Daniel A. Bell: Is Chinese Democracy Inevitable?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 09. 2015
- Many see China’s economic rise and growing middle class as precursors to democratization, as was the case for its neighbors in South Korea and Taiwan. This transition has not yet materialized, and some would argue that it won’t - and shouldn’t.
Is Chinese democracy inevitable? Professor Daniel Bell believes it is not, and supports many aspects of the Chinese political system, in which top leaders are selected based on merit and electoral democracy functions at the local level. While a transition to full democracy may not be necessary, many problems remain, including corruption, lack of transparency and repression of freedoms of speech and the press. Can these issues be addressed within China’s current political structure? How can reforms be instituted in certain areas without the system collapsing entirely? And what can other nations learn from the strengths of Chinese political meritocracy?
Speaker Daniel A. Bell is the Chair Professor of the Schwarzman Scholars Program at Tsinghua University.
The discussion will be moderated by Dale R. Walker,
Member of the Board of Directors for Beneficial State Bank, and Trustee of the World Affairs Council.
For more information about this event please visit: www.worldaffairs.org/events/ev...
More than 2,000 years ago, the Greek Philosopher Plato wrote a book, The Republic, in which he expounded his vision for the best form of government. The Chinese political system is the closest that a country can get to Plato's ideal form of government. It is a meritocratic system where the leaders are appointed on the basis of their merit. This is in sharp contrast with the political system in the US and its vassals. In the US and its vassal counries, the heads of the states are most of the time either clowns (actors), gangsters (businessmen) or liars (lawyers). Donald Trump is a gangster and he appointed other gangsters as his closest collaborators like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, etc. Barack Obama was a liar, I mean a lawyer. Ronald Reagan was a clown, I mean an actor. None of them is qualified to govern a country. Furthermore, in the US and its vassals, the big corporations own and control the government. The foreign policy of the US is determined, not by the government, but by the Military Industrial Complex, the oil companies and other big corporations. This explains the superiority of China over the US and its vassals.
reading today au 22. excellent insights. so hard to let go of early indoctrination
Bell is such a researcher understanding culture and tradition of China including Confucianism and legalism.
Those are two main traditions that affect politics of China for nearly 3000 years.
All political system must be established upon it own culture and tradition.
That's the main point.
that is why politically and culturally China is still a backward country
George S that is not a bad thing. Technically, economically, it is advancing at unprecedentedly pace. As a consequence, people gain more confidence in the traditional culture and the current political system.
@@internette7229 I think you should do some serious research and reflection about democracy. First, how many countries in the world implanting democracy into their political systems are successful? Africa, Middle-east, south-America, East Asia? I could safely say few countries, that you cannot deny. Second, are those east Asian countries really thriving due to democracy? Take Taiwan you mentioned for example. The real fact is that Taiwan thrives under Jiang Jingguo's administration, which is actually a kind of authoritarianism. The real fact is Taiwan's economic growth was stopped after Democracy. People spent too much effort on political craps instead of solving problems. The same is for south Korea. Japan is different because of occupying by US.
Based on these facts, let's do some serious reflection. Do the people know well about the moral character, the ability, and the motivation of the elected officials through a presidential campaign? Very little. The winner is only the one who agitates the people successfully. You can verify this point from any democratic countries you mean. In the contrast, in China, you can never become the president if you have no experience of governing tens of millions of people. This is the application of the spirit of Confucianism.
Most important is the cultural tradition we have. To the philosophy of our Chinese ancestors, any goodness costs some sacrifice. God never provides the benefit without cost. For example, the freedom of speech. If you acquire the kind of freedom of speech, you have to receive the cost of lying, attacking, disordering and have to be screwed with no truth. Why the ordinary people have the right to comment the scientific viewpoint and judgements by experts? Look at western society under the covid epidemic. Also, the opposite side without any free speech is a disaster. Chinese people take the middle way about free speech because of practicism. This is the application of the traditional philosophy of our Chinese ancestors. You can not accept this because your brain is washed and can only accommodate the absolute values your media and government housetrain you.
Lastly, totalism is reasonable and rational for some situations. If aliens are attacking the earth, can democracy save the earth? In the reality, let's look at Iraq. No doubt Sadam is a dictator. The dictatorship of Sadam is reasonable and rational for suppressing the religious persecution from different religious sects. There is some kind of safety and freedom under Sadam. Terrorism in Iraq is heavily suppressed by Sadam. This is the real fact. If you remove Sadam, Iraq becomes the paradise of terrorism. Not only Iraqis suffering terrorism, but also terrorism is exported from Iraq. This demonstrates democracy cannot solve any problem of these countries with the culture of extreme values.
Totally agree. As an Asian, I have always held that much of ‘democratic’ Asia will not live up to their best potential because they have adopted American-style democracy pretty blindly with little regard for how well that form of democracy fits with their own cultural and political instincts.
Watch this video from start to finish, very good questions from interviewer and answers from Prof. Bell. Well worth watching to gain insights into Chinese political system.
I read in the papers...
They say:
0.02% of votes makes tha American president
Is this democracy ?
Dale R. Walker did a wonderful job to direct the flow of this talk in a calm and focused way.
China has its own style of democracy!
Understanding China today begins with learning about Chinese History and culture more thoroughly.
I consider prof. Bell an expert on this subject and more leaders should adhere to this
Running a country is not so wildly different from running a company. You rise through the rank, judged by performance. Try elect your company director, and let me know how your company perform and about whether or not you have a pay rise at all next year!
I would suggest to go one step further, try to elect all the managers and executives, let's see the result of "one person one vote" in a super performing company.
My American friend a businessman said: Do what I say is teamwork, democracy is the recipe for chaos.
China run the country like a business with plans as policy and objectives, a bench mark to evaluate performance; in fact a western management idea.
China runs the country by engineers and the West by lawyers.
Have you never had a bad boss? Imagine your country got a bad boss and no one can fire him. And he has no competition. I will pick democracy.
i am living in China, my wife is Chinese, most of my friends are Chinese. although there are a few people who are not satisfied of the government, by the way they are reach, 99 percent of Chinese people are satisfied with their government, because the economy is improving every year, as long as your country's economy is improving, you do not care who is controling the country. it does not matter which system the country has, as long as you give a satisfactory life to people, they will not care who is the king, who is the president, who is the boss. samething is valid for the company, as long as you have a good economical situation and condition in the company, who the hell care the boss? you should leave this bias westernized ideas. as long as people have a good, happy life, it does not matter if the head of the country is a king, president or a soldier. my moracon friend says that he is very happy with the king. the problem is that you try to bring same system of your country to every country in the world as USA tried to bring democracy to iraq, look there is no iraq now..
西方人典型的一神教思维: 世界上只有一个唯一的神，神是绝对的正确的，什么叫做绝对正确，就是任何东西如果和绝对正确有任何不同，那他就是错了。
所以他们的很难想象世界上居然还有和一人一票不一样的整治体系。
有时候我在想一个问题，为啥西方的公司不一人一票选出CEO呢？
CEO并不是公司全部员工选出来的而是董事会决定的，这个算什么呢
随着年龄增长我越来越有一种感觉， 其实民主也只是一种高级的操纵，
让你感觉到很爽但实际上你仍然被操作而已。我觉得民主选举有点像那个啥，
摔角(WWF), 看上去选手都好壮，各种口角，各种炫酷的动作，包括从
绳子上面跳下来狠狠砸到对手身上等等，当然这一切都是假的，都是按照
剧本表演而已。
这里面说的所谓中国的选贤任能的系统里面充满了太多的虚假，操纵。
中国的政治体系总是不稳定，定期洗牌(王朝灭亡)，中国这种唯上不唯下
的权力结构导致了官员胡作非为，因为百姓的满意度根本狗屁都不是，
能决定一个官员利益的永远是他的上级而不是下级。想知道这种体系
的虚伪支出，只要上新浪微博上看看各种官员的新闻即可。
这些年民主的金子招牌确实在褪色，我也很讨厌民主原教旨主义，
为了推行民主甚至可以推翻一个主权国家，一个国家社会通过长期的博弈形成了一种政治制度必然有其道理。在中东强行推行民主导致内战
，难民流离失所。这下一百多万难民涌到欧洲这下知道厉害了，甚至长期
来讲可能导致欧洲文明灭亡。
总体而言中国还是需要不断从民主制度里面吸取有益的成分，指望一蹴而就
也是幼稚的幻想。
非常好，我同意
自己的神才是真神，别人的神都是假的，你信别人的神，我甚至可以杀了你，这本身就是一种狭隘思想，说到底，就是在毒害社会
说的非常在理，西方人通过工业革命起家，靠剥削压迫其他非工业文明而获得了近300年的绝对话语权，导致一种非我及错的中心论述，这和中世纪基督徒排斥异己有何区别？！
民主本来就不是一个社会的目标，而是尽可能接近“长治久安”的方法。既然如此也肯定会有其他方法存在以及其存在的合理性。
@@acobb7961 where in Canada do you live?
Andrew Cobb I live in Canada too. Just I have same view of democracy as you do. And also about the corruption. It is just a different way to corrupt in democracy system.
Daniel presents an honest opinion of the China system.
In some state gov there is an extra fee if you want to get things done quickly. Fir example if there is a pile of 500 applications for a minor registration permit and there is urgency to get going to get the water dam started, then what works is to offer an expedite fee so instead of months delay, you want the response in one week or few days so less people will die waiting for paper work to come through. However what to do if there is no formal gov expedite fee? That fee is viewed as “corruption” fee because it is an innovative approach that works to get the paper permit faster. A system that has lots of outdated rules slows innovation down. So some innovative approaches may sometimes be viewed as “corruption” when it is just an expediting incentive fee.
"Just don't worry about it so much!" I love that answer about whether Americans should be worried about the differences in the political systems.
this is a good and very informative show but too few viewers...clearly people aren't interested... which is why I really don't believe the mass should decide what's good for humanity.
Talking about Hong Kong, it was the CIA and the NGOS of USA that brought about the disasters to Hong Kong. Nancy Pelocy commented the violence created by the rioters as what a beautiful sight in Hong Kong.
What about Black life matters too! Look at the chaos in Capital Hill etc. Could we use Nancy Pelocy quote to describe USA' violence and UK's violence?
agree. what if we found out that china was fomenting and funding jan 6 riots.
@@siamcharm7904 Please don't underestimate the capability of CIA!
Well, only time will tell. And Daniel A Bell's point isn't to justify the cons of Chinese political system, rather, a straight comparison of the Chinese and Western Democracy political systems, lay out the pros and cons, and have the viewers to decide.
Really the Chinese governance style is highly meritocratic and this what makes China a unique and most progressive government in the world. I agree to the Professor Bell's thoughts . The brick & mortar development in China has really re formulated its Poverty reduction schemes.
Democracy should only mean a government that represents the people. By that I mean, so long as Chinese leaders manage to ecapsulate the majority wishes and aspirations of their Chinese subjects, then it's in essence a 'democracy'. There is no need for a vote. All governments claim to represent the people, including North Korea. If the people are happy, then the government has 'mandate from heaven' (to use China's proverb). I don't think any government can survive, for too long, if it clearly isn't in the best interests of its people. In a country like China, it's not feasible to think that 1 billion or so people can be ruled by some corrupt few hundred men indefinitely and I am sure the men in the Chinese government know this. The average citizen doesn't know what he/she is voting for. Votes do need to be qualified. I wouldn't get my car tyres changed from a mechanic who doesn't know what he's doing, nor would I want to see anyone in power who isn't qualified. I remember there were youths in England who voted for Brexit because they ''felt like it''. There is nothing wrong with forefiting the right to vote if my vote doesn't meet qualification. Nor does the average citizen care so much as having this vote, so long as he's happy with a job, has time to spend with his family and loved ones. Of course, those who wish to participated, should be allowed to do so, as long as they meet certain qualifcations. There is also this misconception that people migrate to democratic countries for ''freedom''. This is obviously not the case. Very few people flee political persecution. The vast majority just migrate for oppurtunities to create wealth. If that was not true, people would migrate to India, the world's largest democracy (which they clearly don't).
If the US politicians really believe in "one-person-one-vote democracy" system, why is it not tried in companies, let the employees elect all managers all the way up to the CEO and board members. Is that too radical, works for a country but not for a company? Why is it not universal truth anymore like when they want to implement worldwide and call for regime change?
Because they are "smarter" than they look.
In the eight years since this appeared, the Chinese have shown the world vastly new and positive concepts of growing democracy within a government dedicated to meeting the needs of its people. I think the Chinese have already shown us the road to the future. I am so impressed ! !
More profound implication when watching the interview in 2021.
Bell is interesting
`the problem with democracy is i think the lack of responsibility by the leader the worst think the can happen if you make immoral decision within the legal frame work is you will not get reelected - another thing is interest group now rules democracy - you can change the face of the leader but the interest group in the driver seat will always be the same
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
China is not paranoid the western jalousy is really strong.
Of course world culture is moving in the direction of good and productive lives for the people. The people must be empowered.
Mencius said:
_people are precious (worth)
_ kingdom comes second
_ king not much ( valueless)
Do you think this is a
Notion ở
Democracy
the so called merit is very subjective. Who gets to set the criteria for merits not the people? And how do you enforce that the criteria are met ?
+Chen 陈, Xiao 晓
Do employees and front line staff get to set the merit and performance standard to climb the corporate ladder of Apple?
+Tianming Zhao You are making a comparison between Apple, a corporation and China, a country. A corporation is owned by its share holders, and share holder and its board of directors appoint CEO and set the merit and performance standard. so the question is does communist party of China OWN China ? does the Politburo of CCP OWN China? Remember China's land, China's people long existed before there was communist party. What qualifies the CCP to set the merit and performance standard, Why NOT the people of China ? because they are in power ? because they have guns and people don't?
Xiao 晓 Chen 陈
Yes I am making a comparison between a corporation and a country. You are absolutely right there. I do this because I see value and legitimacy in merit, and the fact that the commoner doesn't know exactly what the merit criteria for presidency are does not make meritocracy inherently wrong. We can safely assume that knowing the right people is a criterion, but that's really just networking. As a matter of fact I don't really see an inherent problem with running a country as if it was a business entity or corporation. Arguing in principle, a government could pass as upper management and a country as the country. Seeing how CSR, sustainability, and ethics are all major sources of pride and drivers of profitability in many businesses, there is no reason why a government cannot function like a business where the shareholder value is measured by a combination of profit, sustainable development, and increased personal freedoms for all contributing workers in the country.
Of course I would like to see transparency in the merit criteria. But the lack of transparency for those outside of the party in the current system does not render the merit system a myth. We have to wonder how the banished kid of a unprivileged and denounced family got to become president of China while the other princelings didn't. We don't know exactly how or what the criteria were, but the merit criteria is there.
The CCP we see now is really just a revamped continuation of China's system of government that has existed for millennia. In essence, a similar method of governance has existed in millennia.
The CCP doesn't own China. The people should own China (together with the state), but that does not mean the people should supersede the state. In return, the state should not supersede the people either. Rather the CCP should be replaced by a "CCP" - Chinese Civilization Party - that will create a renaissance of some of the concepts and values that worked for China while taking on more liberal concepts to improve its system of government. It should be able to further harmonize with the people, and vice versa.
You state that in a corporation, CEOs are held accountable by board of directors and shareholders. That is true, and I hope China gets a similar system. So we are on similar grounds here.
+Tianming Zhao People should supersede the state. This is the reason why. People are the "Shareholders" of country. the State is like the "management" of a country including CEO or President ? Between "Sharedholder" and "management" who should supersede who ? off course Shareholder supersedes management. A better comparison would be a Parliamentary Democracy, where voter(shareholder) elect its representative ( board member) and parliament holds executive members (manager) including prime minister, cabinet members accountable. This is would be meritocracy. But that is not how China works China's people's congress is only rubber stamp. It was NOT directly elected by the people. Any one outside of CCP is forbidden to Run for office.
Xiao 晓 Chen 陈 Who supersedes who varies from company to company. There are many companies whose sole responsibility is to profit for the company. Some are only for shareholders. Some are for various groups of stakeholders. Some are for mostly sustainability and social responsibility. For most, hopefully, it is a balance. What this means is that the people shouldn't supersede the state, and in reverse the state should not supersede the people. Theoretically, no one should supersede each other and the state, people, and nation harmonize.
What is safer? Buying US Bonds or use the cash to build cities even if they are temporarily empty?
Answering your question 4 years later and after the west has sanctioned Russia and seized its foreign reserves, i think its better to invest in empty cities
Confucianism and legalism are our Chinese thoughts called two hands, one soft the other tough. That’s why death sentence is widely accepted in China not being taken as against human rights instead it’s justice done.
Do this to people know how many US military base around the world About 800
你想想大众的品味 一人一票绝对选不出好领导
so a system where no vote is allowed can elect good leaders? moron
The problem is not the vote, the problem is who is voting, universal suffrage. Do you really think a person without knowledge will vote for a good politician?
Do you really think that being forced to choose only between Hillary and Trump is good and democratic?
Charles Cirem look, no system is perfect - and most of people know it. but i would strongly argue that universal suffrage is far better than a regime where average citizens have little voice. in China's case, no political leverage. that's why you see rampant corruption, arrest and imprisonment of human right lawyers, assault of ordinary people's basic human rights (happens everyday and everywhere in China). heck, if I can choose, i won't have any second thoughts for democracy over authoritarian system.
choice between H and D may not be to your liking. but tell me with a straight face that you like to live under Xi's ruling.
you didn't answer my question, which is would you choose to live in a iron fist regime with no voice of you or any ordinary citizens. Dude, you don't know the shit you are talking about. there are more than 2 parties in the US you can vote. news to you? besides, demonizing Hilary and Donald wouldn't save your argument, unfortunately. arresting human rights lawyers, rampant corruption, the disrespect basic human dignity, ban of any news organizations that are not controlled by the communist party, shit like that happens everyday in China...you don't know shit, moron. tell us with a straight face you like this kind of society and want to live there. vote with your feet, dude.
There is Tweedism in nomination before going to one people one vote.election. It only represents 0.02 of the population of USA. Please refer to Larry Lessig video czcams.com/video/PJy8vTu66tE/video.html. The current Hong Kong election system for the Chief Executive Officer is also using the same system. It has nomination of 1200 which also represents 0.02 of the population before one people one vote for the Legislative Council.
They control without guns.
Peer evaluation is also full of mistakes, They are the ones who benefited from current system, therefore they tend to protect each other, and give biased evolution.
Do get Martin Jacques to talk to you about the Chinese system of government. He explains it
better than most. Also Eric Li and Zhang Mei Mei.
i am living in China, my wife is Chinese, most of my friends are Chinese. although there are a few people who are not satisfied of the government, by the way they are reach, 99 percent of Chinese people are satisfied with their government, because the economy is improving every year, as long as your country's economy is improving, you do not care who is controling the country. it does not matter which system the country has, as long as you give a satisfactory life to people, they will not care who is the king, who is the president, who is the boss. samething is valid for the company, as long as you have a good economical situation and condition in the company, who the hell care the boss? you should leave this bias westernized ideas. as long as people have a good, happy life, it does not matter if the head of the country is a king, president or a soldier. my moracon friend says that he is very happy with the king. the problem is that you try to bring same system of your country to every country in the world as USA tried to bring democracy to iraq, look there is no iraq now..
Daniel Bell describe perfectly the current Trump administration of how poorly the american political system ended up with what it ended up with. A potus who he explained from 5.26 to 5.32.
One person one vote do have in the village level to select secretary of the village where I had a factory. Villagers just don’t care to participate, they are more care to spend time on how to make money for themselves. There is one saying in China, tiger of east maintain will eat people so as tiger of the west maintain.
America doesn't have one person one vote yet.
aaand now term limits are gone.
Anglia Merkel has has in power for like 20 years fam. Chill.
democracy has happened nowhere among nation states, except in switzerland. elective oligarchy is not any kind of democracy.
If the government can’t perform well for a long period of time and people suffer as a consequence to a stage of unbearable, there will be an uprising to overthrow the government and people believe the government has lost the Mandate of Heaven. History taught us so why a dynasty fell.
Legalised lobbying in America is another way of legalising Corruption in USA . Will USA Ban lobbyist?
Democracy is like a lottery- probability of your vote actually mattering in the elction of a leader is directly proportional to the number of people.
我觉得中国应该更多的回到儒家的思想体系，这是老祖宗给我们留下的宝贝。近代由于科学技术，国家力量落后，我们曾经全面否定孔夫子。随着国家的富强，我们变得更加的自信，包括文化上的自信。论语中的许多东西深深地影响了我们的日常语境，比如温故知新之类的成语。某段时间无聊，我曾经将论语从头到尾抄写了一遍，两千多年前的人文思想，如今仍然富有生命力。
近代的落后，我觉得主要的原因还是工业化的落后，西式科学技术的崭新发展，迅猛进步。西学中用，我觉得是当时是非常好的，可惜犯了错误，没有收到好的效果。
儒家思想体系本身也需要更新迭代来适应当前的社会并不能照抄.
We don't have one person one vote in America so what are you guys talking about. Stop sugar costs!
The people of mainland China deserve better
One person one vote is only a dream，the truth is more mony more votes，its never change，Even if you are an actor and a fitness champion, you have no idea about governing the country. You can also become president of the United States, One person one vote is a disaster.
The main difference in USA culture and China culture is that USA people focus on individual rights wheares Chinese focus on the harmony of society by practicing sacrifice small I to justify the big I.
The gov still needs to be more open and transparent, censorship must be lifted
Democracy counts votes but it does not weigh them. This is why Berlusconi is elected in Italy (a man who spent most of his tenure partying with underage girls). Such a man cannot appear in China. it's more difficult, anyway.
bunch of foreigners wanna decide what is best for Chinese. funny.
中国尽管取得一些成绩，但是还是要向西方学习民主制度，吸收一些先进理念，不断完善自己，不能故步自封。
主持人听到这么惊人的言论有点傻了
你会发现一个和尚可以挑2桶水，2个和尚只能抬一桶水了，3个和尚大家都没水喝，谁也不想去打水，中国是第一个和尚，美国就是第三个
How's the American satisfaction today. Lol
14:25 "Asking Meritocrats to enforce equality" - Hello??????
If you think "democracy" as for the people, China is much more democratic, and this is a fact. Can you imagine the most rich country, the US, have 40 million people exploited into poverty, a data from the world bank.
43 million in 2015
china has twice that many living on less than $2 a day, however, as a percent, that is 6.3 percent. American rate is about 14 percent, but I would prefer to be poor here than in China.
Every year, China ranks lower in the world than in Europe and American countries because the right to speak is in Europe and American countries. Why?
Give first example and then explain why.
Personality is best scored 10 points, and the worst scored 0 point. Suppose I have the right to speak, I say my personality as the best, that is, I get 10 points. Others who close to my personality get 1 to 9 points, and those who are opposite my personality get 0 points. People who score 0 points have the worst personality. Suppose your personality is the opposite of my personality, is your personality the worst? Suppose you have the right to speak, you say your personality as the best, and my personality is the worst. This example shows who has the right to speak and who is the best.
European and American countries have the right to speak. From the 15th to the 17th century, Spain and Portugal established a colonial empire. From the 17th to the mid-18th century, the British, French and Dutch established colonial empire. European and American countries have established capitalist systems and free markets in these colonial countries. After the Second World War, more than 200 colonial countries declared independence, and these countries continued to implement capitalist institutions and free markets. Since the Cultural Revolution, China has been a poor and backward country. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. Since then, the United States has become the world's only superpower. Countries that do not implement a set of European and American countries of democracy, human rights and freedoms (European and American style), or countries that do not obey the United States, such as Libya, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., the United States will sanction or attack these countries and secretly prop Pro-US regime up to dethrone these state regimes.
The European and American national scoring standards are best based on capitalist system, free market and democracy (European and American style). European and American countries adopt capitalist system, free market, and European and American-style democracy so that they obtain high scores. Hong Kong adopts a capitalist system, a free market, and administrative and legislative elections (European and American styles). Of course, it gets a high score, but it is lower than that of European and American countries.
China adopts a socialist system and a planning market, and has its own set of democracy (Chinese style). Therefore, every year, China ranks lower in the world than in Europe and the United States and Hong Kong.
Assuming China has the right to speak, China's scoring standards are best based on the socialist system, the planning market, and democracy (Chinese style), so China ranks higher than European and American countries and Hong Kong.
If the capitalist system and the free market is superior to the socialist system and the planning market, why are the European and American countries and Asian countries experiencing serious economic crises, such as the Asian financial turmoil, the US financial tsunami, the US cyber blast and the European debt crisis? Within several ten years, why China has become the world's second largest economy? Why China from a poor and backward country to have moved toward a well-off society of hundreds of millions of Chinese people?
Does China have no democracy?
The forms of Western democracy are divided into direct democracy and representative democracy.
1. Direct democracy: People do not need to elect or appoint officials to participate directly in state or community affairs. Direct democracy does not require "one person, one vote to elect political leaders."
2. Representative democracy: The people elect or appoint officials to deal with state or community affairs on behalf of the people. Representative democracy requires "one person, one vote to elect political leaders."
"Election" is nothing but a tool to protect the "leadership system." "Election" embodys "representative democracy", but not "direct democracy." Therefore, the absence of "election" does not mean that there is no "democracy".
European and American democracy: representative democracy (indirect democracy). Bipartiy or multiparty system of competitive elections. One person, one vote elects political leaders, directly or indirectly. Divided into ruling party and out-party (opposition party).
Chinese-style democracy: The Communist Party representing the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people leads the multi-party cooperation and the people's masters of the country (deliberative democracy and democratic centralism) are the direct democracy of China's native growth. Therefore,
it is not necessary to elect a "political leader by one person, one vote."
The number of Communist Party's members is about 90 million, accounting for 6.7% of the total population of the mainland. Party members are the most outstanding members of all walks of life in various industries, and then form the party's organizations at all levels to represent the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people. Direct elections are carried out at the grassroots level of villages, townships and urban communities, and indirect elections are carried out above the county level. The President of the State and the Premier of the State Council are elected by the National People's Congress (the highest state authority that the people exercise power) in accordance with the talent selection system for selecting talents.
Deliberative democracy requires the participation of citizens, mutual exchange and communication on issues such as decision-making and legislation, and finally reach a consensus and mutual help.
Democratic centralism and collective deliberation have fully expressed and reflected the wishes and demands of the people. Concentrate on correct opinions and make collective decisions so that the wishes and demands of the people can be implemented and satisfied.
Who has the right to speak, who decides the form of democracy.
If European-American democracy (representative democracy, one-person, one-vote election of political leaders) is said as the sole criterion for democracy, China has no democracy.
If Chinese-style democracy (direct democracy, without one person, one vote, electing political leaders) is said as the sole criterion for democracy, there is no democracy in Europe and the United States.
If European and American democracy and Chinese democracy is said as the standard of democracy, both European and American countries and China have democracy.
Come back in 2021. People kept voting corrupted officials out in India, did it change anything? Please leave your comment
democratic union of meritocrats or DUM. dont think that would work haha
saying Chinese are highly supportive of government when free speech against government is not allowed? This entire piece is propaganda. And the reason folks are upset with American 'democracy' (which is actually a Republic) is it is no longer a Republic in function but Oligarchy.
So the Pew Research Center is a propaganda tool now? You do realize that they are not Chinese based right? How moronic can you get.
Stupid 😂
Boring.
If communist china did not care about the leading position among democratic great nations around the world then communist china may keep on being communist but if communist china would like to play among and even dream of leading the world then democracy in inevitable.
The esteemed David Bell fails to mention that the merit being evaluated in the Chinese system is how well you please the party bosses, and knowing the correct way to distribute the carefully not bribe gifts. Merit as in the technocratic evaluation of job performance only happens when the party is looking to punish someone and no scapegoat can be found.
sigh, I shouldn't post from my cellphone. Daniel Bell is what I meant to type.
+Robert Szasz you are missing the point.
Yes the chinese meritocracy model is bad. Thats why mericans got bush, a wonderful leader. Mericans got a 9% approval rating congress, a place without deadlock and filibuster. Yes, china bad. Usa no1. Period.
+sushilover Democracy means majority rules and doesn't mean voters will get the right leader EVERY SINGLE TIME. People had no way of knowing what kind of leader GWB was before he came to power. But rest assured, democracy is the best system which could correct itself. Look how badly GWB's bro has fared in his 2016 presidential campaign, which attributed largely to his brother's failure as president. Jeb Bush may not be a bad leader himself but would not be even possible now to be nominated as a candidate, let along elected.
+Robert Szasz rules of law solve the problem, a good value from the west. They are going towards it aren't they. Come on, they are smart and practical, one party is to stay for a while until there is a more acceptable alternative, meaning the western system is no way better, as it is. Pleasing the bosses, distributing the bribe are all bull . Are there no apple polishing and under table taking in the west?
This is an interesting video. With that said, I can't bring myself to overlook China killing its own citizens for using drugs, Chinese citizens mysteriously disappearing without trials, arresting people for peacefully disagreeing with China's government, and a 99% conviction rate. The idea that the US has gridlock does not seems comparable and it seems crazy to treat them as similar seriousness of problems. In case this seems like "American exceptionalism" or bias based on being American, it might be worth noting that I'd love to see America model after Sweden more.
，need USA help Chinese free
one person one vote sounds good, that is why Democratic party chant only black lives matter, not ALL LIFES matter. I took time to listen then I cast my vote accordingly. One person one vote, or more the dollars more the votes is the way it is right now. It is sad.
then go to China, you will find the system you'd like better - no vote and order handed down to you. think you will like it
When politicians are so concerned how not to hurt any ethnic group feeling during the election time only, then voters be aware, that candidate once get elected will forget all about the voters who are not so wealth, have to work for the living. Obama did very little to help poor children to have choice of the school if the one given to them is doing a lousy job of educating, then can you imagine how many more barriers have been placed on that child's future? By the way, when I was teenager, I said to myself that communist will not work. I was still in Taiwan when Nixon went to visit mainland China. Do you know there is difference between China an Taiwan; if you do not know , you may want to read the history,
Okay, I do happen to know all the history you mentioned here and more. Have been through Mao's era, Deng's era with first hand experience. Follow what's going on in China very closely and Taiwan to some extent. Now have been living in the US for more than a quarter of century.....What I can tell you is that nothing, absolutely nothing, will make me want to go back to China no matter how "rich and successful" some of my friends and relatives are. In fact, I am the one they always look up to and admire. Don't assume anything.....see in person and first hand.
Thank you for the feed back information about your personal experiences. I am from Taiwan. I love Taiwan, and I love my adoptive country of USA. I have no personal experience of living under a government dominated by Communist Party, and common sense tells me that It is for the best to stay out of nation ruled by communist system. I grew up very poor but quite happy, my childhood story was quite a pleasant one to me. I always felt free and safe, and I did not mind at all that I had to work very hard to earn a living. Good to chat with you.
the host, i feel like, is too arrogant and Eurocentric
Really? I thought the opposite. He was presenting questions from the audience and was very composed.
I call Dan Bell a pseudo scholar, just telling the truth.
+titan cronos you don't know sh1t, imbecile. just fvck off.
+Titan cronos, who gave you a fvck? you can't handle the truth. do you know what the fvck you and the professor trying to defend? you don't know fvck.....
again, i am telling you to fvck off because i don't talk to stupid person like you.
+Titan Cronos, fvcking moron, next time, master the topic to which you try to insert your "expert opinion" before talking to me.
you make you so stupid. moron.
I don't think Daniel A Bell is being honest or maybe intellectually capable to confront the shortcomings of the authoritative regime.
First, the notion of political aptitude can be tested on a piece of paper is ludicrous. I am sure many Chinese students can do better than George Washington and Winston Churchill on a test. For instance, being independent and rebellious by nature, Churchill had a very poor academic record in school for which he was punished. Does that mean he is not a great leader? On paper perhaps, that is.
Second, there are many downsides associated with the leadership selection process in the current Chinese system. How to define merit? Who defines merit and who evaluates politicians? Who selects Xi? In a true meritocracy, I would argue Xi probably would NOT be the leader of China. Based on pure achievement and previous governing experience, there are more than a dozen people who are better qualified than Xi, (at least based on merits defined simply on governing experience and achievement). So why Xi? Not that I am arguing Xi isn't or couldn't be a good leader China for the current circumstances.
Which brings the third point - political legitimacy. What if Bo won the political backstabbing and elbowing against Xi? Wouldn't Bo be the president? Then would everyone say halleluiah to Bo? But what makes Bo or Xi legitimate? As a scholar, one needs to have tight and critical thinking and shouldn't settle for the status quo. This would be my criticism of Prof. Bell. He seems too willingly settle for the status quo and overlook many flaws in the current system.
+Akin Khoo Democracy Centralism? There is nothing democratic about the Chinese system. good try...
+George Shen Well, they've tried (and still trying), but when democracy doesn't even work in a chinese village, how can they apply the system to the whole country
1) George Washington was not an elected leader, he became President unopposed, and it was due to his MERIT in the revolutionary war. so to use him as an argument for liberal democracy is ridiculous.
2) was Churchill a good leader? he was the main conspirator behind the Operation Unthinkable. he wanted world war 3 with the soviets immediately after ww2.
during the later phases of the war, he pushed Montgomery to drive for Berlin, even though it were already agreed upon that it would be under Soviet control after the partition of Germany, so he wanted to sacrifice many lives to get to have bragging rights.
Churchill was only good at one thing, He's good at being stubborn.
3) Bo did not came into power because it was a impossibility. your assumption is as ridiculous as asserting what if a Secret Neo-Nazi were elected for the US presidency and it means western democracy is a total failure.
xi is more legitmate than Bo is because Xi had no history of corruption, his policies during his provincial tenure were in line with the reform and opening up grand policy for the past 40 years. there is no if or but. Bo under a Chinese meritocracy will NOT become a president.
Ironically the charismatic Bo, and his unsustainable welfare state model in Chongqing would win him an election in the west.
4) Bell is not settling for status quo, he is suggesting an alternative to the psychological dictatorship that is the western liberal democracy. also his model is just the start, further reforms will be needed, for instance, have the position of Provincial governors open for general election, while the position for national leaders are selected from, these pools of provincial leaders. and the selection process will be based on merit.
you can admire leaders like Xi (btw, whom you can't even choose) but I would choose Trump over Xi for any given day. coming up with fancy terms like "psychological dictatorship" doesn't give your argument more credibility. alternative to liberal democracy is a better liberal democracy, not dictatorship.
an alternative to autocracy is better meritocracy. and democracy imposed on to a developing country is often more disastrous than the status quo.
psychological dictatorship has been prevailing in the west since the cold war. this means the different options for reform is block by the intrinsic values of liberal democracy, the phrase uttered by your stubborn hero who wanted WW3 Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government except all else"
this made western democracy the gospel and unopposed, this falsehood has been engraved into the minds of westerners of every generation ever since. and anyone else who even suggest otherwise is labeled a "commie" by the right or an "Nazi" by the left.
the culture of regressive liberals rose is precisely because of this institutionalized psychological dictatorship. and the regressive left is fueling the rise of this buffoon named Trump.
If you are an American citizen then you can do what ever you want in the US election, just dont impose your psychological dictatorship onto others.
If communist china did not care about the leading position among democratic great nations around the world then communist china may keep on being communist but if communist china would like to play among and even dream of leading the world then democracy in inevitable.