Wu Bangguo: China will never have multiparty government

[below_freezing]

Öйú²»¸ã¶àµ³ÂÖÁ÷Ö´Õþ ²»¸ãÁª°îÖƺÍ˽Óл¯_ÐÂÎÅ_ÌÚѶÍø

从中国国情出发，郑重表明我们不搞多党轮流执政，不搞指导思想多元化，不搞“三权鼎立”和两院制，不搞联邦制，不搞私有化。中国特色社会主义法律体系的形成，夯实了立国兴邦、长治久安的法律根基，从制度上、法律上确保中国共产党始终成为中国特色社会主义事业的领导核心，确保国家一切权力牢牢掌握在人民手中，确保民族独立、国家主权和领土完整，确保国家统一、社会安定和各民族大团结，确保坚持独立自主的和平外交政策、走和平发展道路，确保国家永远沿着中国特色社会主义的正确方向奋勇前进。

Because of China's special circumstances, we solemnly swear that we will never have multiparty, rotating government, we will never have different governing philosophies, we will never have separate branches of government or federalism, and we will never have privatization. Chinese socialism with special characteristics is the key for our rise and the key for long term rule of law, and from our social system, it is vitally important that the Chinese Communist Party is forever the leadership of socialist development in order for the power of the state to be held by the people, defend our independence, maintain territorial sovereignty, social peace and racial harmony. We will maintain an independent and peaceful diplomatic policy, continue on the path of peaceful development, and always remain on the correct road of Chinese socialism.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Good.

There are already plenty of checks and balances within the CPC itself. That should be the focus, rather than trying to go for a multi-party system, which could destabilize us.

 

[below_freezing]

Good.

There are already plenty of checks and balances within the CPC itself. That should be the focus, rather than trying to go for a multi-party system, which could destabilize us.

There are some important advantages of a 2 party system.

1.) the illusion of change. this is important because then the populace is distracted. Remember, the average IQ is only an average. Half of the people are below that average by definition. That's why Americans think they're democratic when they're actually ruled and fooled by the Wall Street sharks. it's a pressure valve.

2.) propaganda value. you can claim you're a great democracy, free, whatever, and it gives more legitimacy to your system. There are also convenient scapegoats for any wrongdoings of your government. it doesn't actually mean anything because most decisions are made by bureacrats that are never elected, over 95% of US federal workers aren't elected and they make the decisions, but it gives great illusions and propaganda value.

The disadvantage though, is if the other party wants to play for reals and not just symbolically be there, or if both parties are not controlled by the same entity.

 

[Zeeshan360]

Multiparty is actually BS
Hope China doesnt fall to it .
I always hate the non-ruling party as they object each and every law passed by the ruling party

 

[Nomenclature]

There are some important advantages of a 2 party system.

1.) the illusion of change. this is important because then the populace is distracted. Remember, the average IQ is only an average. Half of the people are below that average by definition. That's why Americans think they're democratic when they're actually ruled and fooled by the Wall Street sharks. it's a pressure valve.

2.) propaganda value. you can claim you're a great democracy, free, whatever, and it gives more legitimacy to your system. There are also convenient scapegoats for any wrongdoings of your government. it doesn't actually mean anything because most decisions are made by bureacrats that are never elected, over 95% of US federal workers aren't elected and they make the decisions, but it gives great illusions and propaganda value.

The disadvantage though, is if the other party wants to play for reals and not just symbolically be there, or if both parties are not controlled by the same entity.

I'm actually in favor of holding multiparty elections in a few medium-sized cities, if only to discredit those pro-democracy activists since they will either fail to get elected or fail miserably in their effort to govern.

 

[below_freezing]

Multiparty is actually BS
Hope China doesnt fall to it .
I always hate the non-ruling party as they object each and every law passed by the ruling party

That's the problem of India. The US handles it nice. Laws regarding huge military budgets, CIA spying, etc. are always quietly passed with no problem. Then debate passes to useless issues like gay marriage or race to distract the masses. Everyone is ruled and fooled by the Wall Street mafia and they think they're "free".

 

[ChinaToday]

People in the west believed having multiparty and each and every single different party have different agenda, they couldnt be more wrong, in reality these politicians knew nothing about running the country, they all depend heavily on those civil servants whom are the back bones on each and every single policy speak by the leader of that country. In the end what they really get by voting these politicians is voting for a spoke person only

 

[desioptimist]

Öйú²»¸ã¶àµ³ÂÖÁ÷Ö´Õþ ²»¸ãÁª°îÖƺÍ˽Óл¯_ÐÂÎÅ_ÌÚѶÍø

从中国国情出发，郑重表明我们不搞多党轮流执政，不搞指导思想多元化，不搞“三权鼎立”和两院制，不搞联邦制，不搞私有化。中国特色社会主义法律体系的形成，夯实了立国兴邦、长治久安的法律根基，从制度上、法律上确保中国共产党始终成为中国特色社会主义事业的领导核心，确保国家一切权力牢牢掌握在人民手中，确保民族独立、国家主权和领土完整，确保国家统一、社会安定和各民族大团结，确保坚持独立自主的和平外交政策、走和平发展道路，确保国家永远沿着中国特色社会主义的正确方向奋勇前进。

Because of China's special circumstances, we solemnly swear that we will never have multiparty, rotating government, we will never have different governing philosophies, we will never have separate branches of government or federalism, and we will never have privatization. Chinese socialism with special characteristics is the key for our rise and the key for long term rule of law, and from our social system, it is vitally important that the Chinese Communist Party is forever the leadership of socialist development in order for the power of the state to be held by the people, defend our independence, maintain territorial sovereignty, social peace and racial harmony. We will maintain an independent and peaceful diplomatic policy, continue on the path of peaceful development, and always remain on the correct road of Chinese socialism.

Multiparty system makes sure when the ruling party does something wrong, there is somebody else to point it out.
In a single party you cannot get that level of criticism. If the society is hierarchical, then junior members of party may be afraid to speak out, and provide even constructive criticism.

Democracy has always been messy, even in old roman age. But it is a system that works, somehow, in all sorts of countries.
But if there is something special about chinese(or north koreans) as the guy above pointed out, then may be that is why their system works.

 

[desioptimist]

Multiparty is actually BS
Hope China doesnt fall to it .
I always hate the non-ruling party as they object each and every law passed by the ruling party

You cannot have democracy with single party.
It is oppositions duty to oppose and shame the govt at every opportunity possible. That keeps the govt from being absolute corrupt and authoritarian.
Also, what is the point of voting for a single candidate, I don't even know how that will work.

 

[below_freezing]

Multiparty system makes sure when the ruling party does something wrong, there is somebody else to point it out.
In a single party you cannot get that level of criticism. If the society is hierarchical, then junior members of party may be afraid to speak out, and provide even constructive criticism.

Democracy has always been messy, even in old roman age. But it is a system that works, somehow, in all sorts of countries.
But if there is something special about chinese(or north koreans) as the guy above pointed out, then may be that is why their system works.

We have an equality oriented democracy. That's to say, our democracy and election system are designed with stability in mind. We also have multiple candidate, freely contested elections. Just that most candidates happen to be CPC. But in the end, democracy is about selecting individuals.

Equality is a concept that may be foreign to some people unfortunately enough to live in a society with 3/10 of the richest people on earth but also more starving people than Africa, and that's just too bad.

 

[desioptimist]

We have an equality oriented democracy. That's to say, our democracy and election system are designed with stability in mind. We also have multiple candidate, freely contested elections. Just that most candidates happen to be CPC. But in the end, democracy is about selecting individuals.

Equality is a concept that may be foreign to some people unfortunately enough to live in a society with 3/10 of the richest people on earth but also more starving people than Africa, and that's just too bad.

I understand you are alluding to India, in your last statement.
There are two reason why you will do that.
1. You saw that my flag shows I am Indian, and tried to take cheap shot at me, showing that because democracy could not bring equality in India, I should not be arguing in favour of it.
or
2. Because china is also a developing country with lot of poor people, it is better to take the chinease model of getting equality first and then think of democracy.

If it is due to first reason, I need not continue, because it will be below my dignity to argue with somebody who tries to shot the other guy by trying to humiliate him, whatever may be the topic of discussion.
I will assume that it is the second reason and proceed.

It will be wrong to call whatever political system you have, a democracy. Democracy is not about only voting, it is a political system of checks and balances, where nobody or no party gets absolute power.
Absolute power may bring stability,but it is difficult to remove once you are stuck with it.
And democracy is not against equality, in fact it forces the society to be more equal.
Disadvantaged people get a political voice in democracy which they can use as bargaining tool for change and economic power.

Coming to specific situation in India:
A single party long in power becomes too corrupt and we have seen it in some provices in India, and no they dont bring any equality.
They dont simply bother about criticism, try to break up opposition through violence.
Inequality in India, is not due to democracy, it is inspite of democracy.
There was always inequality in India, before democracy, it has decreased quite a bit.

As I said, there must be something special about chinese (or north korean) that the system works for them. It does not work for us.
Nor did it work for so many countries that became democracy after fall of soviet.
We all used to think highly of communism and the prosperity and equality it can bring(looking at soviets) but did not know what was going inside.
It will be interesting to see if any new arab regime takes Chinese model.

 

[below_freezing]

I understand you are alluding to India, in your last statement.
There are two reason why you will do that.
1. You saw that my flag shows I am Indian, and tried to take cheap shot at me, showing that because democracy could not bring equality in India, I should not be arguing in favour of it.
or
2. Because china is also a developing country with lot of poor people, it is better to take the chinease model of getting equality first and then think of democracy.

If it is due to first reason, I need not continue, because it will be below my dignity to argue with somebody who tries to shot the other guy by trying to humiliate him, whatever may be the topic of discussion.
I will assume that it is the second reason and proceed.

It will be wrong to call whatever political system you have, a democracy. Democracy is not about only voting, it is a political system of checks and balances, where nobody or no party gets absolute power.
Absolute power may bring stability,but it is difficult to remove once you are stuck with it.
And democracy is not against equality, in fact it forces the society to be more equal.
Disadvantaged people get a political voice in democracy which they can use as bargaining tool for change and economic power.

Coming to specific situation in India:
A single party long in power becomes too corrupt and we have seen it in some provices in India, and no they dont bring any equality.
They dont simply bother about criticism, try to break up opposition through violence.
Inequality in India, is not due to democracy, it is inspite of democracy.

As I said, there must be something special about chinese (or north korean) that the system works for them. It does not work for us.
Nor did it work for so many countries that became democracy after fall of soviet.
We all used to think highly of communism and the prosperity and equality it can bring(looking at soviets) but did not know what was going inside.

Democracy is about checks and balances? African tribesmen also have checks and balances between the voodoo witch doctor and the warchief, are they democratic? And checks and balances between who/what? Different branches of government, or different parties, or different individuals?

I'm not taking a shot at you for being indian. It's a fact. You think North Korea and China are even comparable? How long do our leaders sit in office and how long did Kim sit in office? Hell, how long did Indira Gandhi sit in office?

 

[desioptimist]

Democracy is about checks and balances? African tribesmen also have checks and balances between the voodoo witch doctor and the warchief, are they democratic? And checks and balances between who/what? Different branches of government, or different parties, or different individuals?

I'm not taking a shot at you for being indian. It's a fact. You think North Korea and China are even comparable? How long do our leaders sit in office and how long did Kim sit in office? Hell, how long did Indira Gandhi sit in office?

Checks and balances against people who rule. They are at risk of capturing absolute power.
And no, only checks and balances will not make it democratic. It is a system, as I said, only electing somebody does not make you democratic nor does the checks and balance between what you mentioned above. I seriously did not understand your point.

What you said about India is a fact. I did not deny that. I only questioned your intention to bring it, when we are talking about democratic system in general unless you wanted to mean the point 2 I mentioned above.(i.e. poverty in china and why it should not have democracy, because of failure in India)

What has seating in office to do with democracy. I have no data as to how long Indira Gandhi sat in her office. But it must run into thousands of hours.

I did not compare your leadership you china. I was just pointing out that china(or north korea) has different system which may suit chinease or north koreans.

I think I have made my point, and you have made yours. I will only reply to your next post if it is clear, and makes specific point in favour of single party authoritarianism(no it is not democracy), and against multiparty democracy. If you want to bring america, vodoo doctor, terrorism or penguin into discussion give clear reason why.

 

[below_freezing]

Checks and balances against people who rule. They are at risk of capturing absolute power.
And no, only checks and balances will not make it democratic. It is a system, as I said, only electing somebody does not make you democratic nor does the checks and balance between what you mentioned above. I seriously did not understand your point.

What you said about India is a fact. I did not deny that. I only questioned your intention to bring it, when we are talking about democratic system in general unless you wanted to mean the point 2 I mentioned above.(i.e. poverty in china and why it should not have democracy, because of failure in India)

What has seating in office to do with democracy. I have no data as to how long Indira Gandhi sat in her office. But it must run into thousands of hours.

I did not compare your leadership you china. I was just pointing out that china(or north korea) has different system which may suit chinease or north koreans.

I think I have made my point, and you have made yours. I will only reply to your next post if it is clear, and makes specific point in favour of single party authoritarianism(no it is not democracy), and against multiparty democracy. If you want to bring america, vodoo doctor, terrorism or penguin into discussion give clear reason why.

Your definition of democracy is very specific. The dictionary definition of democracy is not that.

de·moc·ra·cy   /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA

–noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

 

[milvipes]

Check and balance does not necessarily mean multi-party democracy. Hong Kong had (and still has) excellent civil liberty standard manily because of judicial independence, not popular election.