[Smertios]

I remember an interview with the Chinese premier a few months ago, saying that China was indeed a democracy, and that it was probably more democratic than Western countries, but the structure of the democracy was different. China would be a grassroots democracy, not a liberal one. The Chinese people vote for local councils and village leaders directly. Most candidates are members of the communist party, but several are independent.

The election of regional and the national parliaments are also considered democratic, even if indirectly. Local assemblies are directly elected by the people of the villages. Provincial legislative assemblies are, in turn, elected by members of these local assemblies. And the members of the National People Congress (the national legislature and largest parliament in the world, with about 3000 delegates) are, then, elected by the members of the provincial assemblies. That is a case of a representative democracy with indirect elections, even if it is hard to admit it.

Anyway, the point of this thread is not that. Recently, the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, has been asking for more reforms and a democratic expansion [1] [2]. There is a huge chance we will be seeing something previously unseen in the world, in the near future: the rise of a one-party liberal democracy.

The one-party system, itself, isn't conflicting with the idea of democracy. The difference between the Chinese and Western models is simply the fact that there is only one party in China. And the party itself is a state institution. There will never be coalitions, majority and/or minorities in the Chinese system. The party itself is an institution that is there to define policy. The government and the parliament are there to enforce such policy. If the people is allowed to elect the 3000 delegates directly, we will have a one-party democracy in that country. That idea is amazing...

[Beren]

In my opinion there is some sort of Democratic centralism in China.

[Dr House]

Way back when I still supported democracy I advocated something like this, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out, to say the least.

[stalker]

I think it's an interesting development too, but the problem is that any one party only allows a certain amount of divergence from the party line. So in practice the political space will remain very constricted.

Granted, similar things can be said of the US, where holding any vaguely socialist / leftist ideas are the kiss of death for a politician, even though a substantial minority of Americans (20%-30%) subscribe to such views.

[Dr House]

I think it's an interesting development too, but the problem is that any one party only allows a certain amount of divergence from the party line. So in practice the political space will remain very constricted.

I don't see the problem. Ideally, the point of democracy should be to hold politicians accountable to administrative blunders rather than holding ideologies accountable therein. In practice this doesn't really happen because common people are not sufficiently intelligent to hold politicians accountable to anything reasonable, but still.

[Harold Saxon]

I don't see the problem. Ideally, the point of democracy should be to hold politicians accountable to administrative blunders rather than holding ideologies accountable therein.

A faulty ideology should absolutely be held accountable. A bad idea needn't come from a poor administrator, it can equally come from faulty beliefs. Indeed, many of the 20th century's greatest atrocities were ideological failures, generally deriving from one-party states wherein the leading party cannot be legislatively challenged.

[Dr House]

A faulty ideology should absolutely be held accountable. A bad idea needn't come from a poor administrator, it can equally come from faulty beliefs. Indeed, many of the 20th century's greatest atrocities were ideological failures, generally deriving from one-party states wherein the leading party cannot be legislatively challenged.

Ideology, while not completely unimportant, is frankly vastly overrated as a factor in administrative mismanagement. Bad ideas come in all shapes and sizes. Much as I loathe to agree with TIG, he has a point here:

People try to simplify everything that's bad in one area is a result of the system entirely, but that's not really fair. A famine in the Soviet Union was a holocaust; the many, many famines in the British Empire were freak occurrences that nobody really wanted to happen and are excused. The Russians probably weren't above chalking up car fatalities in the US to deaths caused by capitalist exploitation. You could make that argument, but it's not really very nuanced.

The problem here, in any case, is that bi- and multi-party democracies have no proper mechanism for holding ideology and administration accountable separately from each other. Not that it matters much, as I know you agree with me that democracy sucks.

[Harold Saxon]

Ideology, while not completely unimportant, is frankly vastly overrated as a factor in administrative mismanagement.

Absolutely not. Ideology is what drives the very actions that become bungled. Does it cause the bungling and mismanagement in and of itself? Insofar as flawed ideology can institutionalize incompetence, yes. For instance, centralization-bent economic policies ala Soviet communism institutionalize upper-level mismanagement. Bad ideology was absolutely to blame for bread lines.

Additionally, when an election becomes a referendum on an ideology, administrative incompetence is hardly the only issue. One administrates only to attain the ends of the ideology - the ends themselves can be intrinsically flawed, and a competent leader can make them worse still. Would Hitler have been fantastic had he only been more competent with regard to military strategy? Would Pol Pot have been totally awesome if he was able to kill even more people? In short, this inane cult of effective management with no regard for the underlying beliefs and motivations of a leader is simply silly.

The problem here, in any case, is that bi- and multi-party democracies have no proper mechanism for holding ideology and administration accountable separately from each other.

This is often the case, but note that whether a failure is administrative or ideological is often immediately recognized. Elections become referendums on one or the other, such as the last British election being far more about Gordon Brown's managerial incompetence or lack thereof than a referendum on public support for New-Labourite Third Way ideology as previous elections had been. Indeed, political parties often recognize that a given candidate is an electoral liability due to poor administration and dump said candidate before election day.

Not that it matters much, as I know you agree with me that democracy sucks.

I oppose universal suffrage and largely deem democratic election of executives/heads of state to have been a mistake. I do not oppose electoral politics in legislative government branches.

[Dr House]

Absolutely not. Ideology is what drives the very actions that become bungled. Does it cause the bungling and mismanagement in and of itself? Insofar as flawed ideology can institutionalize incompetence, yes. For instance, centralization-bent economic policies ala Soviet communism institutionalize upper-level mismanagement. Bad ideology was absolutely to blame for bread lines.

The question becomes to what extent bad ideas are intrinsic to ideology. For example, it is possible to implement a socialist state without utilizing Soviet-style central planning; whose lack of an effective rationing mechanism was to blame for bread lines. If a market pricing mechanism is necessary to avoid those, market socialism has it. If over-centralization is to blame, economic planning could be decentralized to lower-level administrative divisions. None of the above contradicts Marxist ideology.

Additionally, when an election becomes a referendum on an ideology, administrative incompetence is hardly the only issue. One administrates only to attain the ends of the ideology - the ends themselves can be intrinsically flawed, and a competent leader can make them worse still. Would Hitler have been fantastic had he only been more competent with regard to military strategy? Would Pol Pot have been totally awesome if he was able to kill even more people? In short, this inane cult of effective management with no regard for the underlying beliefs and motivations of a leader is simply silly.

Gauging whether the goals of a given leader are good is subjective and kind of murky. Genocide is a fairly common staple to human history, and the Holocaust was enthusiastically endorsed by Hitler's German constituency. To them, corpsifying millions of Heebs was a good idea.

Of course, batshit insane leaders with ideologies no one supports exist, but these are typically one-off and their ideas are almost never institutionalized. I can hardly think of a one-party state institutionalizing the ideas of Idi Amin into an official ideology.

[Harold Saxon]

The question becomes to what extent bad ideas are intrinsic to ideology. For example, it is possible to implement a socialist state without utilizing Soviet-style central planning; whose lack of an effective rationing mechanism was to blame for bread lines.

This negates the fact that Soviet-style central planning is a central facet of Marxist-Leninist ideology how? In short, you've dodged my point in its entirety. Are you using some definition of ideology other than the following?

1 (plural ideologies) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy: the ideology of republicanism
the set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual: a critique of bourgeois ideology

If not, this intermediary phase of state management prior to a stateless and classless society is a central part of the Marxist-Leninist system of ideas and is a key element that distinguishes it from other ideologies such as your mentioned example of forms of market socialism. If so, on the other hand, this debate is semantic and you are using a definition of the term that does not coincide with its general usage.

If a market pricing mechanism is necessary to avoid those, market socialism has it. If over-centralization is to blame, economic planning could be decentralized to lower-level administrative divisions. None of the above contradicts Marxist ideology.

It does contradict numerous ideologies within the Marxist umbrella term. Ergo, if said ideologies are inherently flawed given this, you must concede to my point. Clearly, modern Chinese policy differs from classical Maoism - however, both fall under the "Marxist" umbrella at least nominally, and classical Maoism was reversed due to inherently ridiculous ideological beliefs. Juche would be another inherently absurd ideology.

To cite but another example that would surely appeal to you based upon your posts, what of liberalism and its core element of belief in human equality? This has led to, among other things, affirmative action which has triggered incompetence in the form of employers turning over candidates that would otherwise better serve a given company's needs for the sake of hiring a minority and avoiding a lawsuit. Would a competent liberal be better? No, they'd be more competent at foisting insane Helter Skelter visions upon society. Compare the naive and incompetent Kennedy with the more competent and more long-lastingly vile Johnson.

Competency inherently leads to the question of what one is competently implementing, it is never an end in and of itself and logically can never be one. The key point is that action, competent action included, follows from a given motivation and ideology and exists only to achieve whatever end one's motivation dictates. Thus, ideology is innately of great importance to any political matter.

Gauging whether the goals of a given leader are good is subjective and kind of murky. Genocide is a fairly common staple to human history, and the Holocaust was enthusiastically endorsed by Hitler's German constituency. To them, corpsifying millions of Heebs was a good idea.

Firstly, your view on the Holocaust is historically inaccurate. Most Germans did endorse Hitler's repression of Jews as the scapegoat for Prussia's defeat and the Weimar Republic's troubles, but the full extent of the Holocaust was far from publicly known when it began. While the German national character often displays a profound harshness and sense of authoritarian rigidity, whether or not the German populace at large would have endorsed the genocide of at minimum six million Jews were these actions publicly known is questionable.

That said, whether or not these ideologies have public support is wholly irrelevant to my point. Rather, my point here is that these ideologies have produced negative results by my personal standards. Your argument, that others holding differing standards makes all value judgment upon leaders irrelevant, is revealing of a fundamentally motivationless worldview - does one not make such judgments daily?

Indeed, your own seeming utilitarian belief in net gains for a given populace is a value judgment - what makes it any more inherently right than a belief in, say, killing people because it's amusing? How can you make that judgment? It's mighty contradictory to appeal to utilitarian efficiency and then decry value judgments upon leaders, as utilitarian standards are a form of value judgment in their own right. If you truly believe motivation to be utterly irrelevant to anything because individuals happen to hold differing ones, this discussion, all discussions, and life itself become moot.

[acro]

Looking into China and leaning enough about its people and history, you will find simply talking about democracy from western point of view doesn't work.
The communist party in China isn't the communist party in western countries in the past century. It's more like a new royal family of a new dynasty of historical China. In China, people have already recognized this party as legal regime of the country, people show their loyalty to the party as what their ancestors did for their emperors in the past centuries. There is not any game like political party and election out there. The party is the only leader and the only government. The party's legality comes from its leadership to save the poor country from western and Japanese invasions, at least as the party claimed. So before another major defect to foreigners happens, this party will hold this power as what old dynasties did.