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

[beijingwalker]

 

[navtrek]

Totally agree and appreciate the Chinese system. In India we have civil services I would love to remove democracy and instead have the civil servants take over and build it in to a single party system based on meritocracy.

 

[beijingwalker]

Consistency and efficiency is the vital driving force for the economic development, the later government needs to carry on with the policies and programs that haven't been finished by the previous government and see them through. But many democratically elected governments choose to throw out all half finished programs and projects started by the previous governments to show how different their new governments are, this often causes tremendous waste of time, money and resources, the development is always like stop and go forever.

 

[fitpOsitive]

The tendency to get elite rights in any society are the main causes of corruption. Any system can work, any system will fail, as long as people are determined to get it failed or work.

 

[KingWest]

Obviously the Chinese system works well. And in my opinion, a democracy is not suitable for big heterogenous countries like China and Russia. If countries like those chose the democratic form of government, they could implode.
By using the Chinese form of government China can achieve much more, and plan on things more longterm than any other democratic country. Look for instance at NASA. Every time a new president is in office, they need to change their future goals, plans and ambitions. In Belgium, we cant even build a bridge (google: Lange Wapper bridge) because politicians are scared that people will be frustrated by the time of the next elections.

 

[beijingwalker]

In democracy dishonest politicians throw in millions of dollars trying to trick people into believing them and thinking that people having a choice. Those politicians only care about how they can get into the office, not the long term interest of their countries, they make empty promises which they themselves know that they could never deliver and in the name of democracy they squander away millions if not billions dollars and other public resources just to get themselves elected and more often than not only rich incompetent crooks get the jobs.

Running a country is like running a big company, if everyone in this company has a say on where the company should be heading then this company will go out of business in no time. That's common sense. Only the most experienced and competent person should get the top spot job and the assessment should be based on their past achievements when working at different levels of management.

That's where all Chinese leaders started

1.5 million people signed up for a brutal 5-hour test to land a coveted government job in China
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-civil-service-exam-2017-11

 

[Mista]

Both systems has its good and its bad. There's no point in comparing one's bad to another's good to make a point.

 

[El Sidd]

All one needs is a will to be honest.

 

[Yaseen1]

i think Pakistan should follow this and end democracy

 

[Mista]

Consistency and efficiency is the vital driving force for the economic development, the later government needs to carry on with the policies and programs that haven't been finished by the previous government and see them through. But many democratically elected governments choose to throw out all half finished programs and projects started by the previous governments to show how different their new governments are, this often causes tremendous waste of time, money and resources, the development is always like stop and go forever.

There are many forms of democracy, mainly the Presidential system or the Parliamentary system.

The Presidential system (practiced by the US, Taiwan, South Korea) has more checks and balance at the expense of efficiency and long-term planning.

The Parliamentary system (practiced by the UK, Germany, Japan, Singapore) passes law more efficiently and is able to plan longer, at the expense of checks and balance.

Both systems have its pros and cons. What you stated is more frequent in the Presidential system like in the US.

 

[gambit]

In democracy dishonest politicians throw in millions of dollars trying to trick people into believing them and thinking that people having a choice. Those politicians only care about how they can get into the office, not the long term interest of their countries, they make empty promises which they themselves know that they could never deliver and in the name of democracy they squander away millions if not billions dollars and other public resources just to get themselves elected and more often than not only rich incompetent crooks get the jobs.

Right...So essentially you are saying that a closed electoral system do not have the environment for corruption.

Someone better tell Comrade Xi that.

 

[Tauren Paladin]

The problem with democracy is anyone like Donald Trump can become president.

 

[gambit]

The problem with democracy is anyone like Donald Trump can become president.

And there are no problems with dictatorships or monarchies ?

 

[淼淼De微笑]

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

 

[beijingwalker]

Right...So essentially you are saying that a closed electoral system do not have the environment for corruption.

Someone better tell Comrade Xi that.

Who said that? Where there are humans there are corruptions.