Fukuyama's New Perspective on Democracy

[Aepsilons]

i am agree with you, North Korean back in 70 decades is much more advances society than PRC at the times. They were very industrialized, their people well educated compared even to South Korean. But their lack of genuine leadership and lack of vision and insight hindering much of their progresses and resulting in what we call today North Korea.

If I may also add, North Korea did not open up to the global market in the way China did. And thus , to quote the old adage, "Chosen remains ... a shrimp among whales..."

 

[gambit]

...I assert that China is lucky to have leaders as capable as Deng Xiaoping, while North Korean is the unlucky one to have leaders such as Kim Jong Il.

The quest for a 'benevolent dictatorship' is always present. Where there is a national crisis, there is always a chance for a sacrificial and charismatic figure to be that benevolent dictator. Probably the best example for Asia is Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew. Equally possible is an opportunistic and selfish figure who will take power and remain in power by force. But once the country is reasonably stable and that benevolent dictator's time has passed, the odds of the country having a malevolent dictatorship is practically assured and equally assured will be a dynastic succession of the same. We see that time and again the world over. Deng Xiaoping may be China's version of Lee Kwan Yew, but no country's course should ever rests on luck.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

It does not preclude the fact that it was made possible because of Deng's reformist idea. What happen if Deng and Hua failed to outmanouevred the Gang of Four? Will Chinese people back then has anything to say?

The cultural revolution was brought on "by the people" against the elites.

Does the ordinary citizen have any effect on the government in Indonesia, Phillipines, Singapore, Italy, even UK?

The most serious question is: how does someone become part of the elite? That's something you should think about, since the elite pretty much run the show in every country. In some countries, the elite is hereditary, in others, it is due to merit. Social mobility is the actual indicator of democracy.

 

[Nike]

The cultural revolution was brought on "by the people" against the elites.

Does the ordinary citizen have any effect on the government in Indonesia, Phillipines, Singapore, Italy, even UK?

The most serious question is: how does someone become part of the elite? That's something you should think about, since the elite pretty much run the show in every country. In some countries, the elite is hereditary, in others, it is due to merit. Social mobility is the actual indicator of democracy.

we had, without peoples voices Indonesia will never stood in the place we are standing right now

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

we had, without peoples voices Indonesia will never stood in the place we are standing right now

Ok, so when you are paying your bribe, buying food more expensive than anywhere else, seeing your elites take money to Singapore, seeing your rain forests get cut down for furniture and firewood, seeing the sons of politicians become politicians, sons of businessmen become businessmen, seeing Westerners party in Bali while your people make their clothes for a dollar an hour, just remember - that's all your choice. That's your voice being heard.

 

[Nike]

Ok, so when you are paying your bribe, buying food more expensive than anywhere else, seeing your elites take money to Singapore, seeing your rain forests get cut down for furniture and firewood, seeing the sons of politicians become politicians, sons of businessmen become businessmen, seeing Westerners party in Bali while your people make their clothes for a dollar an hour, just remember - that's all your choice. That's your voice being heard.

Why trying to ad hominem every person who doesn't acknowledge the Greatness of Middle Kingdom?
At least we recognizing where is our problems lies, not trying to cover it, and trying to solve the problems together


Where is your matter lies? are the Chinese people can recognize them? it's a pity if you can't recognize where and what is your truly problems

 

[Kolaps]

Why trying to ad hominem every person who doesn't acknowledge the Greatness of Middle Kingdom?
At least we recognizing where is our problems lies, not trying to cover it, and trying to solve the problems together


Where is your matter lies? are the Chinese people can recognize them? it's a pity if you can't recognize where and what is your truly problems

Huh?

People satisfaction over the government:

http://static3.businessinsider.com/...-893/screen shot 2014-02-24 at 6.02.40 pm.png

Indonesia = 30%, China = 85%

China is far more democratic than Indonesia. Government listen to the people, the government fear the people.

Taiwan is also a democracy country and people satisfaction is actually lower than 30%. Isn't in democracy country, the government listen to the people? We have public election... but why is lower than 30%?

Is democracy country less democratic than China?

Is China system the true "democracy" that we all dreamed about?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Why trying to ad hominem every person who doesn't acknowledge the Greatness of Middle Kingdom?
At least we recognizing where is our problems lies, not trying to cover it, and trying to solve the problems together

Your problem lies in reading comprehension. I never said "the Middle Kingdom" was good, ever, did I?

 

[Maxtini]

Chinese satisfaction to the leadership is because their leaders delivered what it need to do plus media control and censhorship that hide certain seeds of dissatisfaction.

The question is not which system is good, but which system give chances. For example, the rise of Indonesian Jokowi from non-elites to President was made possible due to election in regional level. Whether his administration will deliver good governance or not is yet to be seen. But the chance is always there every 5 years.

In contrast what happened in China and North Korea is beyond the control of its ordinary people. Of course the Chinese will defend their own current political system because it has worked till now. But it is undeniable that their course of history could be that of North Korea's for it not the gang of four (and their influence) was purged in a political manoeuvring beyond their control. The then and current Chinese political structure do not have the system to prevent that.
The only vanguard to their current progress lies purely on the current leaders to ensure that the next do not betray their predecessors.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The question is not which system is good, but which system give chances. For example, the rise of Indonesian Jokowi from non-elites to President was made possible due to election in regional level. Whether his administration will deliver good governance or not is yet to be seen. But the chance is always there every 5 years.

And Hu Jintao's rise from no name Tsinghua student to President was possible because of his *choice* in joining the Construction Bureau of Gansu province - one of the poorest in the country. There is an individual choice you can make at all times - to join the elite, if you want, and are willing to pay the price.

And what was Jokowi's campaign financing? Who contributed to it? Is he an elite, or rather a spokesman of the elite? That's the question.

Social mobility - it matters not if you can choose which others to become elites, only that you yourself are not denied the chance by birth.

 

[Aepsilons]

Your problem lies in reading comprehension. I never said "the Middle Kingdom" was good, ever, did I?

@FairAndUnbiased , was that really necessary to say to a lady? Insult me, if you may, but don't insult Ms. @madokafc .

Thanks for your consideration.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

@FairAndUnbiased , was that really necessary to say to a lady? Insult me, if you may, but don't insult Ms. @madokafc .

Thanks for your consideration.

That's patronizing her - saying that she does not have the intellectual capability to defend herself. That is far more insulting than anything I could say.

 

[Aepsilons]

That's patronizing her - saying that she does not have the intellectual capability to defend herself. That is far more insulting than anything I could say.

She has very high intellectual capability , as well as vast understanding of military equipment and policies, actually. I just don't like your side comment to her , which i found very distasteful for a gentleman to say. I'm only asking you to show some respect , at least, because she's a lady.

Again, shower the insults on me, but not on the ladies, please.

Thanks.

 

[Kolaps]

Chinese satisfaction to the leadership is because their leaders delivered what it need to do plus media control and censhorship that hide certain seeds of dissatisfaction.

The question is not which system is good, but which system give chances. For example, the rise of Indonesian Jokowi from non-elites to President was made possible due to election in regional level. Whether his administration will deliver good governance or not is yet to be seen. But the chance is always there every 5 years.

In contrast what happened in China and North Korea is beyond the control of its ordinary people. Of course the Chinese will defend their own current political system because it has worked till now. But it is undeniable that their course of history could be that of North Korea's for it not the gang of four (and their influence) was purged in a political manoeuvring beyond their control. The then and current Chinese political structure do not have the system to prevent that.
The only vanguard to their current progress lies purely on the current leaders to ensure that the next do not betray their predecessors.

Failure means:

The end of CCP.

And Confucians took power!

 

[Zsari]

The quest for a 'benevolent dictatorship' is always present. Where there is a national crisis, there is always a chance for a sacrificial and charismatic figure to be that benevolent dictator. Probably the best example for Asia is Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew. Equally possible is an opportunistic and selfish figure who will take power and remain in power by force. But once the country is reasonably stable and that benevolent dictator's time has passed, the odds of the country having a malevolent dictatorship is practically assured and equally assured will be a dynastic succession of the same. We see that time and again the world over. Deng Xiaoping may be China's version of Lee Kwan Yew, but no country's course should ever rests on luck.

You know China has thousands years of history to draw lessons from of proper leadership. Look at the Song dynasty and Ming dynasty, what's deadly to the state of the nation was not malevolent dictator but inapt emperors who has no interest in governing. Matter fact, ambitious and power hungry emperor or what you call malevolent dictator like Yongle who murdered his nephew to get to the throne was one of the more capable leader in history that brought the nation to a new heights.

What a nation needs is not benevolent or malevolent leader if there is such thing, but rather capable leader. Remember that a well managed and more powerful nation brings more power to the wielder.