What's new

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

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.

Then why is Taiwan still keeping the separate status and why are people in Hongkong still unhappy with Communist rule. Many people from still Honkong believe that British rule was better for them.
 
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.
Fine...Then what is the point of violently suppressing those who criticize the Party and not only them but also their families? If the Party is that confident of having the people's confidence, then trust the people's decision (votes), right?
 
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.

Sure we have inputs. Every step along the way his administrative abilities are measured by how well the area developed. He is one of the countless lower ranking administrators who proved their worth at every step. Those who doesn't make the cut would not advance. I would hardly think it is "worst" by any stretch of imagination. Unless, of course, you are arguing that having a competent administrator is bad.

And please, Chinese are hardly docile. We are not the ones who have an entire continent of monarch and nobles all related to each other for thousands of years.

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.

You mean like this:

"U.S. Army intervention
At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered. the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"




Shacks that members of the Bonus Army erected on the Anacostia Flats burning after the confrontation with the military.
After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and tear gas (adamsite, an arsenical vomiting agent) entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was an attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested. A veteran's wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas "didn't do it any good."

During the military operation, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, later the 34th President of the United States, served as one of MacArthur's junior aides. Believing it wrong for the Army's highest-ranking officer to lead an action against fellow American war veterans, he strongly advised MacArthur against taking any public role: "I told that dumb son-of-a-bitch not to go down there," he said later. "I told him it was no place for the Chief of Staff." Despite his misgivings, Eisenhower later wrote the Army's official incident report which endorsed MacArthur's conduct.
 

I agree China does not need to embrace a multi-party democratic system.

What they *do* need to do, is allow politely-worded criticism on their government's policies, from local to foreign policies, or face the situation where corruption will be impossible to root out, leading to the risk of civil unrest (which has to be struck down by force, and that will see the Chinese leadership's international status (and chips in all sorts of international negotiations) plummet).

Why not embrace the Internet as a way to crowd-source policy making? Let the best solution rise to the top on a government run forum + polling site, and build that site before a non-government group does it!
 
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.

Western people talk too much about the process. China looks more at the results.

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.

Are you believing in a lie just because it meets your point of view ?

Quote “In 2009, James Miles, who was the BBC correspondent in Beijing at the time, admitted that he had "conveyed the wrong impression" and that "there was no massacre on Tiananmen Square.”

Enough said.

On the other hand.


And the West call China a police state !
 
Fine...Then what is the point of violently suppressing those who criticize the Party and not only them but also their families? If the Party is that confident of having the people's confidence, then trust the people's decision (votes), right?

After all, its still a communist party. They need complete control.
 
Then why is Taiwan still keeping the separate status and why are people in Hongkong still unhappy with Communist rule. Many people from still Honkong believe that British rule was better for them.

Hong Kong and Taiwan is much more advanced. If Hong Kong or Taiwan is like India in economic development and corruption, its possible that they would give up its corrupt gov and join China.

Hong Kong never had democracy under Britain. Most don't like Britain, they just don't like too much CCP interference.
 
Chinese are made to obey for centuries, Democracy do not suit them.

Chinese already tried democracy from 1912-49, it gave them a failing China.
Hong Kong and Taiwan is much more advanced. If Hong Kong or Taiwan is like India in economic development and corruption, its possible that they would give up its corrupt gov and join China.

Hong Kong never had democracy under Britain. Most don't like Britain, they just don't like too much CCP interference.

But people in Hongkong believe their life was better during British rule compared to their current condition. I was too surprised to hear such opinion from the people of Hongkong.
 
Chinese already tried democracy from 1912-49, it gave them a failing China.

But people in Hongkong believe their life was better during British rule compared to their current condition. I was too surprised to hear such opinion from the people of Hongkong.

I'm certain being from India, your country would be better off still govern by Britain. Since you already use their language and their style of government, its not too much of a change. Just bring back the empress of India, Queen Victoria II, and you got it made.
 
I'm certain being from India, your country would be better off still govern by Britain. Since you already use their language and their style of government, its not too much of a change. Just bring back the empress of India, Queen Victoria II, and you got it made.

Indians are happy that British left and we are better without them but that doesn't seems to be a case in Hongkong, who see their condition getting worse.
 
I agree China does not need to embrace a multi-party democratic system.

What they *do* need to do, is allow politely-worded criticism on their government's policies, from local to foreign policies, or face the situation where corruption will be impossible to root out, leading to the risk of civil unrest (which has to be struck down by force, and that will see the Chinese leadership's international status (and chips in all sorts of international negotiations) plummet).

Why not embrace the Internet as a way to crowd-source policy making? Let the best solution rise to the top on a government run forum + polling site, and build that site before a non-government group does it!

Chinese government does allow constructive criticism. Actually, they spend A LOT of times getting feedback from the people. Heck, just search "基层群众反映" on any search engine you will realize that a critical part of the daily operation for local government is gathering feedback from the people.

https://www.google.com/#q=基层群众反映&spell=1

Now, regarding to internet, it is more complicated. Internet has a lot of potential, but it is also about the least credible source of information you can find. The reason is simple, people tends to be very irresponsible of they say on internet.

Take PDF for example, how often do you see people threat to nuke someone or bomb someone to stone age? The answer is a lot. Are these people gonna say the same thing when standing in front of podium and hold accountable for their actions? Of course not.

Another example, anyone can open up an online poll and then use a few hundred IP addresses to get as much vote as they want. Hence anything that claimed to be based on an online survey has be taken with a grain of salt.

Of course, there are also much worse people online. For example, you want to get more followers on Weibo or facebook. What's the fastest method? Shocking news of course. This is essentially how the rumor-mongers starts. Fudge a bit numbers here, throw in a conspiracy theory here, take things out of context and voila, you have a shocking new article. Are these "news" reliable? Of course not.

With power comes responsibility. Your vote, your opinion and your action, if you wish it to have an impact on decision making of your nation, you have to be able to take the same level of responsibility. Unfortunately, internet doesn't allow this.
 
I agree China does not need to embrace a multi-party democratic system.

What they *do* need to do, is allow politely-worded criticism on their government's policies, from local to foreign policies, or face the situation where corruption will be impossible to root out, leading to the risk of civil unrest (which has to be struck down by force, and that will see the Chinese leadership's international status (and chips in all sorts of international negotiations) plummet).

Why not embrace the Internet as a way to crowd-source policy making? Let the best solution rise to the top on a government run forum + polling site, and build that site before a non-government group does it!

Actually they are allowed to do that. You just can't say anything about replacing or uprising against the current government.
Of course separatist movements are a no-no. That applies to every country.
 
Sure we have inputs. Every step along the way his administrative abilities are measured by how well the area developed. He is one of the countless lower ranking administrators who proved their worth at every step. Those who doesn't make the cut would not advance. I would hardly think it is "worst" by any stretch of imagination. Unless, of course, you are arguing that having a competent administrator is bad.

And please, Chinese are hardly docile. We are not the ones who have an entire continent of monarch and nobles all related to each other for thousands of years.
The foundation of a functional democracy is 'ruled by consent' -- OF THE PEOPLE.

So was Xi Jinping vetted by the Chinese people? Here is what you ignored, despite your alleged being in America, that the greater the scope of governance, the greater the need for the potential ruler to be vetted by the people, even by ignorant people. Competence is subjective, even when there is a record of accomplishments. It is subjective because there is no way for you to prove that the alternative could have been better simply because the alternative was never tried. So the only way for the people to vet the candidate is for him to expose himself, which includes his background, his accomplishments, his philosophies, and his (proposed) policies, to be screened by the people and by contenders who believes theirs to be the better choices. The screening is necessary because once the candidate is installed into office, he might turned out to be over his head. His philosophies and policies may turned out to be disastrous for the country or the province or the city or even the township.

Ever heard of 'The Peter Principle'...???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
The Peter Principle is a proposition that states that the members of an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence."
There is no shortage of contenders who have just as much education and accomplishments as any aspirant to political office.

Let the people chose. Why is that so difficult for you to understand despite you claiming to live in the US?

You mean like this:
And you still failed. As usual with the Chinese members here, you did not read your source and study it.

The Bonus Army was not out to challenge the political structure of the US in the way the Chinese students in Tiananmen Square was. So it was wrong for the US military to intervene.

On the other hand, since the PLA is the enforcement arm of the Chinese Communist Party, not a guardian of the Chinese people, it was appropriate for the Chinese government to use the PLA to suppress any challenges to that political structure.

In the US, the county sheriff can put the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in jail if the Chairman violate a local law seriously enough. In China, generals and admirals...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-09/03/content_5042349.htm?rss=1
In China, military cars are legally entitled to privileges, including exemption from road tolls, but they are often seen blatantly breaking road rules by speeding, dangerously changing lanes or running red lights. In some cases police have found illegal or fake military license plates are used by law breakers.

Police officers are usually reluctant to pull over drivers of military cars for fear of their military and political standings.
The US military is not beholden to either the Republicans or the Democratic party while the PLA is loyal to the CCP first before the people. Everybody in the world knows that.
 
The US military is not beholden to either the Republicans or the Democratic party while the PLA is loyal to the CCP first before the people. Everybody in the world knows that.

Well, people's approval = open votes for you, then there really isn't much I can do and considering that you are willing to gloss over US army killing veterans that have fought for their country, I don't think there is much I can do period.
 
I wondered if US would reform their corporation to election based. Because for them, democracy is the culmination of human achievement in governance. The zenith of which cannot be surpassed! The END OF HISTORY, no need to waste time to look any further!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
Francis Fukuyama, expanding on his 1989 essay "The End of History?", published in the international affairs journal The National Interest. In the book, Fukuyama argues that the advent of Western liberal democracy may signal the endpoint of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.
 
Back
Top Bottom