Democracy Would Confuse Chinese People’s Minds, Says Political Journal

[Manvantaratruti]

Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years just fine without voting. Your theory has been proven to be wrong.

LOL. You think America invented democracy ?

India had democratic institutions at least since 600 BC. There were multiple Republics called Gana and Sangha within India which was ruled by leaders elected to power. In fact the sanskrit word for democratic Republic is 'Gana tantra' which existed much before the word "democracy" or "Republic" was invented.

This is even verified by the writings of the Greek historian, Diodorus who wrote around the time Alexander invaded India.

Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

 

[Manvantaratruti]

Needless to say the proof of democracy and democratic institutions show at least 600 BC or 2700 years before today.

That does not mean Democracy did not exist before that. There is no authentic proof so there is no way to prove it. But it does not take huge leap of imagination to understand that democratic republic did not arise out of vacuum 2700 years back. Democracy must have existed in some form or other. Democracy and Democratic traditions in India are believed to have existed at lest since 2000 BC or about 4000 years before.

In fact the ancient Indian book on Politics and Economics, "Arthashastra" (which is at least 2000 years old ) has specific reference on how to deal with other Democratic Republics in India. Republics in ancient India was called "janapada" and Huge Republics were know as "Maha Janapada".

 

[Nan Yang]

The right to vote is the same as the right to speak, to associate, to travel, etc. This means you support a dictatorship to control every aspect of your life. Congratulations, sheeple.

In Western countries it's almost impossible to field and elect competent representatives because the qualifications for election are unrelated to competence. Especially in the US, the only apparent qualification (other than money) is how things look on TV.

 

[gambit]

In Western countries it's almost impossible to field and elect competent representatives because the qualifications for election are unrelated to competence. Especially in the US, the only apparent qualification (other than money) is how things look on TV.

You got any hard data to back that up?

http://www.ampaconline.org/get-involved/physicians-in-congress/

2012 was again a landmark election in terms of physician candidates, with 50 physicians running as challengers or in open seats for federal office at one point during the cycle. The 113th Congress will welcome two new physicians to the House of Representatives.

Twenty physicians are currently serving in the 113th Congress which include three senators, 16 representatives and one delegate. Seven of these members of Congress are graduates of AMPAC’s Candidate Workshop and/or Campaign School.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress

Five members are engineers (including Reps. Joe Barton, Cliff Stearns, Pete Stark).

Not only that, there are attorneys, veterans, businessmen, or nurses...

http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/Policy-Advocacy/Federal/Nurses-in-Congress

So what 'qualifications' are you talking about? It is easy to throw out the word 'qualifications' without context. In a functional democracy, the context is that the representative should come from the community, so do you think these people and their professions do not came from the working class?

 

[JayAtl]

Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years just fine without voting. Your theory has been proven to be wrong.

so basically you rather all of us be the nethanderthal you are...?

 

[gambit]

In Western countries it's almost impossible to field and elect competent representatives because the qualifications for election are unrelated to competence.

Hmmm...Qualifications are unrelated to competence.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/lysenkoism.htm

Lysenkoism in China

Under Mao Zedong and the Great Leap Forward China went through the greatest famine in human history. Thirty million people died. The major reason was productive effort was diverted away from food production. In addition to the decline in food production due to the diversion of effort away from agriculture there were losses in food production because of the erroneous policies promoted by the State. One of these idiocies was close planting. If two plants are set too close to each other there is not enough nutrients in the soil to feed both and both die. The State promoted close planting of grain to increase productivity. The initial growth of a plant derives from the nutrient stored in the seed itself. With close planting the initial germination produces spectacular results, but when the growth of the plant has to depend upon nutrients drawn from the soil the close planting produces failures. During the Great Leap Forward there developed a competition for creating the most striking demonstrations of close planting. The record was probably the case which produced a famous photograph of children standing on top of a wheat field that could hold their weight. Jasper Becker, in his history of the Great Leap Forward era Hungry Ghosts tells that an interviewee revealed to him that the picture was faked. There was a bench hidden in the wheat below the children's feet that supported them.

Qualifications and competency are not the same thing.

So who was qualified to enforced the Lysenko-ism lunacy into China? A biogeneticist? An agricultural engineer? An accomplished farmer, at least? No, it was a committee of Party hacks who, in their delusions, believed they could change the laws of nature by their say-so.

Were they competent in enforcing Lysenko-ism in China? Absolutely. They forced Chinese farmers to abandon thousands of years of large scale agricultural and small farming knowledge and adopt Lysenko-ism.

The result was a famine that deprived China of a generation of potential great thinkers, philosophers, scientists, warrior-heroes, and so on...

And you would criticize US and our lawmakers?

 

[Nan Yang]

You got any hard data to back that up?

http://www.ampaconline.org/get-involved/physicians-in-congress/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress

Not only that, there are attorneys, veterans, businessmen, or nurses...

http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/Policy-Advocacy/Federal/Nurses-in-Congress

American smartest and brightest are not found in the congress. Your congress is still 50% lawyers.
Why There Are So Few Scientists And Engineers In Politics
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...e-So-Few-Scientists-And-Engineers-In-Politics

Quote from the article you posted.
"2012 was again a landmark election in terms of physician candidates", Why "Landmark' like if they are lawyers its a landmark.

So what 'qualifications' are you talking about? It is easy to throw out the word 'qualifications' without context. In a functional democracy, the context is that the representative should come from the community, so do you think these people and their professions do not came from the working class?

For a candidate in a Western democracy, the requirements are smoothness, a bit of charisma, the ability to look good on TV, an appropriate choice of (coached) politically correct statements and good sound bytes, and of course money to fund a campaign.


In no other part of life (except that of an Evangelical Christian Minister) is it possible to have so much power and take on so much responsibility with so few consequences for incompetence or bad judgment.


Government - the strategic managing of an entire country - is treated like some kind of team sport where gross incompetence is not normally a determining factor in the loss of political position.

 

[gambit]

American smartest and brightest are not found in the congress. Your congress is still 50% lawyers.
Why There Are So Few Scientists And Engineers In Politics
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...e-So-Few-Scientists-And-Engineers-In-Politics

Quote from the article you posted.
"2012 was again a landmark election in terms of physician candidates", Why "Landmark' like if they are lawyers its a landmark.




For a candidate in a Western democracy, the requirements are smoothness, a bit of charisma, the ability to look good on TV, an appropriate choice of (coached) politically correct statements and good sound bytes, and of course money to fund a campaign.


In no other part of life (except that of an Evangelical Christian Minister) is it possible to have so much power and take on so much responsibility with so few consequences for incompetence or bad judgment.


Government - the strategic managing of an entire country - is treated like some kind of team sport where gross incompetence is not normally a determining factor in the loss of political position.

I guess for China, bullets, a personal army, Party connections, money, and more bullets are superior 'qualifications'.

In a nation of laws where disputes are settled with words and papers, lawyers, like them or not, are preferable to bullets. But I guess since you have been living under bullets and intimidations among your political leaders for so long, lawyers and paper cuts must be very strange to you.

 

[Nan Yang]

I guess for China, bullets, a personal army, Party connections, money, and more bullets are superior 'qualifications'.

In a nation of laws where disputes are settled with words and papers, lawyers, like them or not, are preferable to bullets. But I guess since you have been living under bullets and intimidations among your political leaders for so long, lawyers and paper cuts must be very strange to you.

If you think of China as a corporation rather than a country, then you will understand.

 

[Nan Yang]

I guess for China, bullets, a personal army, Party connections, money, and more bullets are superior 'qualifications'.

In a nation of laws where disputes are settled with words and papers, lawyers, like them or not, are preferable to bullets. But I guess since you have been living under bullets and intimidations among your political leaders for so long, lawyers and paper cuts must be very strange to you.

Moreover, China's government officials are all highly-educated and trained engineers, economists, sociologists, scientists, often at a Ph.D. level. Contrast this with the Western system where most politicians are either lawyers or those with no useful education.

The point of this is to bring your attention to the disparity between the quality of 'politicians' in Western countries and China's government officials. The discrepancy is so vast that comparisons are largely meaningless.

In fact, China’s Communist Party may be one of the most meritocratic and upwardly mobile major political organizations in the world - far more meritocratic than the ruling elites of most Western countries and the vast majority of developing countries.

 

[gambit]

Moreover, China's government officials are all highly-educated and trained engineers, economists, sociologists, scientists, often at a Ph.D. level. Contrast this with the Western system where most politicians are either lawyers or those with no useful education.

The point of this is to bring your attention to the disparity between the quality of 'politicians' in Western countries and China's government officials. The discrepancy is so vast that comparisons are largely meaningless.

In fact, China’s Communist Party may be one of the most meritocratic and upwardly mobile major political organizations in the world - far more meritocratic than the ruling elites of most Western countries and the vast majority of developing countries.

And when there are challenges to their grip on power, they call out the army. Technocrats have been tried before and they failed. I suggest you use the American invention call 'the Internet' and find out why technocrats often failed and when given the chance, the citizens would rather not have them in political offices.

Here is an example...

http://jacobinmag.com/2013/07/the-rise-of-egypts-technocrats/

 

[tranquilium]

You got any hard data to back that up?

http://www.ampaconline.org/get-involved/physicians-in-congress/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress

Not only that, there are attorneys, veterans, businessmen, or nurses...

http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/Policy-Advocacy/Federal/Nurses-in-Congress

So what 'qualifications' are you talking about? It is easy to throw out the word 'qualifications' without context. In a functional democracy, the context is that the representative should come from the community, so do you think these people and their professions do not came from the working class?

Generally, in selecting governors, qualification will mean abilities that makes him/her suitable for the position. The most prominent traits would be education and experience. For example, the current Chinese president Xi started his career as an assistant secretary, went through vice mayor of village, mayor of village, vice mayor of city, mayor of city, vice-governor of province, governor of province, vice-president before he was elected as a president. In fact, the combined population of the people he has governed before coming into the office is around 140 million, covering four provinces. This means he has spent close to 40 years in administrative position proving that he is capable administrator. Hence we know he has the right qualifications.

http://baike.baidu.com/view/27362.htm

1969－1975年 陕西省延川县文安驿公社梁家河大队知青、党支部书记
1975－1979年 清华大学化工系基本有机合成专业学习
1979－1982年 国务院办公厅、中央军委办公厅秘书（现役）
1982－1983年 河北省正定县委副书记
1983－1985年 河北省正定县委书记，正定县武装部第一政委、党委第一书记
1985－1988年 福建省厦门市委常委、副市长
1988－1990年 福建省宁德地委书记，宁德军分区党委第一书记
1990－1993年 福建省福州市委书记、市人大常委会主任，福州军分区党委第一书记
1993－1995年 福建省委常委，福州市委书记、市人大常委会主任，福州军分区党委第一书记
1995－1996年 福建省委副书记，福州市委书记、市人大常委会主任，福州军分区党委第一书记
1996－1999年 福建省委副书记，福建省高炮预备役师第一政委
1999－2000年 福建省委副书记、代省长，南京军区国防动员委员会副主任，福建省国防动员委员会主任，福建省高炮预备役师第一政委
2000－2002年 福建省委副书记、省长，南京军区国防动员委员会副主任，福建省国防动员委员会主任，福建省高炮预备役师第一政委（1998－2002年清华大学人文社会学院马克思主义理论与思想政治教育专业在职研究生班学习，获法学博士学位）
2002－2002年 浙江省委副书记、代省长，南京军区国防动员委员会副主任，浙江省国防动员委员会主任
2002－2003年 浙江省委书记、代省长，浙江省军区党委第一书记，南京军区国防动员委员会副主任，浙江省国防动员委员会主任
2003－2007年 浙江省委书记、省人大常委会主任，浙江省军区党委第一书记
2007－2007年 上海市委书记，上海警备区党委第一书记
2007－2008年 中央政治局常委、中央书记处书记，中央党校校长
2008－2010年 中央政治局常委、中央书记处书记，中华人民共和国副主席, 中央党校校长
2010－2012年 中央政治局常委、中央书记处书记，中华人民共和国副主席，中共中央军事委员会副主席，中华人民共和国中央军事委员会副主席，中央党校校长
2012－2013年　中央委员会总书记,中共中央军事委员会主席,中华人民共和国副主席,中华人民共和国中央军事委员会副主席
2013－　中央委员会总书记,中共中央军事委员会主席,中华人民共和国主席,中华人民共和国中央军事委员会主席

And when there are challenges to their grip on power, they call out the army. Technocrats have been tried before and they failed. I suggest you use the American invention call 'the Internet' and find out why technocrats often failed and when given the chance, the citizens would rather not have them in political offices.

Here is an example...

http://jacobinmag.com/2013/07/the-rise-of-egypts-technocrats/

You mean something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

 

[JSCh]

This is called dodging. But the vagueness is expected of the intellectually dishonest.


Your case was never on the table to start. For example, the US removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, then we impose a version of democracy that was in collaboration with the Iraqis. For China, the US have any colonial interests in mainland China and was out of China after WW II. During the Cold War, Mao offended the rest of Asia by calling upon the Chinese living in other countries to rise up against their host countries via racial solidarity.

http://www.amazon.com/From-Third-World-First-Singapore/dp/0060197765

Let me know if you would like the full passage from Lee's book about his confrontation with Deng Xiaoping over what China did. Essentially, China was calling on overseas Chinese to be traitors and seditious to their hosts.

Everyone, including many Chinese, know what the US stands for. We cannot help it if some Chinese believes that our way is better for China, just as there were Mao-ism in the US...

http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/maoism-us.htm


So since there were traitorous and seditious overseas Chinese in Asian countries and the Chinese Communist Party promoting Mao-ist thoughts in the US, can we say that China 'forced' communism upon US?

During the cold war era, the opponents in the ideological war between the two camps did go to great extra-ordinary length to "force" their ideology on each other. At the time, China happened to be in the Soviet/Communist camp.

The dictators that US supported/propped-up like Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee in South Korea, Ferdinand Marcos in Philippine, Suharto in Indonesia are all brutal anti-communist military strongman that mercilessly cracked down, jailed, tortured and massacred their political opponents. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is known to be a frequent violator of civil right and imprisoned his political opponents without trial for decades.

There are wars and million of lives affected by the Cold war. They are not merely "Espousing a belief" to each other.

The thing is, the Cold war is over more than twenty years ago. China has stop exporting ideology at least 30 years ago. China is just searching for a best system to develop themselves and is well known for non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Why the US still attempting/pushing a political reform/regime change in China?

​

 

[gambit]

Generally, in selecting governors, qualification will mean abilities that makes him/her suitable for the position. The most prominent traits would be education and experience. For example, the current Chinese president Xi started his career as an assistant secretary, went through vice mayor of village, mayor of village, vice mayor of city, mayor of city, vice-governor of province, governor of province, vice-president before he was elected as a president. In fact, the combined population of the people he has governed before coming into the office is around 140 million, covering four provinces. This means he has spent close to 40 years in administrative position proving that he is capable administrator. Hence we know he has the right qualifications.

Right...So the Chinese people have little to no inputs as to who would rule over them. An elite group of other career politicians selected him. He is a career politician in the worst way -- never an interruption. The Chinese people may be fine with that, given their docility throughout China's history in the face of authority.

You mean something like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

No. I mean the standing army. Like the one that ran over students in Tiananmen Square and continues to have an active role as the Party's enforcement apparatus.

 

[faithfulguy]

The Chinese leadership has so far done a great job for its economy is the last 30 years. Even if it has an election today, most people would support their communist party. But eventually, things will changes. Until then, have a nice ride.