This conversation is closed.

Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin ,Hu JinTao, Xi Jinping - Is it better one after another?

Chinese one party system, from people’s living standard point of view, is it better one after another? The western democratic system does not work for Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, South America, Africa and many countries. Most people’s living standard is worse than before with democratic system’s instabilities there. Why democratic system does not succeed there? Will China one party system last forever? Is it good for Chinese to be that way? Or Western democracy will be better for China?

  • thumb
    Apr 6 2014: Yes, China's system works because inside the one party there is an emphasis on promoting the best. Chinese graduate students after 2,000 years still try to get into government positions at the city level. The exams are extremely difficult and sometimes the ratio is 1,000 to 1 in terms of applications for positions available.

    This is one indicator of the status and value assigned to working government. Corruptions is being addressed and I ready in the China Daily newspaper ever week of crackdowns. So party members are not getting away with abuse in the same way the dictators democratically elected do in Africa (Mugabe, et al).

    To understand this system of government you must consider the special relationship of government as the head of the family. Martin Jacques in his magnum opus, WHEN CHINA RULES THE WORLD, including his TED Talk
    • Apr 7 2014: Ramon,

      It would be good if the Chinese system were truly based on the test. Check out the level of nepotism in the Chinese Government.
  • Apr 5 2014: 1 person should not be able to make a decision that affects 1 billion people. The way forward for China is to de-centralise. A good start would be to grant independence to Tibet. The way forward for China is to grant independence to Tibet.
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2014: i'm not sure, because i don't see china contributing new ideas to the world. For example, it wasn't china that created the internet, it was america. Is there something about democracy that stimulates new and original thinking?
  • Apr 3 2014: Orange

    I would advance the idea that democracy is an illusion of freedom and, most certainly does not give any indication of financial growth, independence or stability. Democracy, as mob rule, is not synonymous with wisdom or objectivity. The great majority of the population of the planet once believed that it was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that humanity is inherently evil--all wrong.
    Freedom is an individual mindset, not to be cloaked in a collective perspective, as "for the common good", as such is then determined by the mob leader and any illusion of freedom is now absent.
    Of the countries you mentioned, and I have been to several, they, the vast majority of people, do not possess a sense of 'self', which is paramount, critical to a free and prosperous nation. They are defined, bound, as a collective, by thousands of
    years of submissive and controlled behavior.
    What is good for China must be decided by its own people. China's political structure, essentially a totalitarian rule, dates to
    1000 BCE and such an inbred sense of existence, tradition and culture is not to be taken lightly or dismissed,
    The betterment of the Chinese people, mostly a surface dressing, that has occurred in the last three decades is not due to China, but the Western influence of capitalism.
    Democracy is not freedom, nor does it lead to freedom. Freedom, again, is a mindset of an individual spurred on by the Freedom to achieve by ones own abilities and talents. I would think that such a mind set is embodied in The American Bill of Rights and not in the illusion of democracy.