Why China does not need democracy, how Chinese official selection system works

[Mista]

Yes Genius, being able to have a say on who becomes the leader of the nation is desired.
Question is if that is productive and the effectiveness of its implementation.
Communism is also ideal except so far there is no successful implementation or ever will.
The criticism is about cowboys who think their version of democracy is utopia and have it foisted onto others.

In case your comprehension has deteriorated with aging, this is what @Pangu said.


Singapore's "democratic" President is elected from a group of candidates vetted and approved by a committee, similar to what was proposed in Hong Kong. Though it is not at the level of a general election, it serves as a good example of an in practice alternative form of universal suffrage democratic election.
Our President draws a salary of 1SGD$1,568,900/yr (US$1,188,560), so no small fry.

For 2017 Presidential Elections we have ONLY ONE candidate qualified to stand for Universal Free and Fair Democratic Election.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...rtificate-set-to-be-singapores-next-president
Halimah Yacob only one to get eligibility certificate, set to be Singapore's next President.

FYI Halimah Yacob is the Speaker of the House from the ruling party before she was strongly urged to resign and run for President. All the other candidates were ruled ineligible, not qualified by last minute modifications to the election criteria.
No venom from the US because we are not China ?
.

The President is irrelevant. Just like the Queen in the UK is not elected too but no one doubts the UK is a democracy.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Democracy is a failed model , civil service model is best ...so volunteer work to rise thru rank and be satisfied to help people

 

[sinait]

The President is irrelevant. Just like the Queen in the UK is not elected too but no one doubts the UK is a democracy.

That's why I have this in my post.

Though it is not at the level of a general election, it serves as a good example of an in practice alternative form of universal suffrage democratic election.

The Singapore President have some control over our reserves and I also believe the President is set to have more powers in the future.
So not exactly irrelevant, but I will stop here.
.

 

[Mista]

That's why I have this in my post.

The Singapore President have some control over our reserves and I also believe the President is set to have more powers in the future.
So not exactly irrelevant, but I will stop here.
.

Actually I remember LKY suggested the same idea for China before too. A selected pool of approved candidates from the CPC before letting the people choose. So it's still one party but the top man for the top job can be chosen by the people.

I personally don't like Presidential style election though. The candidates tend to be more populist and can be inefficient as witnessed in the US; although selecting a small pool of candidates beforehand reduces these risks.

Found it:

 

[gambit]

Yes Genius,...

Thanks. I know I am.

...being able to have a say on who becomes the leader of the nation is desired.

Good that we settled that.

Question is if that is productive and the effectiveness of its implementation.

Productive in what way ?

Whether I run for office in a closed or open system, voting for me is an expression of opinion. In a closed system like how China does it, the pool of opinions are smaller than an open system. Granted, with a smaller pool of opinions, it would be easier to focus on the technical aspects of governance, such as whether I am appropriately educated and experienced, whether I have more than the minimum level of personal relationships to prove I can get along with diverse people, whether I have traveled more than my immediate geographical area to broaden my view, etc...etc...

But that is theoretical and did not occurred in China, hence the current difficulties in Xi's campaign against corruption. China's politicians focused on material and political wealth instead of being proficient at the technical aspects of governance as a few examples I pointed out. China's economic rise is not from her politicians being technically competent at governance but being adept at controlling the forces of capitalism, not just to China's benefits but also to their own pocketbooks.

The criticism is about cowboys who think their version of democracy is utopia and have it foisted onto others.

Wrong. Of all the many democratic things we want to 'foist onto others', the only thing that we insist -- or foist upon -- is multi parties politics.

Here are the general ideas of democracy we want for ALL countries:

- Multi parties politics
- An independent legislative branch
- An independent judicial branch
- Civilian oversight of the military

Do we insist -- or foist upon -- our version of a central bank ? A minimum wage system ? A president ? Partition of the country into federated states ? Or any other things of democratic practices in the US ?

Of the four main ideas of Western style democracy -- not one is implemented by China.

In the US, the president is both head of state and head of government. In the UK, the monarchy is head of state and the prime minister is head of government. In France, the president is head of state and the prime minister is head of government. The US is satisfied with both countries because of their implementation of those four main ideas. We did not insist on the removal of the monarchy. In the Swiss confederation, the president is not popularly elected but is rotated among member states. The US says nothing about it.

China is terrified of just multi parties politics. Nothing about the other three.

 

[$@rJen]

Democracy is poison to some countries ,Look at Libya,Afghanistan，Iraq .Worse than before.
"Democracy" doesn't bring them peace.

THere the Problem is not democracy but the peopel.... Democracy Just doesn't work for the muslims

 

[sinait]

Actually I remember LKY suggested the same idea for China before too. A selected pool of approved candidates from the CPC before letting the people choose. So it's still one party but the top man for the top job can be chosen by the people.

I personally don't like Presidential style election though. The candidates tend to be more populist and can be inefficient as witnessed in the US; although selecting a small pool of candidates beforehand reduces these risks.

Found it:

Ya, you remember it well, so do most of us.
That's what he wants for Singapore as well.
Main problem for me are the last minute changes to the selection criteria.
I think Parliament type government is preferable for me as well, for now.
Will be a long long time before we have a hung Parliament.
Anyway much thanks for digging this video link out.
.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

Democracy is Western model of governance and works in the West... It works here in the West because it is most suited to Western Condition.

Democracy has failed to deliver in Africa, South America and Asia... it will fail to do so in the future as well.. Because it is not the model of governance for Africa, South America or Asia...

Before anyone jumps and sight examples of JP, SK...well these two are neither free nor sovereign... the elected governments have never respected the wishes of the people there... Singapore is an elected dictatorship and shall remain so.

Indonesia is still finding its feet on the ground and has a very long way to go. Malaysia under Muhatir flourished because he 'ruled' for a long time aka Singaporean model of elected dictatorship.

The shortest way to start a civil war in China and bring it her knees is through democracy.

PRC has a working model of governance which has elevated millions out of poverty in shortest time span in Human History.

However, we can clearly see that democracy didn't elevate people out of poverty in the Chinese neighbourhood.

Why?

Democracy can only work in the West... the Rest has to find models/systems which work for them.

Even in the West Plato's Prediction is becoming true with every passing day!

What it is to be Human?

 

[nang2]

it is a fundamental mistake to confound democracy with official selection. democracy can be used to select officials but it is not its most useful function. what democracy really provides is the power of mass veto to serve the purpose of checking the government, regardless how the government is formed. in this sense, China does need democracy.

 

[beijingwalker]

it is a fundamental mistake to confound democracy with official selection. democracy can be used to select officials but it is not its most useful function. what democracy really provides is the power of mass veto to serve the purpose of checking the government, regardless how the government is formed. in this sense, China does need democracy.

It's more like power to waste money and resources to do the infighting, political parties play very dirty tricks with each other, history proves it again and again,they never care about the people, be they democrats or republicans.

 

[nang2]

It's more like power to waste money and resources to do the infighting, political parties play very dirty tricks with each other, history proves it again and again,they never care about the people, be they democrats or republicans.

That is why it is naive to hope that a system can be created to select officials that are good and caring people. Neither democracy nor Chinese system can achieve this. Instead, a nation should design a system in which even a bad person has incentives to do good things.

The biggest problem with Chinese system is that even a good person will have incentives or be forced to do bad things. That is what unchecked power will do to a person.

 

[DoTell]

Both democracy and communism are fantasies. On the surface democracy sounds a little better, but this is where the danger lies. People living under democracy get the illusion that they are actually in control. That single vote out of a billion gives each person a feeling that he/she has a say in who becomes the leader, and how their government's policy is should formed. The reality is that the weight of each vote is far, far less than that of a lotto ticket!

Take India for example, democracy has turned one of the world's oldest and brightest civilizations into such a sh!tty country, and yet their trillions of citizens are still bragging about it. They still feel there is hope and they pitty us communist slaves in China. As their competitors we have to thank democracy for keeping them down. Please, enjoy your freedom and tell us more

 

[Mista]

It's more like power to waste money and resources to do the infighting, political parties play very dirty tricks with each other, history proves it again and again,they never care about the people, be they democrats or republicans.

Wherever there is power, there will be struggle for it. That's human nature. Even in a company there will be power struggle to climb up the corporate ladder, what's more a country? You mean in a one-party state there are no backstabbing or infighting? You mean all democracies are devious and not caring of their people?

People living under democracy get the illusion that they are actually in control. That single vote out of a billion gives each person a feeling that he/she has a say in who becomes the leader, and how their government's policy is should formed. The reality is that the weigh

Democracy doesn't ensure every individual have a definitive say but a part to play. It's the will of the majority that counts. The government will have to sway into that general direction, for the good or for the bad.

 

[Menthol]

Democracy is bad because it became a game for the elite, while at the same time the people believe they are in control.

While for China, the people don't believe and don't have control over the government. And the government must work hard to ensure his legitimacy to rule the people.

Democracy is much stronger than China's. How bad the government run the country, as well as the corruption, the country will still exist for a long time.

While for China's, the system is too fragile. Once they do wrong, China will collapse. China is like running on the thin rope.

According to Aristotle, democracy is the second ugliest government form, and meritocracy is the best.

According the sociology, masses has an IQ and behaviour of a child. And these child like masses, run the country. They think they are smart and wise.

The world is a competition. Who develop and advance faster, they will survive.

Communism is good, but slower than democracy-capitalist. And you know people opinion about it, it collapse because out competed.

Democracy is good too. But if there any government form and system that is develop and advance much faster than it. You will know what people will going to say about democracy.

The same with China too, if there better government form than it.

Government system is not about voting and equality. If people can vote, then they will vote more and more for equality, aka at the end, Communism. And you know where is heading. It's already China's past.