A Question about democracy and Communist Party of China

[below_freezing]

I fully agree with this point of view. You see in political science it is accepted that the more equal (in income) a country is the more democratic it will be. BUT, if a country has an undemocratic authoritarian regime, but at the same time the country scores really well in equality there won't be a strive for democracy. We clearly see this in Singapore, they don't give a damn about whether they have an authoritarain regime or not, as long as they are contended with their socio-economic level they will stay happy.

As i previously pointed out, do you think that the Chinese case illustrates the same, i mean the level of corruption and inequality can lead to disrupt in the social sphere, the reason Singapore stays succesfull is because their human development index is extremely high whereas China's is medium.

Where do you think Singapore came from?

 

[newguy]

Hi everyone,

I am new here and this is my first post.

The political system and the democracy in China are always interesting topics brought up by people living in the western countries.
For example when I told my mates that I've voted in China they showed "Wow" in their faces, meaning they don't believe China has an election system and Chinese people can vote. In fact in recent years China has adopted many democratic policies that are either similar to western countries or created by the communist party. The problem, however, is that many of them are not implemented very well. Just like many Chinese made products, the policies are just copied from the surface but the heart inside is not welcomed by the Party. China certainly has some form of democracy, for party members, and certain part of the country, however the democracy is at a primitive stage and the government is being very sensitive about this. In general, China is a communist country and you don't need me to explain how a communist country looks like. Basically the government control is no different than Vietnam and Cuba. North Korea is an exception though. Having said that, it doesn't mean the picture painted by western media about Chinese political system is true. It is far from awful and scary because most of the time people have freedom to make their choices and express their opinions. But that again is different from what western people imagine it may look like.

Some may take Singapore as an example to prove that democracy is not necessary but it is worth to reconsider. Economy is not equal to democracy. Actually economy is not equal to any political system. We can't say because we are rich we don't need democracy, or because we are poor we need more democracy, or vice versa. When there are less people in a group it is easier to form a single goal. But when huge number of people gather together, there are diversities. Hence we need democracy, to be able to address the need of some people whilst in the mean time balance the loss of other people, peacefully. The wider democracy spreads, the less uncertainty there is.

Chinese welcome democracy and the Party knows that. But it is hard to implement. This is also due to the same reason as the necessity to embrace democracy -- there are too many people and also many of them are too poor to even think about what democracy looks like. When those extreme poor people get out of poverty they will certainly have higher demand of their rights. Lastly, no group wants to lose the grasp of power to another group. This is the current situation in China. It's not because the elites in China do not want to implement democracy. It is just that, no one wants to touch it because the current political system works.

Overtime, I sincerely hope China will have more democracy than it has now and I believe one day average Chinese can read the true meaning of democracy.

 

[casual]

Singapore is majority ethnic chinese

and personally i think democracy is highly over-rated. everyone points out the advantages of democracy but neglects the disadvantages.

but anyways, not all governments are created equal. there are many democratically elected governments that fail. the reason governments fail is NOT because they are undemocratic, but because they are weak and lacks leadership.

 

[rcrmj]

there is one biggest misconception about chinese political system that most western believe (including indians friends) China is a dictatorship!
China is the most decentrolized country in the world according to professor John Naisbitt said

'because while China has changed, the Western mindset has not and that “gives a very distorted picture.”'

that means the central governmant doesnt dictate regions what to do or not, they just give out a direction and some financial support, its up to the local how to manage their own economy. thats why u get the diverse economical and social development of different parts of China.

for example, Zhejiang province is among the least favorable by the central government investment, yet its social and economical development is at top 3 of all China! private business is the key success element of Zhejiang's story, the region has the lowest rate of demonstration and discontent!

 

[Transgress]

On the news i always here about how in the last decade or so, the better looking president has won in the US.
In Canada, there will most likely be a new election. If you compare there recent speeches, they are very similar, and citizens cannot tell who said what.

Leave Politics to the politicians who don't fight for a week on one issue. There will always be two sides.
I'm fine with Communism.

 

[gambit]

The definition of democracy never includes multiple parties. You vote for individuals, not parties. It happens that sometimes these individuals represent different political parties but they do not have to.

You are throwing the word democracy around like it means something. I already pointed out that by 1 indicator of democracy, civilian control of the military as opposed to military junta, indicated by number of military coups, China is doing better than even Turkey. In another indicator of democracy, number of people actively participating in government, China beats turkey. We have more CPC members than Turkey has population. You have also not refuted a simple fact: who said democracies were about voting for different parties? Last time I checked democracy was about voting for individuals, who may or may not happen to represent political parties, or perhaps the same political party.

And you are wrong...Your argument is flawed on many levels.

First...There is nothing under the umbrella of 'democracy' to say that you only vote for individuals. Or at least the popular election must be for individuals.

For example...In the Swiss confederation, the popular election do not vote for the presidency...

The Constitution of 1848 - Switzerland - Information

The most important innovations were the establishment of an elected two-chamber Federal Assembly, and of a Federal Council - the government - consisting of seven members with a rotating presidency.

It has been said that the Swiss President can take the train and most of the people in the cabin would not recognize their head of government. The Swiss vote for parties who, in effect, select the President. And no one can rightly argue that the Swiss is not a 'democratic' country.

Second...A 'party' is a group of people who declared themselves bonded by an intellectual and political make-up. The election of a 'party' into governmental politics depends on an arbitrary 'threshold' that the people feels is comfortable enough to represent the diversity of the citizenry but not too many dissension in the same government to make governance difficult. That threshold also depends on how many seats are available in the legislative branch of that government. There is nothing under the 'democracy' umbrella that prevent or even discourage the formation of a 'party'. If anything, a truly participatory and representative 'democracy' encourages the formation of many parties.

That make multi-party politics the best representation of a 'democracy' than what you have in China. Just because there are many 'legislators' in the Chinese parliament that does not make that parliament diverse if everyone toe the Party's ideological and political line.

 

[casual]

so ironic that america is talking democracy to china when america is not even a democracy.

 

[Tractor]

Go your mother Democracy.Knowing what Democracy is just look at most known example of almost inherited authorities,George Bush&George w. Bush. Or you can say they struggled for power individually,but who believe.

 

[casual]

Go your mother Democracy.Knowing what Democracy is just look at most known example of almost inherited authorities,George Bush&George w. Bush. Or you can say they struggled for power individually,but who believe.

actually, if america was a real democracy, george bush wouldn't even be elected.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

This is also due to the same reason as the necessity to embrace democracy -- there are too many people and also many of them are too poor to even think about what democracy looks like. When those extreme poor people get out of poverty they will certainly have higher demand of their rights. Lastly, no group wants to lose the grasp of power to another group.

And this is what i am trying to point out. Inequality in the social sphere can lead to discontent with the poor classes of the society. When these people, who form a really large percentage of the population, grasp the real issues concerning corruption in the governmental level they will most likely turn to deal with it in various way.

 

[Tractor]

And this is what i am trying to point out. Inequality in the social sphere can lead to discontent with the poor classes of the society. When these people, who form a really large percentage of the population, grasp the real issues concerning corruption in the governmental level they will most likely turn to deal with it in various way.

Reality is that not the poor people but some elite people concerning corruption.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

Reality is that not the poor people but some elite people concerning corruption.

And isn't that a problem? I mean when you have a single party system, there will inevitably occur corruption at the elite level.

 

[oct605032048]

Corruption occurs and it occurs everywhere. India calls herself as a democracy, well let's just assume so, does have much more severe corruption than China.

Singapore on the other hand is a Single party dominated country quite like China, but have much less corruption than almost any other country in the world.

 

[oct605032048]

If the party itself is able to act according to the will of the people and make what people want comes true, it is ok then. We don't care whether you call it a democracy or not as long as the whole system works.

 

[Tractor]

And isn't that a problem? I mean when you have a single party system, there will inevitably occur corruption at the elite level.

Oh,it 's a misunderstanding for my poor English.I mean so called elite people always talk about corruption not the really poor people.Elite people so called just related to economic achievement they owned,not political power they want for more.