Views: 39030|Replies: 37

Chinese characteristics of the democratic system [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 2

Post time 2017-10-17 08:47:48 |Display all floors

The mass democracy is led by populist politics, as the politicianswant to win votes, they must take into account short-term interests. This iswhat is happening in many countries today.

Chinese characteristics of the democratic system, both tomake public attention, and will not be kidnapped by public opinion. It can takecare of the long-term interests of the country, and also take into account theshort-term interests of the people.

Of course, good governance is not easy to do, they must havea certain platform that people can participate in political affairs.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2017-10-17 10:19:30 |Display all floors
This post was edited by tedbrent at 2017-10-17 10:26

  JamesYao,  if people don't have voting rights and a nation's legal system doesn't have checks and balances , then one could say that their civil freedoms are not protected by the  rule of law.

  It also begs the question of the  abuse of power and entitlement . If personal powers are not unchecked, then it's conceivable that some officials would draw on their prerogatives to get what they  want , such as lining their own pockets, doling out sinecures to people whom they trust, and inveigling or even bludgeoning girls into becoming their mistresses.

  In a word, if one nation doesn't respect the law, then people's rights can't be guaranteed. If one nation doesn't condone free speech, then  there is no warrant  for your suggestion that " people can participate in political affairs." If one nation doesn't protect individualism , then it's society  or its culture is going out to be debased by the horrors of  collectivism or the enormities of a culture war aimed to purge unorthodox views.

  This has happened in China before, which is called Cultural Revolution.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2017-10-17 10:24:59 |Display all floors
  there is no warrant  for your suggestion that " people can participate in political affairs.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2017-10-17 10:27:13 |Display all floors
Many of the social issues in the west arise from economic causes which find vent by political voicing through their democracy channels. Basically, a progressive and sustainable national foundation is paved by a strong economy which makes a lot of policies, programs and projects possible.

Deng liberalized the market to make it possible for local energies to realize economic improvements under a general policy program with catch-up as the primary objective. This was like releasing the bridled thoroughbred from the barn so that it could gallop out from the gates of history. But having traveled many furlongs into unknown domains, the thoroughbred now needs a new direction if only to set a safe vision for the other horses which will also be coming out of the barn, something which no western democratic system has considered for their own on their political platforms because those platforms have only been about the now-the me-the how of the moment only.

Therefore if anything has been seen about western democracies, it is fractious. You have left to right sandwiching a middle in a tenuous spectrum of views and ideological stances so that their societies get polarized furthermore in a matrix of economic issues magnified by media that are additionally open to external influence.

Their governments then find it hard to get things done so as to justify their worth to the very peoples who had voted for them. What would take an hour instead takes months. Furthermore, what gets represented are those who get to be loudest even when the silent others may know better. Meanwhile the pendulum of their nations swings from one side to another, depending on the social flavor of the month that is given highlight and interpreted in turn through the short perception lenses of millions whose attention span for that matter critical analytical skills last only as long as the image on the tv screen or what they hearsay in the marketplace.

To run a country well, especially if it is a big country with many regions and clusters of economic energies, you therefore need a central brain focused on a long-term vision that takes cognizance of and align all national resources to meet present challenges and dangers, future promise and peril, and what the peoples can do and must aspire for their future generations.

Such a long-term vision is necessary to craft a series of policies and programs that can create a national direction in a global setting as the country engages and interacts more with the outside world with which it builds not just theirs but its own economy so that benefits will percolate acceleratively to its own regions and clusters within without which they will end up wasting the very local resources needed to spur sustainable development. The key is sustainability - there is no point, for instance, building in excess in order to make money today that could have been channeled to more productive enterprises instead for the future, especially when an aging demographic looms in tandem with gender disparity in numbers that may result in a future with fewer productive manpower what more fewer domestic consumers.

And that is why President Xi's leitmotif of centralization makes sense and carries relevance all the more today not just for all of China into her future but also by extension for the economic development of other countries crimped by ideological membership to post-colonial masters and influencers and at the price of having to keep to slanted rules not of their sovereign say.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2017-10-17 15:32:21 |Display all floors
Populist politics benefit only the politicians. The people are fooled into thinking they have the power over the politicians. The democratic model of "checks and balances" seem good on paper but has its flaws. Some developing countries with such a model are still developing countries after many decades. Why? That is because there are too many squabbles among different interest groups and among politicians. There is no united effort to spur the country to grow but everybody just looking after themselves.
A developing country has different priorities from a developed country. A developing country needs a strong and good government to bring the country out of poverty to be on the same level as other developed countries. That should be the main priority.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2017-10-17 15:38:06 |Display all floors
Adding on to my previous comment (#5),

A developing country needs long term and short term policies which takes time to take effect. Changing government for the sake of voting rights hamper the realisation of such policies and good policies will go to waste. I believe that is what the OP has also mentioned.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2017-10-18 09:26:46 |Display all floors
This post was edited by markwu at 2017-10-18 09:51

Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Foreign Affairs

China vs. America: Managing the Next Clash of Civilizations
Graham Allison


As Americans awaken to a rising China that now rivals the United States in every arena, many seek comfort in the conviction that as China grows richer and stronger, it will follow in the footsteps of Germany, Japan, and other countries that have undergone profound transformations and emerged as advanced liberal democracies.

In this view, the magic cocktail of globalization, market-based consumerism, and integration into the rule-based international order will eventually lead China to become democratic at home and to develop into what former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick once described as “a responsible stakeholder” abroad.

Samuel Huntington disagreed. In his essay “The Clash of Civilizations?,” published in this magazine in 1993, the political scientist argued that, far from dissolving in a global liberal world order, cultural fault lines would become a defining feature of the post–Cold War world.

Huntington’s argument is remembered today primarily for its prescience in spotlighting the divide between “Western and Islamic civilizations”—a rift that was revealed most vividly by the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath.  But Huntington saw the gulf between the U.S.-led West and Chinese civilization as just as deep, enduring, and consequential.  As he put it, “The very notion that there could be a ‘universal civilization’ is a Western idea, directly at odds with the particularism of most Asian societies and their emphasis on what distinguishes one people from another.”

The years since have bolstered Huntington’s case. The coming decades will only strengthen it further. The United States embodies what Huntington considered Western civilization. And tensions between American and Chinese values, traditions, and philosophies will aggravate the fundamental structural stresses that occur whenever a rising power, such as China, threatens to displace an established power, such as the United States.

The reason such shifts so often lead to conflict is Thucydides’ trap, named after the ancient Greek historian who observed a dangerous dynamic between a rising Athens and ruling Sparta.  According to Thucydides, “It was the rise of Athens, and the fear that this instilled in Sparta, that made war inevitable.”

Rising powers understandably feel a growing sense of entitlement and demand greater influence and respect. Established powers, faced with challengers, tend to become fearful, insecure, and defensive. In such an environment, misunderstandings are magnified, empathy remains elusive, and events and third-party actions that would otherwise be inconsequential or manageable can trigger wars that the primary players never wanted to fight.

In the case of the United States and China, Thucydidean risks are compounded by civilizational incompatibility between the two countries, which exacerbates their competition and makes it more difficult to achieve rapprochement. This mismatch is most easily observed in the profound differences between American and Chinese conceptions of the state, economics, the role of individuals, relations among nations, and the nature of time.

Americans see government as a necessary evil and believe that the state’s tendency toward tyranny and abuse of power must be feared and constrained.  For Chinese, government is a necessary good, the fundamental pillar ensuring order and preventing chaos.  In American-style free-market capitalism, government establishes and enforces the rules; state ownership and government intervention in the economy sometimes occur but are undesirable exceptions.  In China’s state-led market economy, the government establishes targets for growth, picks and subsidizes industries to develop, promotes national champions, and undertakes significant, long-term economic projects to advance the interests of the nation.

Chinese culture does not celebrate American-style individualism, which measures society by how well it protects the rights and fosters the freedom of individuals.  Indeed, the Chinese term for “individualism”—gerenzhuyi—suggests a selfish preoccupation with oneself over one’s community.   China’s equivalent of “give me liberty or give me death” would be “give me a harmonious community or give me death.”  For China, order is the highest value, and harmony results from a hierarchy in which participants obey Confucius’ first imperative: Know thy place.

This view applies not only to domestic society but also to global affairs, where the Chinese view holds that China’s rightful place is atop the pyramid; other states should be arranged as subordinate tributaries. The American view is somewhat different.  Since at least the end of World War II, Washington has sought to prevent the emergence of a “peer competitor” that could challenge U.S. military dominance. But postwar American conceptions of international order have also emphasized the need for a rule-based global system that restrains even the United States.

Finally, the Americans and the Chinese think about time and experience its passage differently. Americans tend to focus on the present and often count in hours or days. Chinese, on the other hand, are more historical-minded and often think in terms of decades and even centuries.

Of course, these are sweeping generalizations that are by necessity reductive and not fully reflective of the complexities of American and Chinese society. But they also provide important reminders that policymakers in the United States and China should keep in mind in seeking to manage this competition without war.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.