jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
This is about a thousand years question.
Is Western way the best way in the world? The answer is, no.
For many of the above reason, the western way is not always the best way to deal with any situation. Let not look at the American model of politic, look at Australia.
Australian Prime Minister election is a citizenship based election where each Australian have to vote (Voting is mandatory and if yo udo not vote, you will be fine or jaled or both). They vote their perference party on thier own electorate and in turn the winning party nominate a leader and become the Prime Minister. The problem with the Australian Election is more than 37% of the vote are blank or incorrectly filled (Or commonly known as "Trash Vote"). There are people who really into the election, they followed the candidate from town to town, but there are also people who just gone to a poll and vote, without knowing even who represent what, those people are commonly known as Non-perferenced. In a complete democratic system, the balance between the serious voter and to people who gone and throw their vote away is not much of a different. The problem is with the political system itself. Many would believe there are no to not many change even a different candidate or different party got voted into a new government.
For voting to be effective, one's nation have to have faith on their own political model or political system. With the current political model in the west, where government is fragmented because they are to ensure no one entity have overhelming power, the voting system is actually of no use, simply voter can only vote for one man, but one man (or woman) can do only so little in the grandier scheme. People lose faith on their political system because of it, but this is the mainstream political system the west have been using probably for a hundred years.
What it is, people vote becase they can, not because they can do anything with in.
Now, let's look at the Chinese model, where nobody can have a direct say on who's the leader gonna be, apart from the selected circle. The problem with this is obivious, that the leader is born with or without the regard of general public, however, for a centralised government, that's a problem where it basically okay as long as you appoint a competent leader. If the leader is an incompetent, then the country will fall into a downward spiral.
However, what do the citizen say about this model? Actually there are no voice about it, as A.) This have nothing to do with the general public, hence, no one care. B.) The public are not allow to publicly critise the government and what they do. But actually it serve right with a oppressed but obedient citizens. where you don't tell a leader what to do, you do what the leader told you to.
What work best is, if you have a population of China, where 1.3 billions, and if you as a candidate actually hear every voices before you gone into a bi-literal democratic election, you probably will died of old age before you have heard it all and a vote and be held, it simply not going to happen as there are just literally too many people. You have to ignore what people need if you want to have a leader that work. Hence, this is what feel democratic in a non-democratic Totalitarian regime, and this is work best with China.
Is Western way the best way in the world? The answer is, no.
For many of the above reason, the western way is not always the best way to deal with any situation. Let not look at the American model of politic, look at Australia.
Australian Prime Minister election is a citizenship based election where each Australian have to vote (Voting is mandatory and if yo udo not vote, you will be fine or jaled or both). They vote their perference party on thier own electorate and in turn the winning party nominate a leader and become the Prime Minister. The problem with the Australian Election is more than 37% of the vote are blank or incorrectly filled (Or commonly known as "Trash Vote"). There are people who really into the election, they followed the candidate from town to town, but there are also people who just gone to a poll and vote, without knowing even who represent what, those people are commonly known as Non-perferenced. In a complete democratic system, the balance between the serious voter and to people who gone and throw their vote away is not much of a different. The problem is with the political system itself. Many would believe there are no to not many change even a different candidate or different party got voted into a new government.
For voting to be effective, one's nation have to have faith on their own political model or political system. With the current political model in the west, where government is fragmented because they are to ensure no one entity have overhelming power, the voting system is actually of no use, simply voter can only vote for one man, but one man (or woman) can do only so little in the grandier scheme. People lose faith on their political system because of it, but this is the mainstream political system the west have been using probably for a hundred years.
What it is, people vote becase they can, not because they can do anything with in.
Now, let's look at the Chinese model, where nobody can have a direct say on who's the leader gonna be, apart from the selected circle. The problem with this is obivious, that the leader is born with or without the regard of general public, however, for a centralised government, that's a problem where it basically okay as long as you appoint a competent leader. If the leader is an incompetent, then the country will fall into a downward spiral.
However, what do the citizen say about this model? Actually there are no voice about it, as A.) This have nothing to do with the general public, hence, no one care. B.) The public are not allow to publicly critise the government and what they do. But actually it serve right with a oppressed but obedient citizens. where you don't tell a leader what to do, you do what the leader told you to.
What work best is, if you have a population of China, where 1.3 billions, and if you as a candidate actually hear every voices before you gone into a bi-literal democratic election, you probably will died of old age before you have heard it all and a vote and be held, it simply not going to happen as there are just literally too many people. You have to ignore what people need if you want to have a leader that work. Hence, this is what feel democratic in a non-democratic Totalitarian regime, and this is work best with China.
was an examination system in Imperial China designed to select the best administrative officials for the state's bureaucracy. This system had a huge influence on both society and culture in Imperial China and was partly responsible for changes in the power structure of the Tang and Song Dynasties that would hold long after their dissolution. The system assisted in the replacement of what had been relatively few aristocratic families with a more diffuse and populous class of typically rural-dwelling, landowning scholar-bureaucrats, organized into clans. Neighboring Asian countries such as Vietnam, Korea, Japan and Ryūkyū also implemented similar systems, both to draw in their top national talent and to maintain a tight grip on that talent's time, resources, and ideological goals.[
This is the problem with PDF members speaking for China who do not actually live in mainland China. Traditional Chinese culture is all but destroyed. It's true. Chinese civilization remains but it is radically different now than compared to pre-1949. Just like 150 years of slavery under Mongol Yuan completely changed China from classical to medieval culture. Those 150 years of humiliation by Western powers and then Japanese Empire, followed by civil war upheaval, has completely changed Chinese culture.
). His "get rich is glorious" slogan almost destroyed China and would have left China easy prey for Western powers if it was not for the resurgence of foreign policy hawks in CCP including Xi Jinping.
