Is China more legitimate than the West?

[cirr]

He who delivers 8% plus average REAL growth for the next 20 years and 7% plus growth for the coming 30 years，will get my full and whole-hearted support。

As a short term target，per capita GDP should be in excess of 10,000 US dollars by 2015 or 2016 the latest。

I don't give a sh1t about how the guy gets to the top of the table。

 

[dreamer53320]

He who delivers 8% plus average REAL growth for the next 20 years and 7% plus growth for the coming 30 years，will get my full and whole-hearted support。

As a short term target，per capita GDP should be in excess of 10,000 US dollars by 2015 or 2016 the latest。

I don't give a sh1t about how the guy gets to the top of the table。

yep, I totally agree, Taiwan had the most extraordinary growth and life standard improvement during 蔣經國's ruling, during which Taiwan was still a one-party system. Not even DPP people dare say anything bad about him (that's how great he was).

Ironically, we got 12 years of democracy so far since 2000, and we're already in the decline...........................

 

[gambit]

Not every country have a stomach for democaracy, nor not any country need it.

As i said before, China will never have Amerian Style democracy nor will they ever need it, it will do more harm than good if China are govern by the people, rather than govern by a ruler

Who is demanding that China be exactly like US? Since Switzerland have a rotating Presidency, pretty much devoid of popular sentiments, can we Americans call the Swiss 'non-democratic'? But no Americans does.

China's 18th Party Congress: Why so secretive? - CNN.com

That is, despite its domination over the lives of the Chinese people, even the Communist party is not exempt from the general political axiom that a governing régime relies on popular acceptance of its authority.

The problem is that is no one, not even the Party's own members, voted for the next generation of CCP leaders. There are no laws -- or even any clear rules -- that govern the selection of leaders, leaving the matter of choosing the top leaders of the most populous nation on earth entirely at the mercy of the Party's forever changing internal logic.

Mao was already suffering from a neural disease that made him unable to speak, so he replied by jotting down a note that read: "With you in charge, I am at ease." Five months later, Mao died, and Hua became his successor as chairman.

That note became the main vehicle of state propaganda efforts to lend Hua legitimacy. And in order to keep its original limited context a secret, Foreign Minister Qiao Guanhua, an eyewitness to the original exchange, was sacked.

Thus, the Chinese leaders' response to the new age of information has been to make their political system ever more opaque and expend enormous resources on media censorship.

"He who controls the past controls the future."

Here is what is questionable about Jacques' argument...

BBC News - A Point Of View: Is China more legitimate than the West?

Now let me shock you: the Chinese state enjoys greater legitimacy than any Western state. How come?

In China's case the source of the state's legitimacy lies entirely outside the history or experience of Western societies.

In my first talk I explained that China is not primarily a nation-state but a civilisation-state. For the Chinese, what matters is civilisation. For Westerners it is nation. The most important political value in China is the integrity and unity of the civilisation-state.

What Jacques is arguing is that we must place China outside of the currently acceptable political contexts of what is legitimacy, which is general approval or even through apathy, by the people. This is dangerous because Jacques effectively gave the Chinese government of any era -- past, present, and future -- great latitude in exercising its power over the Chinese people. Latitude or excuse.

The Chinese idea of the state could hardly be more different.

They do not view it from a narrowly utilitarian standpoint, in terms of what it can deliver, let alone as the devil incarnate in the manner of the American Tea Party.

They see the state as an intimate, or, to be more precise, as a member of the family - the head of the family, in fact. The Chinese regard the family as the template for the state. What's more, they perceive the state not as external to themselves but as an extension or representation of themselves.

Confining to the US...So does the Americans. Even the Tea Party, which is not as extreme as Senor Jacques would like everyone to believe. Americans believe their government to be an extension and (not merely or) representation of themselves. If there is a significant difference, it is that the Americans believe this extension to be ultimately subservient to the people and not the other way around, as seemingly how Herr Jacques is portraying the Chinese -- docile to the state. The Americans believe the government is necessary to focus the raw sentiments of the people into coherent utilitarian policies while apparently Mr. Jacques is saying the Chinese people believe that it is they who should be the grateful recipients of the unquestioned wisdom of the state.

If the Chinese state enjoys such support, then why does it display such signs of paranoia? The controls on the press and the internet, the periodic arrest of dissidents, and the rest of it.

Good point. Actually, all Chinese governments have displayed these same symptoms. Why?

Because the country is huge and governance is extremely difficult.

Say what...??? The US and China are geographical equals.

US:
3,794,000 sq miles (9,827,000 km²)

China:
3,706,000 sq miles (9,598,000 km²)

Besides the people, governance is also about exercising complete domination by one authority figure over this geographical area. Any more than one authority figure and there is a civil war. So what exactly is this 'huge' Monsieur Jacques is talking about? The US government is sole authority figure over the same land area without resorting to the governance tactics the Chinese government is using.

Anticipating sources of instability has long been regarded as a fundamental attribute of good governance.

Depends on the sources and what types of instability. You do not want economic instability inherent to a capitalist society? Then get rid of capitalism and its traits such as 'money' or 'private property' or 'profit'. That experiment did not worked out too well, did it? Instability as caused from without, such as intents of conquests by outsiders, do not discredit any government. If anything, it rallies the people around the government. It appears that Mr. Jacques is saying that there is something unique about the Chinese people that made them amenable and willingly docile to dictatorships and that we in the West should be sympathetic to such a different people.

 

[WS-10 Engine]

F**k democrazy!

As long as I get rich I don't care if I get to tick in some box for some crook politician.

If I get to vote but I keep getting poorer despite voting for either party, my vote means nothing.


If you gave me a choice:

OPTION 1: get no vote but get rich
OPTION 2: getting to vote but stay poor or become poorer

I will always choose OPTION 1.

We don't get to vote, but why do we need to vote when we are getting richer, the country is getting stronger and more influential.
The CPC is not perfect but they have been doing a very good job.

 

[jhungary]

Who is demanding that China be exactly like US? Since Switzerland have a rotating Presidency, pretty much devoid of popular sentiments, can we Americans call the Swiss 'non-democratic'? But no Americans does.

China's 18th Party Congress: Why so secretive? - CNN.com

Here is what is questionable about Jacques' argument...

BBC News - A Point Of View: Is China more legitimate than the West?

What Jacques is arguing is that we must place China outside of the currently acceptable political contexts of what is legitimacy, which is general approval or even through apathy, by the people. This is dangerous because Jacques effectively gave the Chinese government of any era -- past, present, and future -- great latitude in exercising its power over the Chinese people. Latitude or excuse.


Confining to the US...So does the Americans. Even the Tea Party, which is not as extreme as Senor Jacques would like everyone to believe. Americans believe their government to be an extension and (not merely or) representation of themselves. If there is a significant difference, it is that the Americans believe this extension to be ultimately subservient to the people and not the other way around, as seemingly how Herr Jacques is portraying the Chinese -- docile to the state. The Americans believe the government is necessary to focus the raw sentiments of the people into coherent utilitarian policies while apparently Mr. Jacques is saying the Chinese people believe that it is they who should be the grateful recipients of the unquestioned wisdom of the state.


Say what...??? The US and China are geographical equals.

US:
3,794,000 sq miles (9,827,000 km²)

China:
3,706,000 sq miles (9,598,000 km²)

Besides the people, governance is also about exercising complete domination by one authority figure over this geographical area. Any more than one authority figure and there is a civil war. So what exactly is this 'huge' Monsieur Jacques is talking about? The US government is sole authority figure over the same land area without resorting to the governance tactics the Chinese government is using.


Depends on the sources and what types of instability. You do not want economic instability inherent to a capitalist society? Then get rid of capitalism and its traits such as 'money' or 'private property' or 'profit'. That experiment did not worked out too well, did it? Instability as caused from without, such as intents of conquests by outsiders, do not discredit any government. If anything, it rallies the people around the government. It appears that Mr. Jacques is saying that there is something unique about the Chinese people that made them amenable and willingly docile to dictatorships and that we in the West should be sympathetic to such a different people.

you don't need to reply me in full when i just put in my casual comment.

Democracy mean rule by people, the definition are actually either a government elect by the people directly or a government vote on behalf of a party on behalf of a leader. Both are accepted form of modern democracy. THe switzerland, however, were using an model called Express Democracy which emphsis on direct voting on issue, anyone who are Switzerland Citizens (And you even need to be voted in as Switzerland Citizens) can challenge any of the Switzerland law and policy. Starting from library to who's the boss yof the country, if they have a certain amount of support by any of the 3 legistrature (Federal, local and municipalities) You can vote on the issue, given the issue have passed the specific assembly.

Funny enough, direct or express democracy usually does not fulfill the general requirment for modern democracy, why? Because it gave the people to much power. When the people have too much power on political issue, then they are literally all equal. It doesn't matter if you are a president of Switzerland or just a pleasent from Bern, you have the same right, same responsibility, and also, same power, in most of the Europe, Switzerland is not considered Democratic but rather socialist, because of their Citizens have more power to their own than to the country in federal level.

Swiss Citizens is not the same across the 26 provinces of Switzerland, they are of Federal Switzerland Citizenary but they are different, one need to know the Swiss Citizenary is leaning on it's birth State (Like Bern and Zurich) rather than the Country as a whole. If you are born in Zurich, Switzerland. You are a Zurich Citizens and even you are Switzerland Citizens, you do not have the same status, to people who was born in Bern, Switzerland. You will be treated as an Outsider in Bern, if you are born in Zurich.

The problem compounded by Direct voting and level of citizenary. The federal level politic literally does not exist, as every policy will be decided at States(cantons) level and each State haev its own agenda. In fact, there are no need for a federal state in Switzerland, which its main job is to provide Security as a whole to Switzerland.

It's just like in China, where no one can touch the policy on federal level beside the choosen one, instead you got 200 people from each state, you have the whole state representing the people, and instead with only a few poeple have the right to choose, all the swiss have the right to choose.

 

[Jade]

Democracy is only the legitimate form of governance.

 

[eddieInUK]

yep, I totally agree, Taiwan had the most extraordinary growth and life standard improvement during 蔣經國's ruling, during which Taiwan was still a one-party system. Not even DPP people dare say anything bad about him (that's how great he was).

Ironically, we got 12 years of democracy so far since 2000, and we're already in the decline...........................

I wouldn't say One party system is perfect, but a Big government is more feasible in our country due to the history.

 

[JSCh]

Here is what is questionable about Jacques' argument...

BBC News - A Point Of View: Is China more legitimate than the West?

Now let me shock you: the Chinese state enjoys greater legitimacy than any Western state. How come?

In China's case the source of the state's legitimacy lies entirely outside the history or experience of Western societies.

In my first talk I explained that China is not primarily a nation-state but a civilisation-state. For the Chinese, what matters is civilisation. For Westerners it is nation. The most important political value in China is the integrity and unity of the civilisation-state.

What Jacques is arguing is that we must place China outside of the currently acceptable political contexts of what is legitimacy, which is general approval or even through apathy, by the people. This is dangerous because Jacques effectively gave the Chinese government of any era -- past, present, and future -- great latitude in exercising its power over the Chinese people. Latitude or excuse.

What Jacques is arguing is not what you said. When he said China has greater legitimacy he is referring to the greater approval rating of the Chinese government. He is saying the Chinese people has the right to choose how they are being ruled. The west should try to understand that Chinese is different and has the right to choose different system of government.
I totally agree with him. It is not within west right to dictate China legitimate or not. Everybody knows that the double standard of the west depends not on true legitimacy anyway.

Confining to the US...So does the Americans. Even the Tea Party, which is not as extreme as Senor Jacques would like everyone to believe. Americans believe their government to be an extension and (not merely or) representation of themselves. If there is a significant difference, it is that the Americans believe this extension to be ultimately subservient to the people and not the other way around, as seemingly how Herr Jacques is portraying the Chinese -- docile to the state. The Americans believe the government is necessary to focus the raw sentiments of the people into coherent utilitarian policies while apparently Mr. Jacques is saying the Chinese people believe that it is they who should be the grateful recipients of the unquestioned wisdom of the state.

Chinese culture is a collective culture. Chinese value the collective coherent whole. If they deem it worthwhile to forgo some of the individual rights that the west oh hold so dear, what right do the west has to force it upon them?

Say what...??? The US and China are geographical equals.

US:
3,794,000 sq miles (9,827,000 km²)

China:
3,706,000 sq miles (9,598,000 km²)

Besides the people, governance is also about exercising complete domination by one authority figure over this geographical area. Any more than one authority figure and there is a civil war. So what exactly is this 'huge' Monsieur Jacques is talking about? The US government is sole authority figure over the same land area without resorting to the governance tactics the Chinese government is using.


Depends on the sources and what types of instability. You do not want economic instability inherent to a capitalist society? Then get rid of capitalism and its traits such as 'money' or 'private property' or 'profit'. That experiment did not worked out too well, did it? Instability as caused from without, such as intents of conquests by outsiders, do not discredit any government. If anything, it rallies the people around the government. It appears that Mr. Jacques is saying that there is something unique about the Chinese people that made them amenable and willingly docile to dictatorships and that we in the West should be sympathetic to such a different people.

When he said "Because the country is huge and governance is extremely difficult. ", he meant because the country is huge in terms of (guessing here) geography, population and cultural diversity, so the government needs to be vigilant and preemptive.
And I think also because China have this strange suspicion that the west is trying to do a color revolution (aka regime change) in China.
Chinese culture value stability and unity. We put it above individual rights. The west value the same thing but the west put more weight on individual rights.
China do not preach US on how to run their government because every country is different, they also do not judge the American on how they should live their lives.
Maybe US/American should return the courtesy.

 

[terranMarine]

I totally agree with him. It is not within west right to dictate China legitimate or not. Everybody knows that the double standard of the west depends not on true legitimacy anyway.

Chinese culture is a collective culture. Chinese value the collective coherent whole. If they deem it worthwhile to forgo some of the individual rights that the west oh hold so dear, what right do the west has to force it upon them?

And I think also because China have this strange suspicion that the west is trying to do a color revolution (aka regime change) in China.

China do not preach US on how to run their government because every country is different, they also do not judge the American on how they should live their lives.
Maybe US/American should return the courtesy.

The US shall always try to force a regime change as they see fit. The Bay of Pigs Invasion is just an example of it. A counter-revolutionary militia trained and funded by the CIA intended to overthrow Castro.

Protests and uprisings in Tibet since 1950 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the time Nixon came to the White House, the CIA had already informed Thundrop that they were terminating support. Years later he would have this to say about the affair: "America didn't want to help Tibet. It just wanted to make trouble for China. It had no far-sighted policy for Tibet[...]The Americans promised to help make Tibet an independent country. All those promises were broken...I can't say the CIA help was useful...it really provoked the Chinese [and] led to reprisals. I feel very sorry for this." —Gyalo Thondup

Recent meddling can be found in the middle east (Syria and Iran).

 

[jhungary]

I don't really believe people are still replying to this thread. The question on the OP itself Is China more legitimate than the West? is not legitimate to begin with. As "Legitimacy" cannot be measure, so how would you define One is more legitmate than the other?

You ask this question would be of same effect as would manslaughter more legitimate than murder? or Is Heterosexual more legitimate than homosexual? or Would money more legitimate than item?

There are no answer, Democracy suit best with West, in the western point of view, Democracy is more legitimate than Dictatoriship in the west. In the Communist China, dictatorship is more suited the Chinese then Dictatotship is more legitimate than Decomoracy in China.

You cannot right or wrong an idea, as soon as they fit, it snaps.

You can also called murder is legal if the society think it's okay to kill people for profit or any other reason.