a dozen pears , few bananas and somthing else , the bill was 500 + Rs.
Now I could afford that , but what about poorer people ? :( Can they eat fruits everyday , the essentials of life? :( Really make me sad thinking about it !! your take?
 
. .
Essentially you are still measuring it in money. It's just somehow you got this weird idea that saving isn't part of earning.

You can only save what you earned.

China also saves more, by all indicators more than India or US, but that doesn't make China richer than US. In fact the saving points to a crap safety net, be it employment, health care, and more.

Also don't revolve around standard of living? Really. I like to live there, cause all the Indians I came across which is a lot due to where I live, standard of living is definitely a factor, a big one.

people invest in metal, ornaments and land.. any ways , how many chinese invest in ornament , metals, house and land..
it is not under your understanding ...

Although the defination of poor in different parts of word is different , but there is no denying the fact that there are people in India , in millions who dont get proper food , by proper i mean 3 times , they are lucky if they get it twice a day.
Pls talk about reality here my friend. What value for money is it mate when the prices of everything are through the roof , and many people arent getting proper compensation for the work they do , daily wager?

I went back home last year , after a gap of 4 years, i went to a shop to buy some fruits , filled my bag with fruits (mid sized bag) with a kilo of apples , half a dozen pears , few bananas and somthing else , the bill was 500 + Rs.
Now I could afford that , but what about poorer people ? :( Can they eat fruits everyday , the essentials of life? :( Really make me sad thinking about it !! your take?

MNREGA gives them food. , don't worry.

There are also peolpe in west, who get paid by government when their financial condition is weak.. half of the people don't buy phones, cars, or house... they simply take loans or pay in instalment. That's how west runs its economy..

In India, loan is a bad thing..

, the bill was 500 + Rs.
Now I could afford that , but what about poorer people ? :( Can they eat fruits everyday , the essentials of life? :( Really make me sad thinking about it !! your take?

if you buy from a rural area and it is very less..
 
.
They could have compared themselves with other democracies like US :P but why India :D .

Chinese media and their paranoia. LOL
China and India both developing countries, second and most population in the world.

If going by what you're saying, why should US compare military to China, a poor country relative to the US, why should US compare Human Rights to China. They should compare health care systems with European ones.

However, China and US are one and two on the total GDP scale, so it's not out of nowhere.

If you really don't know why these things are made, maybe this isn't the forum for you.

people invest in metal, ornaments and land.. any ways , how many chinese invest in ornament , metals, house and land..
it is not under your understanding ...

You are correct, I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
.
That's a stupid thing to say, that's like saying to the Seahawks why not spend 5 bucks and change on offence and everything else on defence because the defence is what won that one championship.

Everything is relative.

If we had been NK, which we were, we be poor. If we were India, which we also were for a while, Japan almost took us over.
.

Nothing is written in stone. If a good leader comes around and he has complete control things can happen quickly. Now if you are saying the NPC is just a bunch of yes-men then that is basically the same. But if they aren't...then the North Korean way could be better. North Korea has failed because their leaders haven't led their economy the correct way.

I'm just saying like you that everything is relative and the luck of the draw. There is no guarantee a democracy would have slowed you down and there is no guarantee a dictatorship would have slowed you down either.
 
.
China and India both developing countries, second and most population in the world.

If going by what you're saying, why should US compare military to China, a poor country relative to the US, why should US compare Human Rights to China. They should compare health care systems with European ones.

However, China and US are one and two on the total GDP scale, so it's not out of nowhere.

If you really don't know why these things are made, maybe this isn't the forum for you.

Girl, Cool down! Don't shoot the messenger.

I just said that Chinese media are paranoid ( Chinese Fox News :P )
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom