Political Liberalization in China

[Genesis]

There has been much talk about China's political liberalization, but to me, that is the wrong question. China is fundamentally different to a pre-democratic West, or any of the other nations that has since adapted the system.

For Asian empires, Japan had the Samurai system that is purely based on birth rights, while the Koreans used a "party" system that is also highly selective in terms of where you were born, and a bit less on whom you were born to. The Qing empire of China used a system that made even soldiers a family business, and thus political liberalization were necessary due to the limitations that were placed on people by birth and not merit. Even Mao China had the same problem.

In the West, the Western system of governance meant birth was of the utmost importance and people of low birth had no chance at political office. In other parts of the world, restrictions based on race, birth and other unfair criteria were the norm.

Today's China is very different. It is a one party state, but that party doesn't exclude based on race, gender, or birth. Nothing about a man's birth would preclude that man from taking part in the political system.

The problem of cronyism, of corruption, of this that and the other thing is a symptom of China being a developing nation, evident by the fact, no other developing nation has managed to rid of these problems, and even developed nations have this problem to a degree.

The only thing that is evident is China doesn't allow voting, while voting has its merits, political liberalization doesn't mean necessarily democratization according to wikipedia. This is often missed in the Western and other democratic country's assessment of China.

Finally, to say whether the CCP is necessary is the wrong question, CCP is China, because it doesn't exclude anyone, it doesn't involve everyone, but it doesn't exclude anyone that doesn't want to be excluded, not joining the communist party is essentially the same as not voting, or even voting but not running.

Which is why it is hilarious and ultimately stupid for some "experts" to say the PLA is not a professional army because it is under political leadership rather than the country. Being loyal to the party is the same as being loyal to a democratic America, because at this point in time the CCP is more of a political system than a political entity.

@LeveragedBuyout

 

[Place Of Space]

waste time discussing these boring nonsense.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

waste time discussing these boring nonsense.

you cannot argue with bigots because prejudice is not rooted in reason. LeveragedBuyout is a very rational person but there are those who would take this the wrong way and twist it around.

 

[Beast]

China has defy all working theories developed by the western. For example, economy.

 

[Jlaw]

China has defy all working theories developed by the western. For example, economy.

Yup and more.

1. one country two system
2. special economic zone
3. Communist + confucian+legalism form of govt
4. One party capitalist system

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

There has been much talk about China's political liberalization, but to me, that is the wrong question. China is fundamentally different to a pre-democratic West, or any of the other nations that has since adapted the system.

For Asian empires, Japan had the Samurai system that is purely based on birth rights, while the Koreans used a "party" system that is also highly selective in terms of where you were born, and a bit less on whom you were born to. The Qing empire of China used a system that made even soldiers a family business, and thus political liberalization were necessary due to the limitations that were placed on people by birth and not merit. Even Mao China had the same problem.

In the West, the Western system of governance meant birth was of the utmost importance and people of low birth had no chance at political office. In other parts of the world, restrictions based on race, birth and other unfair criteria were the norm.

Today's China is very different. It is a one party state, but that party doesn't exclude based on race, gender, or birth. Nothing about a man's birth would preclude that man from taking part in the political system.

The problem of cronyism, of corruption, of this that and the other thing is a symptom of China being a developing nation, evident by the fact, no other developing nation has managed to rid of these problems, and even developed nations have this problem to a degree.

The only thing that is evident is China doesn't allow voting, while voting has its merits, political liberalization doesn't mean necessarily democratization according to wikipedia. This is often missed in the Western and other democratic country's assessment of China.

Finally, to say whether the CCP is necessary is the wrong question, CCP is China, because it doesn't exclude anyone, it doesn't involve everyone, but it doesn't exclude anyone that doesn't want to be excluded, not joining the communist party is essentially the same as not voting, or even voting but not running.

Which is why it is hilarious and ultimately stupid for some "experts" to say the PLA is not a professional army because it is under political leadership rather than the country. Being loyal to the party is the same as being loyal to a democratic America, because at this point in time the CCP is more of a political system than a political entity.

@LeveragedBuyout

Since we've discussed this before, I'll start by saying that I broadly agree that Western-style democracy isn't for everyone, and there's no reason to expect that China will implement such a system in the near future. However, unlike in the West and contrary to your point about the CCP's inclusiveness, one must be a professional cadre to have influence in China. In the West, one can have a normal job and exercise one's influence through the vote.

The crux of my previous advocacy for democracy was that democracy holds the governing entity accountable. There may be other ways of holding the governing entity accountable, but the main alternatives these days seems to be what China euphemistically terms a "mass event," or even worse, terrorism. Since China has often suffered from armed insurrection in its history, one would think that fostering a sense of investment in the system (e.g. through the vote) would be a good way of preventing such undesirable outcomes, but the CCP has almost always preferred force, which begets more mass events/terrorism/armed insurrection in response.

Regarding the "CCP is China" explanation, how can that be true when what in the West is a function of non-partisan bureaucracy is in China a political decision? For example, why should an anti-corruption drive need to be a political decision from the highest level to happen, when it should be an independent function of the state to punish, just like fighting any other crime? And yet in China, corruption can only be fought if the CCP allows it. The CCP is for the CCP, and when the interests of China conflict with the interests of the CCP, the CCP prioritizes the CCP.

Finally, in regards to the PLA, I don't doubt that it is comprised of professionals. But since it serves the CCP and not the Chinese state, it is more accurately a professional mercenary force, not a professional military. The CCP is simply the last warlord standing, and the PLA is its private army. Since China doesn't have the possibility of rule by another party, we'll never know if the PLA would faithfully serve another master, which would indicate that it is indeed a professional military.

Democracy can solve all of the problems above. Until the CCP is able to formulate an alternative that is able to address the above problems (and thus far it has failed), democracy seems to be the least bad option to choose.

 

[Jlaw]

@Genesis You have be part of a lobbying group in order to get the politicians to work for your interests. A common person can vote but you know it's useless.

 

[Spectre]

Since we've discussed this before, I'll start by saying that I broadly agree that Western-style democracy isn't for everyone, and there's no reason to expect that China will implement such a system in the near future. However, unlike in the West and contrary to your point about the CCP's inclusiveness, one must be a professional cadre to have influence in China. In the West, one can have a normal job and exercise one's influence through the vote.

The crux of my previous advocacy for democracy was that democracy holds the governing entity accountable. There may be other ways of holding the governing entity accountable, but the main alternatives these days seems to be what China euphemistically terms a "mass event," or even worse, terrorism. Since China has often suffered from armed insurrection in its history, one would think that fostering a sense of investment in the system (e.g. through the vote) would be a good way of preventing such undesirable outcomes, but the CCP has almost always preferred force, which begets more mass events/terrorism/armed insurrection in response.

Regarding the "CCP is China" explanation, how can that be true when what in the West is a function of bureaucracy is in China a political decision? For example, why should an anti-corruption drive need to be a political decision from the highest level to happen, when it should be an independent function of the state to punish, just like fighting any other crime? And yet in China, corruption can only be fought if the CCP allows it. The CCP is for the CCP, and when the interests of China conflict with the interests of the CCP, the CCP prioritizes the CCP.

Finally, in regards to the PLA, I don't doubt that it is comprised of professionals. But since it serves the CCP and not the Chinese state, it is more accurately a professional mercenary force, not a professional military. The CCP is simply the last warlord standing, and the PLA is its private army. Since China doesn't have the possibility of rule by another party, we'll never know if the PLA would faithfully serve another master, which would indicate that it is indeed a professional military.

Democracy can solve all of the problems above. Until the CCP is able to formulate an alternative that is able to address the above problems (and thus far it has failed), democracy seems to be the least bad option to choose.

Can CCP be bifurcated cleanly into different factions? If so then CCP can function as a representative of China and various factions for eg Pro Capitalism, Pro Socialism, Pro Environment, Pro Industry etc jostle for influence and at the same time system of checks and balances function.

The other important conflict which is necessary is tension b/w state and center. Certain level of autonomy at provincial/regional/state level is necessary for faster adaption to changing needs/circumstances.

If above two systems are present inside CCP then despite being a sole party it can function smoothly and PLA will essentially be a solid arm of nation instead of just being a mercenary army because CCP can be diverse enough to accomodate various interest groups. Otherwise it is silly to assume that a single party can claim to represent all sections of Billion Plus population many of them with diametrically opposite expectations and needs.

Unfortunately little is known to me regarding inner workings of CCP to comment conclusively with full authority.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Can CCP be bifurcated cleanly into different factions? If so then CCP can function as a representative of China and various factions for eg Pro Capitalism, Pro Socialism, Pro Environment, Pro Industry etc jostle for influence and at the same time system of checks and balances function.

The other important conflict which is necessary is tension b/w state and center. Certain level of autonomy at provincial/regional/state level is necessary for faster adaption to changing needs/circumstances.

If above two systems are present inside CCP then despite being a sole party it can function smoothly and PLA will essentially be a solid arm of nation instead of just being a mercenary army because CCP can be diverse enough to accomodate various interest groups. Otherwise it is silly to assume that a single party can claim to represent all sections of Billion Plus population many of them diametrically opposite expectations and needs.

Unfortunately very less is known to me regarding inner workings of CCP comment conclusively with full authority.

That is how Japan implemented democracy even as the LDP ruled as a single party for decades, and as you adroitly observe, the regional politicians serve as a check on the central power in Japan as well. Singapore, a democracy, has been under continuous single-party rule as well; so if the CCP is as competent and popular as many believe, there's no reason to believe why it should not also enjoy similar success through elections. I'm certain that China can create its own "democracy with Chinese characteristics" to address these problems, if it chooses to do so.

 

[Spectre]

That is how Japan implemented democracy even as the LDP ruled as a single party for decades, and as you adroitly observe, the regional politicians serve as a check on the central power in Japan as well. Singapore, a democracy, has been under continuous single-party rule as well; so if the CCP is as competent and popular as many believe, there's no reason to believe why it should not also enjoy similar success through elections. I'm certain that China can create its own "democracy with Chinese characteristics" to address these problems, if it chooses to do so.

Could be because CCP believes the system is fragile and is held up by sheer inertia and intimidation. Once the floodgates are opened and detractors get a forum to voice their opinions it would be difficult to control and shape the tide of discontent.

This is just my assumption based on observation of heavy censorship and low tolerance of dissent in China.

 

[LowPost]

There has been much talk about China's political liberalization, but to me, that is the wrong question. China is fundamentally different to a pre-democratic West, or any of the other nations that has since adapted the system.

For Asian empires, Japan had the Samurai system that is purely based on birth rights, while the Koreans used a "party" system that is also highly selective in terms of where you were born, and a bit less on whom you were born to. The Qing empire of China used a system that made even soldiers a family business, and thus political liberalization were necessary due to the limitations that were placed on people by birth and not merit. Even Mao China had the same problem.

In the West, the Western system of governance meant birth was of the utmost importance and people of low birth had no chance at political office. In other parts of the world, restrictions based on race, birth and other unfair criteria were the norm.

Today's China is very different. It is a one party state, but that party doesn't exclude based on race, gender, or birth. Nothing about a man's birth would preclude that man from taking part in the political system.

The problem of cronyism, of corruption, of this that and the other thing is a symptom of China being a developing nation, evident by the fact, no other developing nation has managed to rid of these problems, and even developed nations have this problem to a degree.

The only thing that is evident is China doesn't allow voting, while voting has its merits, political liberalization doesn't mean necessarily democratization according to wikipedia. This is often missed in the Western and other democratic country's assessment of China.

Finally, to say whether the CCP is necessary is the wrong question, CCP is China, because it doesn't exclude anyone, it doesn't involve everyone, but it doesn't exclude anyone that doesn't want to be excluded, not joining the communist party is essentially the same as not voting, or even voting but not running.

Which is why it is hilarious and ultimately stupid for some "experts" to say the PLA is not a professional army because it is under political leadership rather than the country. Being loyal to the party is the same as being loyal to a democratic America, because at this point in time the CCP is more of a political system than a political entity.

@LeveragedBuyout

Since we've discussed this before, I'll start by saying that I broadly agree that Western-style democracy isn't for everyone, and there's no reason to expect that China will implement such a system in the near future. However, unlike in the West and contrary to your point about the CCP's inclusiveness, one must be a professional cadre to have influence in China. In the West, one can have a normal job and exercise one's influence through the vote.

The crux of my previous advocacy for democracy was that democracy holds the governing entity accountable. There may be other ways of holding the governing entity accountable, but the main alternatives these days seems to be what China euphemistically terms a "mass event," or even worse, terrorism. Since China has often suffered from armed insurrection in its history, one would think that fostering a sense of investment in the system (e.g. through the vote) would be a good way of preventing such undesirable outcomes, but the CCP has almost always preferred force, which begets more mass events/terrorism/armed insurrection in response.

Regarding the "CCP is China" explanation, how can that be true when what in the West is a function of non-partisan bureaucracy is in China a political decision? For example, why should an anti-corruption drive need to be a political decision from the highest level to happen, when it should be an independent function of the state to punish, just like fighting any other crime? And yet in China, corruption can only be fought if the CCP allows it. The CCP is for the CCP, and when the interests of China conflict with the interests of the CCP, the CCP prioritizes the CCP.

Finally, in regards to the PLA, I don't doubt that it is comprised of professionals. But since it serves the CCP and not the Chinese state, it is more accurately a professional mercenary force, not a professional military. The CCP is simply the last warlord standing, and the PLA is its private army. Since China doesn't have the possibility of rule by another party, we'll never know if the PLA would faithfully serve another master, which would indicate that it is indeed a professional military.

Democracy can solve all of the problems above. Until the CCP is able to formulate an alternative that is able to address the above problems (and thus far it has failed), democracy seems to be the least bad option to choose.

Can CCP be bifurcated cleanly into different factions? If so then CCP can function as a representative of China and various factions for eg Pro Capitalism, Pro Socialism, Pro Environment, Pro Industry etc jostle for influence and at the same time system of checks and balances function.

The other important conflict which is necessary is tension b/w state and center. Certain level of autonomy at provincial/regional/state level is necessary for faster adaption to changing needs/circumstances.

If above two systems are present inside CCP then despite being a sole party it can function smoothly and PLA will essentially be a solid arm of nation instead of just being a mercenary army because CCP can be diverse enough to accomodate various interest groups. Otherwise it is silly to assume that a single party can claim to represent all sections of Billion Plus population many of them with diametrically opposite expectations and needs.

Unfortunately little is known to me regarding inner workings of CCP to comment conclusively with full authority.

Since we're talking about how the CPC here I'm going to create a thread in this forum section about a documentary produced by CCTV called Understanding the CPC tomorrow which deals with how the party works, the history of the CPC and the challenges it has to tackle, corruption in particular.

I hope it will shed light on the party which is misunderstood by many.

 

[Spectre]

Since we're talking about how the CPC here I'm going to create a thread in this forum section about a documentary produced by CCTV called Understanding the CPC tomorrow which deals with how the party works, the history of the CPC and the challenges it has to tackle, corruption in particular.

I hope it will shed light on the party which is misunderstood by many.

Thank You, I would really appreciate it as my understanding of CPC is limited at best which may have led to false pre-conceptions.

 

[Lure]

Today's China is very different. It is a one party state, but that party doesn't exclude based on race, gender, or birth. Nothing about a man's birth would preclude that man from taking part in the political system.

You mean like CPC is a some kind of enlightened despotism right? I mean it's a form of despotic regime but rules in a pragmatic, technocratic and righteous way which makes it much more legitimate then CPSU of USSR or Baathism of Arab countries. Even providing the right of obtaining private property made CPC much more legitimate then CPSU. So where we are going is a little bit clear. You say you are not categorically against the single party dictatorships, you say you will make your decisions based on how this single party dictatorship rules. Western political has a huge pessimism towards dictatorships and despotism because of the obvious reasons in the European History, but Asian intelligentsia can be different because they did not experience the same events.

Finally, to say whether the CCP is necessary is the wrong question, CCP is China, because it doesn't exclude anyone, it doesn't involve everyone, but it doesn't exclude anyone that doesn't want to be excluded, not joining the communist party is essentially the same as not voting, or even voting but not running.

This is the contradiction in your thesis. If you say CCP equals China, then that regime is as corrupt as hell since it does not leave any room to civil society. But this is not the case is it? I mean there is a vibrant market economy in China, there are more than 100 billionaires and a good portion of them are not member of CCP. There are private enterprises that paves the way for the civil society that goes beyond the comprehension of CCP and that's what makes CCP more legitimate than CPSU or Baathism or Nazism etc.

Which is why it is hilarious and ultimately stupid for some "experts" to say the PLA is not a professional army because it is under political leadership rather than the country. Being loyal to the party is the same as being loyal to a democratic America, because at this point in time the CCP is more of a political system than a political entity.

The first purpose of the military is it should be contained carefully. Since military has the monopoly of violence, generals can evolve into dictators pretty easily. Entire African continent (including North Africa and Egypt), Baathist movement in the ME and so saw a similar "high ranking officer who wants to save the country syndrome" as I can put it. Such dictatorships are militaristic dictatorships and the power of the military "conquers" the entire government.

Altough it is speculated that PLA's high ranking generals are also political "players" in CCP, I definitely can't say that all government body is taken over the military. Hence Military power is somewhat contained.

Second purpose of the military is of course being deterrent and win the wars when necessary.

If the military can perform these two tasks, you can call it a street mob if you really wanna do that I don't care.

The crux of my previous advocacy for democracy was that democracy holds the governing entity accountable. There may be other ways of holding the governing entity accountable, but the main alternatives these days seems to be what China euphemistically terms a "mass event," or even worse, terrorism. Since China has often suffered from armed insurrection in its history, one would think that fostering a sense of investment in the system (e.g. through the vote) would be a good way of preventing such undesirable outcomes, but the CCP has almost always preferred force, which begets more mass events/terrorism/armed insurrection in response.

Sounds true but there is a problem here. In democracies we have also encountered similar outcomes about political violence. In Europe, in Turkey, in India, in entire South America, in Mexico etc. All of those countries made elections, yet all of those countries had a history -or ongoing- political violence and armes insurrection. Besides, even if they were to make an elections how would they react for example to Uyghur problem in Xinjiang? How would Turkey deal with Kurds? Election making Turkey lost 40000 lives to terrorist attacks since 1983 and still ongoing. Non election making China lost a tiny fraction of that to terrorism. For example how would elections making US would react if for example there is a Latino armed insurgency movement?

I'm not even sure electorial system is even a factor in social stability.

Regarding the "CCP is China" explanation, how can that be true when what in the West is a function of non-partisan bureaucracy is in China a political decision? For example, why should an anti-corruption drive need to be a political decision from the highest level to happen, when it should be an independent function of the state to punish, just like fighting any other crime? And yet in China, corruption can only be fought if the CCP allows it. The CCP is for the CCP, and when the interests of China conflict with the interests of the CCP, the CCP prioritizes the CCP.

My response would be the same. I don't see any difference between single party dictatorships and electorial democracy in terms of anti corruption. First of all in both cases government audits itself. No private parties involved in audit process. The only difference is media, as a fourth "branch", makes the civil audit. However then we come to the thesis that, certain interest groups "owns" the media in capitalist societies and those interest groups are at least as corrupt as government bodies. Hence even the "free media" solves the problem.

I mean let's look at a US example on this one. Despite the free media, despite all that American values based on individual freedoms that are worshiped like a religion in American society, despite the most liberal president in US history (Obama), NSA managed to pull a phone listening scandal and not just the entire nation without any court order but also international 3rd parties including Angela Merkel. Despite all those audit how could this happen? And this became public by pure luck. Thanks to a whistleblower. Do we know how many similar corruptions were there in US history, despite all those rights and freedom, that we don't know because there were no whistleblowers? And Republicans tried to legitimize this issue btw. New Jersey Governor and Republican Party Presidential Candidate Chris Christie said "You can't enjoy your civil liberties in a coffin" regarding NSA overreach. Actually there are tons of things to say on this topic but I don't wanna divert the topic, maybe we can discuss in another thread.

Democracy can solve all of the problems above. Until the CCP is able to formulate an alternative that is able to address the above problems (and thus far it has failed), democracy seems to be the least bad option to choose.

Now I've made a lot of criticism but did not make any actual proposals. In my opinion democracy can't solve any of these problems alone.

I think solution to our problems are :

- Corruption : Small government. I don't really care if it's democracy or not. Big government is equal to big corruption. Small government is equal to small corruption. A country's government should be small (even if it's a dictatorship) and all social, cultural and economic affairs should be subject to absolute domination of a vibrant civil society.

- Social Stability : For social stability a country should be rich via production. That's the only thing that shows a robust correlation with social stability.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Sounds true but there is a problem here. In democracies we have also encountered similar outcomes about political violence. In Europe, in Turkey, in India, in entire South America, in Mexico etc. All of those countries made elections, yet all of those countries had a history -or ongoing- political violence and armes insurrection. Besides, even if they were to make an elections how would they react for example to Uyghur problem in Xinjiang? How would Turkey deal with Kurds? Election making Turkey lost 40000 lives to terrorist attacks since 1983 and still ongoing. Non election making China lost a tiny fraction of that to terrorism. For example how would elections making US would react if for example there is a Latino armed insurgency movement?

I'm not even sure electorial system is even a factor in social stability.

Certainly, any extreme will disprove the rule. One cannot involve in a democracy an organization that is opposed to the polity itself. Even the US fought a Civil War to protect the unity of the state. But extreme situations often require extreme solutions (e.g. the NSA issue you referenced below). Still, a system is build on the average, not the extremes, and democracy handles the average quite well.

My response would be the same. I don't see any difference between single party dictatorships and electorial democracy in terms of anti corruption. First of all in both cases government audits itself. No private parties involved in audit process. The only difference is media, as a fourth "branch", makes the civil audit. However then we come to the thesis that, certain interest groups "owns" the media in capitalist societies and those interest groups are at least as corrupt as government bodies. Hence even the "free media" solves the problem.

What happened to the independent judicial branch, which audits the government? What happened to the checks (and audits) between the separately elected bi-cameral legislative branch and the elected executive branch? And on top of that, the adversarial media which sometimes views itself as the watchkeeper for the American people (when a Republican is in power, and becomes servile when a Democrat is in power, but that's a separate discussion). Democracy has already addressed this issue by forming non-partisan technocracies and checks and balances. In the CCP, the auditing mechanism is a part of the party itself, with no checks.

I mean let's look at a US example on this one. Despite the free media, despite all that American values based on individual freedoms that are worshiped like a religion in American society, despite the most liberal president in US history (Obama), NSA managed to pull a phone listening scandal and not just the entire nation without any court order but also international 3rd parties including Angela Merkel. Despite all those audit how could this happen? And this became public by pure luck. Thanks to a whistleblower. Do we know how many similar corruptions were there in US history, despite all those rights and freedom, that we don't know because there were no whistleblowers? And Republicans tried to legitimize this issue btw. New Jersey Governor and Republican Party Presidential Candidate Chris Christie said "You can't enjoy your civil liberties in a coffin" regarding NSA overreach. Actually there are tons of things to say on this topic but I don't wanna divert the topic, maybe we can discuss in another thread.

It's difficult for me to defend the NSA spying against American citizens, so I won't defend it. Fortunately, as you pointed out, we do have a system where such abuses can be exposed and modified, and they already have been. As far as Snowden being persecuted, I think if he had just revealed the domestic spying, he would have been treated much better. It was his revelation of our legitimate foreign spying (foreigners are not protected by our Constitution) that equated with treason. For a better example, compare Snowden's treatment with the treatment of Ellsberg after he revealed the "Pentagon Papers," wherein Ellsberg enjoyed protection as a whistleblower for exposing the executive branch's abuses.

Now I've made a lot of criticism but did not make any actual proposals. In my opinion democracy can't solve any of these problems alone.

Certainly. I wouldn't claim that, either, and you have provided several examples where democracy has failed. What is most important as strong institutions, and I think in the long run, the strength and independence of institutions can only be assured by a strong democracy. There's a reason why virtually every advanced economy is a democracy.

I think solution to our problems are :

- Corruption : Small government. I don't really care if it's democracy or not. Big government is equal to big corruption. Small government is equal to small corruption. A country's government should be small (even if it's a dictatorship) and all social, cultural and economic affairs should be subject to absolute domination of a vibrant civil society.

Totally agree.

- Social Stability : For social stability a country should be rich via production. That's the only thing that shows a robust correlation with social stability.

Agreed, but I think our argument centers around how best to achieve this (dictatorship/enlightened despotism vs. democracy). As you implied before, enlightened dictatorship only works so long as it remains enlightened, which is rare to begin with, and even harder to sustain. Democracy does a better job of modulating the extremes than dictatorship.

 

[Lure]

Certainly, any extreme will disprove the rule. One cannot involve in a democracy an organization that is opposed to the polity itself. Even the US fought a Civil War to protect the unity of the state. But extreme situations often require extreme solutions (e.g. the NSA issue you referenced below). Still, a system is build on the average, not the extremes, and democracy handles the average quite well.

Yeah but the problem is we can't comprehend another country's extreme situations quite easily. Usually in an extreme situation we simply point our finger directly to that country's regime. On the hand we can handle "occasional" extremities without really pointing finger at anything fundemental. We just say oh it happens and continue our lives. News coverages about systems other than democracy are very prejudiced and completely shallow. We do criticize those regimes purely on theoretical grounds and we are not able to grasp the true dynamics that creates their social problems. We don't understand their extremes. We don't understand their initial points, how would it be a 100$ gdp per capita economy. And we say "make elections and everything is gonna be allright". That's our problem. They are constantly living in a situation that the west would define as extreme. And their normalization process is taking decades. Their grandmothers were raped in their own houses in Nanking yet we side with Japan because it's a liberal democracy and we need to counter balance China. Can you even think what kind of a nationalistic wibe that a rising Japanese military would pursue in China? And we will say "Oh CCP is fueling nationalism to protect it's sovereignty. If you ask me CCP is "acting" like a nationalist on many occasions to answer the nationalistic wibe resulting from the traumas from the past that is burried deep down in Chinese civil society. Those people weren't even able to get a proper closure both from the West (because of colonization) and from Japan(because of invasion). Our ignorance about these societies blinds our sight and our prejudices makes us blame the usual suspect for their current problems : their regimes.

What happened to the independent judicial branch, which audits the government? What happened to the checks (and audits) between the separately elected bi-cameral legislative branch and the elected executive branch? And on top of that, the adversarial media which sometimes views itself as the watchkeeper for the American people (when a Republican is in power, and becomes servile when a Democrat is in power, but that's a separate discussion). Democracy has already addressed this issue by forming non-partisan technocracies and checks and balances. In the CCP, the auditing mechanism is a part of the party itself, with no checks.

Yeah but even with all of those mechanisms we still have a lot of corruption that are known. And so many unlawful acts that remains unknown. There are so many "unknown unknowns" for an average citizen in a democracy. Yet we still preach the rest of the world like we are perfect because we make elections. Governments are growing day by day and they are inventing new institutions to make us feel safe from government overreach. And here we are, those institutions don't work. We say independent judicial branch and even the mafia infiltrated that branch both in US and in Turkey and in tons of other countries. Our judicial branches doesn't even know half the government's activity. Do you think any court in US would approve MKUltra project in 1950's? Random guys were given LSD by CIA without their knowledge. Yet we learned what happened in 1990's when those files were declassified. 40 years later. How can we be sure that there aren't any inhumane projects like this currently ongoing and no one knows? This is all result of a big government.

When US entered WW2 it had the size of an army equal to the army of Yugoslavia. Yet within weeks it was able to mobilize it's entire population for it's military industrial complex. That was the American way of war. You have a tiny army in peace time and when you go to war God help to your adversary you mobilize everything. Today US has the biggest army on Earth that has the potential power to wipe out the entire population on Earth several times standing still. And we are in the peace time. Can you see how inefficient and corrupt is that? I'm not expert on American history but I'm sure that founding fathers did not intend that. Bit by bit our freedoms were taken from our hands (our never really given).

We need smaller governments in size. Government should only provide the basic social order and protects the private ownerships. If you ask me about the today's problems in our governments, I would prefer an independent Tea Party any day against those establishment Republicans. And prefer such parties in Turkey. And a Tea Party-like single party rule in China would be great.

Agreed, but I think our argument centers around how best to achieve this (dictatorship/enlightened despotism vs. democracy). As you implied before, enlightened dictatorship only works so long as it remains enlightened, which is rare to begin with, and even harder to sustain. Democracy does a better job of modulating the extremes than dictatorship

Yeah that's the biggest problem. We say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But what about a single party rule in a powerless state? Do you think that would also make our politicians egotistical maniacs?