In China, unlike America, political legitimacy is built on competence and experience - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues in the People's Republic of China.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15180794
I am a Chinese and live in Shanghai. This is my twitter account: @thinking_panda -- I hope I can communicate with you more about China.

In China, unlike America, political legitimacy is built on competence and experience.

It is widely assumed in the West that the legitimacy of a government comes from universal suffrage and multiparty competitive elections. Yet this assumption raises two issues: First, historically, it is not true ― universal suffrage is a recent development. One can claim, for instance, that U.S. administrations only became truly legitimate in 1965, when African Americans won the right to vote. Furthermore, this practice is confined only to nation-states. It is difficult to imagine that, say, the European Union could establish its legitimacy and play its unifying role on the basis of universal suffrage.

These two points help us better understand why the Chinese sense of legitimacy is vastly different from the Western one. China is not a typical nation-state but rather a deeply historical and civilizational state. It is an amalgam of the world’s oldest continuous civilization and a huge modern state with its sense of legitimacy rooted deeply in its history. An apt analogy would be to something like the Roman Empire, if it had endured into the 21st century ― with regional and cultural diversities, a modern economy, a centralized government and a population nearly equal to that of 100 average-size European nations combined, speaking thousands of different dialects while sharing one written language.

This kind of state, a product of hundreds of states amalgamated into one over a long history, would become ungovernable if it were to adopt an adversarial political model. Such was the case in China beginning with the 1911 revolution that established the Republic of China. The country attempted to copy the American model and degenerated into chaos, with rival warlords fighting each other and tens of millions of lives lost in the decades that followed.

As a civilizational state, the legitimacy of China’s government is deeply rooted in its own historical tradition, shaped over the millennia since the country was first unified under the Emperor Qin in 221 B.C. China’s one-party governance today may look illegitimate in the eyes of many Westerners but to most Chinese. For most of the past 2,000 years, China has practiced a kind of one-party rule: governance by a unified Confucian elite that was selected through public exams (the keju) and which claimed to represent — or genuinely represented — most, if not all, under heaven. Furthermore, during much of the one-party era, China was arguably better governed, more peaceful and more prosperous than the European states of the same epoch. China began to lag behind Europe when it closed its door to the outside world in the 18th century and missed the Industrial Revolution.

As Francis Fukuyama has observed in his book The Origins of Political Order, “It is safe to say that the Chinese invented modern bureaucracy, that is, a permanent administrative cadre selected on the basis of ability rather than kinship or patrimonial connection.” China’s keju system was long used to select the most talented individuals into leading positions in government.
#15180795
The Communist Party of China has adapted this tradition for modern China, building a system for selecting its leaders based on merit and performance. For example, China’s top decision-makers ― members of the Standing Committee of the CPC Political Bureau, including President Xi Jinping ― have almost all served at least twice as party secretaries or governors of a province, which means, given the size of China’s population, they have administered populations of 100 million or more and performed well before being promoted to their top-echelon positions.

The former approximately refers to public opinion and the latter to the hearts and minds of the people. The terms were first put forward by Mencius, the most famous Confucian philosopher after Confucius himself. Minyi can be fleeting and change overnight, especially in today’s internet age, while minxin tends to be stable and lasting, reflecting the long-term interest of an entire nation. Over the past three decades, the Chinese state has generally practiced rule by minxin. This allows China to plan for the medium and long term, and even for the next generation, rather than for the next 100 days or until the next election, as is the case with many Western democracies.

To sum up, while the West has for so many years promoted the Western political model in the name of universal values, China has pursued its own experiments in the political domain since 1978, drawing lessons from the disastrous Cultural Revolution, in which ideological radicalism expunged China’s governance traditions and dashed people’s hope for prosperity and order. Thanks to this effort, China has since managed to varying degrees of success to reestablish a connection with its own past as well as borrow many useful elements from the West.

China’s meritocratic system today is essentially a mechanism of “selection plus election,” with the former originating from China’s own tradition and the latter imported from the West. Pioneered by China’s late leader Deng Xiaoping, this institutional arrangement has succeeded in ensuring an orderly transition of power over the past three decades. However imperfect, this system is in a position to compete with the Western political model. Indeed, it would be inconceivable for the Chinese system today to produce an awkward leader like U.S. President Donald Trump.

The Chinese experience since 1978 shows that the ultimate test of a political system is how well it ensures good governance as judged by the people. The dichotomy of “democracy versus autocracy” sounds hollow in today’s complex world, given the large number of poorly governed “democracies.” China’s experience may eventually usher in a paradigm shift in international political discourse from democracy versus autocracy to good governance versus bad governance.

Good governance can take the form of the Western political system or a non-Western one. Likewise, bad governance may take the form of the Western political system or a non-Western one. China emphasizes substance over procedures, believing that ultimately the pursuit of substance will evolve and produce the right procedures, appropriate to each nation’s own traditions and conditions.

A plethora of uncertainties are gripping the world today for reasons directly related to how government legitimacy has been defined by the West. It’s high time to pause and reflect that China’s age-old wisdom and well-tested practices may be relevant beyond China.
#15180805
ThingkingPanda wrote:The Communist Party of China has adapted this tradition for modern China, building a system for selecting its leaders based on merit and performance. For example, China’s top decision-makers ― members of the Standing Committee of the CPC Political Bureau, including President Xi Jinping ― have almost all served at least twice as party secretaries or governors of a province, which means, given the size of China’s population, they have administered populations of 100 million or more and performed well before being promoted to their top-echelon positions.

The former approximately refers to public opinion and the latter to the hearts and minds of the people. The terms were first put forward by Mencius, the most famous Confucian philosopher after Confucius himself. Minyi can be fleeting and change overnight, especially in today’s internet age, while minxin tends to be stable and lasting, reflecting the long-term interest of an entire nation. Over the past three decades, the Chinese state has generally practiced rule by minxin. This allows China to plan for the medium and long term, and even for the next generation, rather than for the next 100 days or until the next election, as is the case with many Western democracies.

To sum up, while the West has for so many years promoted the Western political model in the name of universal values, China has pursued its own experiments in the political domain since 1978, drawing lessons from the disastrous Cultural Revolution, in which ideological radicalism expunged China’s governance traditions and dashed people’s hope for prosperity and order. Thanks to this effort, China has since managed to varying degrees of success to reestablish a connection with its own past as well as borrow many useful elements from the West.

China’s meritocratic system today is essentially a mechanism of “selection plus election,” with the former originating from China’s own tradition and the latter imported from the West. Pioneered by China’s late leader Deng Xiaoping, this institutional arrangement has succeeded in ensuring an orderly transition of power over the past three decades. However imperfect, this system is in a position to compete with the Western political model. Indeed, it would be inconceivable for the Chinese system today to produce an awkward leader like U.S. President Donald Trump.

The Chinese experience since 1978 shows that the ultimate test of a political system is how well it ensures good governance as judged by the people. The dichotomy of “democracy versus autocracy” sounds hollow in today’s complex world, given the large number of poorly governed “democracies.” China’s experience may eventually usher in a paradigm shift in international political discourse from democracy versus autocracy to good governance versus bad governance.

Good governance can take the form of the Western political system or a non-Western one. Likewise, bad governance may take the form of the Western political system or a non-Western one. China emphasizes substance over procedures, believing that ultimately the pursuit of substance will evolve and produce the right procedures, appropriate to each nation’s own traditions and conditions.

A plethora of uncertainties are gripping the world today for reasons directly related to how government legitimacy has been defined by the West. It’s high time to pause and reflect that China’s age-old wisdom and well-tested practices may be relevant beyond China.


The problem of the Chinese system is that it has itterated on the Marxist-Leninist party model for sure but it doesn't mean that the key deficiencies that have plagued the system are removed or gone. The experience part is not some new argument to be honest, it has always existed and it didn't help the SU much either in the long run. Most of the SU apparatus has gone through a more stricter process of elimination with having secretary generals and other high ranking posts being filled with people who had 3-4-5 decades of governing experience.

The core problems are still there:
1) Government and political institutions are loyal to the CPC. While this might sound nice to some, it creates a divergence between peoples interest and CPC interest. In a nut shell, theoretically the party in the Marxist-Leninist party model should represent the needs and wants of the people but it is not the case in all situations. Meaning that conflicts will arise on these basis.

2) Marxist-Leninist system has a problem of mono cultural orientation. In a sense that it wants to supplant any cultural or regional differences with one idea, one culture and so on. This is not ideal for larger countries since the regional differences will always be present. And once the system shows weakness then the region revolt or have discontent. Even more problematic is that this form of governance creates an illusion that the old grievances are gone which they are not. They are merely supressed on hidden. The collapse of the SU was a shock in this regard, everyone thought that ethnic and regional divides were fixed but in reality they weren't.

3) The Marxist-Leninist party model is based on almost total loyalty and has problems resolving conflicts for people who are outside of this loyalty circle or individuals who gain prominence while their achievements within the party are few. This creates selective application of laws and judgements. To elaborate on this a bit: this covers powerful businessman, academia, small businessman to average joes. Basically almost anyone who is not interested in the party and wants to do his own thing. This process is more pronounced for very prominent businessman in the current times in China.

4) Institutional governance is largely based on memory and institutional expertise instead of a clear system of checks and balances ingrained in law or a constitution. What this means is that the control over the key functions and processes within the system are decided and can be changed to suit the current power circle. This might be a good thing in some cases but long term this has never(?) worked. There are always ups and downs for this but the gist of it, as institutional memory fades of the bad times so does the system descends in to some form of abuse of power or mistakes. For example, while the institutional memory of Mao was strong, the chairman's of the party tried to maintain the 10 years office schedules and so on. Now that it has weakened, there is a 2 decades of Xis rule. This is a massive inherent weakness of such a system.

5) The general attitude of such a model is that it can do no wrong, there can't be anything bad and so on. While some people like to pretend it is part of the Chinese culture, I would totally disagree. The same situation was rampant in the Soviet Union. This leads to higher ranking official like province heads and so on falsifying economic growth, hiding corruption and so on. If the system doesn't allow or can't report any failures then people will just not report them and make it look like everything is okay. Ignoring the unhappiness of people regarding this, the more problematic aspect is that it destroys the information feedback loop either from the people or within the system itself.

There are more minor things that can be added but then this will be even more of a TLDR kinda answer. Overall, we have observed through out the 20th and 21st centuries how similarly structed countries will progress and what happens. All of the above will eventually lead to a situation of China having trouble surpassing the middle income trap and the growth will stall. Usually in this cases the countries take a hard pivot to the right to maintain stability and power for the bureaucracy and within the party elites and so on.

P.S. The modern Chinese take on all of Chinese history is funny. China has spent far more time being divided than unified. Most of the old European states like France or England/UK have far more history of consequent rulership without being split apart. Not to mention some really old institutions of the past like Rome or the HRE. Even America is reaching to be a single entity for 250 years soon. I am not sure if China ever experienced unity for 250 years straight with only having 1 civil war.
#15180817
@ThingkingPanda I hope you're here to stay for debate. If so, very courageous. :up:

ThingkingPanda wrote:It is difficult to imagine that, say, the European Union could establish its legitimacy and play its unifying role on the basis of universal suffrage.


That's a weird thing to say. Heads of states and the European Parliament are elected through universal suffrage. There are also occasionally referendums on European integration. Insofar its legitimacy derives from it.

ThingkingPanda wrote:This kind of state, a product of hundreds of states amalgamated into one over a long history, would become ungovernable if it were to adopt an adversarial political model. Such was the case in China beginning with the 1911 revolution that established the Republic of China. The country attempted to copy the American model and degenerated into chaos, with rival warlords fighting each other and tens of millions of lives lost in the decades that followed.


Federations solve that problem by granting wide-reaching autonomy to individual regions. Moreover, China has evolved since 1911. It's a nation state, not an empire. That said, I suppose it cannot be ruled out that certain regions would try to secede.

ThingkingPanda wrote:As Francis Fukuyama has observed in his book The Origins of Political Order, “It is safe to say that the Chinese invented modern bureaucracy, that is, a permanent administrative cadre selected on the basis of ability rather than kinship or patrimonial connection.” China’s keju system was long used to select the most talented individuals into leading positions in government.


I read that book and find Fukuyama's claim somewhat questionable. For starters, he more or less ignores the entire Greco-Roman period in European history. Selecting officials based on merit is certainly not a uniquely Chinese idea, although it was arguably never implemented on that scale anywhere else. It's also debatable how merit-based and open China's imperial examination system truly was. In fact one of the key innovations China ultimately had to adopt from the West was universal education and education that went beyond reciting ancient texts. Something Japan was willing to do much earlier.

ThingkingPanda wrote:The Communist Party of China has adapted this tradition for modern China, building a system for selecting its leaders based on merit and performance.


Since when is competence sufficient for good governance? The interests of a ruling elite always diverge from those of the general population, in fact the elite might not even comprehend them.

ThingkingPanda wrote:The Chinese experience since 1978 shows that the ultimate test of a political system is how well it ensures good governance as judged by the people.


I would say the CCP is quite afraid of being "judged by the people".

ThingkingPanda wrote:Pioneered by China’s late leader Deng Xiaoping, this institutional arrangement has succeeded in ensuring an orderly transition of power over the past three decades.


Well, Xi certainly put an end to that.
#15180853
Here is my 2 cents, and it's a guess, but a good one.

China has hit the wall. It's a damn shame, but inevitable. Their social contract with their people is a common one when a poor country gets authoritarian government. Russia did much the same, the government says we will make your lives better.

They were able to keep that promise, partly through the stupidity of American (and other leaders). That has slowed down, and that's just the first part of the tale of woe. The way most Chinese invest is real estate. The government deliberately created a investment bubble, and now they are trapped inside it. So they keep pouring massive amounts of money in, with zero expectation of it doing much good. It used to, their brilliant maglev trains are good example. But an economist would tell you it needs to stop, but the government is far too afraid of the political consequences of obliterating the investment income most Chinese have.

Then there is their other problems. They have severe water problems. That does have an easy solution, but it would be highly unpopular. "If you want to change behavior, change the price."

China is between a rock and hard place of it's own doing. They need to make the transition to being a mature economy, but they are terrified the government will collapse if they do. They are in a race against time, and losing.
#15180871
late wrote:
They were able to keep that promise, partly through the stupidity of American (and other leaders). That has slowed down, and that's just the first part of the tale of woe. The way most Chinese invest is real estate. The government deliberately created a investment bubble, and now they are trapped inside it. So they keep pouring massive amounts of money in, with zero expectation of it doing much good. It used to, their brilliant maglev trains are good example. But an economist would tell you it needs to stop, but the government is far too afraid of the political consequences of obliterating the investment income most Chinese have.


It isn't quite this simple, and is a result of devolution and local autonomy in responsibility without corresponding devolution of powers. Local cities and provinces have no power to tax or raise funds in any meaningful way with a single exception: the sale of government owned lands to property devolopers. In order to finance programs like a shiny new metro system or a new maternity ward, the local government must sell property to eager developers. These governments have no incentive to create investment opportunities for local Chinese outside of real estate as a consequence.

Luckily this problem is relatively solvable - the Beijing government needs to open new fundraising mechanisms for local Chinese governments while also establishing confidence in other means to invest. The easiest way to kill two birds with one stone here would be allow the sale of municipal bonds to the public. However, this may not be possible under the current crop of CCP leadership who view decentralization through the lens of 1991. :knife:
#15180877
Yes I'm sure Chinese bureaucracy, which has no honest mechanism of oversight or accountability, is entirely based on merit with no nepotism or corruption happening. :roll:

China's government maintains "legitimacy" by intimidating, jailing, killing or otherwise punishing those who speak out against its rule. They rule by fear and an iron fist like every other dictatorship. You are forced to be compliant and you have no other choice.

No protests or dissent allowed. Why do Tibetan monks flee for their lives? Remember Tienanmen Square? Where's Tank Man? What law did he break, and did he get a fair trial? No habeas corpus for him. Habeas corpus and other due process laws were created because the old absolute monarchs of Europe would pull exactly the same kind of thing.
#15180892
The contest today is between a US plutocracy, in which the bottom 50% of the population has experienced stagnant or declining livings standards since 1990, cf the meritocracy in China in which the bottom 50% of the population has experienced the fastest increase in living standards over the same period, in all of China's 2200 year history.
Actually In USA and the rest of the the west nothing left of democracy, there are only plutocracy
and oligarchy that successfully control everything.
Western democracy is dead but two party cartel “democracy” ruled by plutocracy and corporatocracy (Corporate fascism) are flourishing.
It is time for the west to acknowledge that China is the most successful capitalist country and that the CCP, apart from its formal name, has nothing to do with communist ideology but with meritocracy. China has proven to have a much more successful capitalism than corrupted deep state Plutocracy of the US-western Empire.

#15180904
ThingkingPanda wrote:In China, unlike America, political legitimacy is built on competence and experience.

This is why traditionally in the US the President was voted for in a very indirect fashion, through what is often called the "Electoral College".
The legislature of each state government would elect representatives who would then, it was planned, be able to use their own judgement among themselves to elect a President for the country.

Of course later, the country started moving into a more directly democratic direction, and this ceased to be the case. All of the states now have passed their own laws to conduct popular elections and then require their state representatives to vote for that candidate.

There are two main political Parties in the US and they almost control which person will be chosen to be their candidate.
So it is fair to say that although the people may have a choice between two options, each of those options has already been carefully selected. They are not going to select someone with no experience. Although there is often pressure to select someone who will be more likely to appeal to the people, so that their candidate can win. Sometimes this can come at the cost of experience or competency.
#15180906
JohnRawls wrote:5) The general attitude of such a model is that it can do no wrong, there can't be anything bad and so on. While some people like to pretend it is part of the Chinese culture, I would totally disagree. The same situation was rampant in the Soviet Union. This leads to higher ranking official like province heads and so on falsifying economic growth, hiding corruption and so on. If the system doesn't allow or can't report any failures then people will just not report them and make it look like everything is okay. Ignoring the unhappiness of people regarding this, the more problematic aspect is that it destroys the information feedback loop either from the people or within the system itself.

I would argue this is a little bit of "Chinese" characteristic.
At various times in Chinese history China was ruled by despotic Emperors who the ministers, the ones running the daily affairs of the country, were too afraid to tell him about the country's problems. This was one of the major reasons that the Qin Empire went into decline.

The Emperor often did not have a complete idea of what was going on, and was relying on his most powerful ministers to keep him informed. But they had a personal interest in giving him a somewhat selective account of what was going on. The existence of problems might make them look like incompetent ministers, or they knew it might cause the Emperor to rashly react and make new laws that would be a burden.
#15180909
Russianbear wrote:The contest today is between a US plutocracy, in which the bottom 50% of the population has experienced stagnant or declining livings standards since 1990, cf the meritocracy in China in which the bottom 50% of the population has experienced the fastest increase in living standards over the same period, in all of China's 2200 year history.
Actually In USA and the rest of the the west nothing left of democracy, there are only plutocracy
and oligarchy that successfully control everything.
Western democracy is dead but two party cartel “democracy” ruled by plutocracy and corporatocracy (Corporate fascism) are flourishing.
It is time for the west to acknowledge that China is the most successful capitalist country and that the CCP, apart from its formal name, has nothing to do with communist ideology but with meritocracy. China has proven to have a much more successful capitalism than corrupted deep state Plutocracy of the US-western Empire.



Those are some tall claims. Care to elaborate.
#15180913
I'm glad that my first post in this forum got your conscientious and serious reply, not just ridicule. I can't feel that on twitter. Thank you all. My first language is not English, so please forgive me for my mistakes in grammar and words. thank you.

On twitter, as a Chinese, the most frequently asked question for me is, why don't you oppose the CPC? Why don't Chinese support western style democracy? Why do Chinese people support President Xi, who has no votes?

Unlike so-called "democratic countries", the Chinese people value experience more than votes or other abilities for government officials. From the Sui Dynasty on (1400 years ago), officials were selected and promoted by examination, not by blood or birth.

In today's China, if you want to enter politics, you have to take a hard and competitive road. Whether you come from a grassroots family or a political family, you have to go through every step. Only in this way, you can reach the top of power, like President Xi.

To get started, you have to own a college degree, at least for most Chinese govt officials. You have to take the national civil service examination and be admitted. In 2019, 920,000 people took the exam and 14537 were admitted, with the admission rate of 1.58%.

The ruling party in China is the CPC. In addition, there are 8 other parties. You have to join one of them. If your ideal is to become the supreme leader of China, I suggest you join the CPC. You will be one of the 90 million CPC members. They are all your competitors.

Now, you've become a grassroots official. Your administrative level is "staff", while President Xi's administrative level is "national level principal". There are 10 levels of gap between you and President Xi. Each level requires several years and multiple examinations. In China, "Organization Department" at all levels are responsible for the management of civil servants. Every civil servant has to take part in the grade assessment every year.

The assessment is usually conducted by your colleagues, subordinates and superiors by voting. The result of the assessment is related to your future. ( to be continued)
#15180916
If you work hard and are lucky enough, you will become the highest official in a district or county. As President Xi did in 1983, he became the highest official in Zhengding County. You have to own the experience to manage hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.
Image

Next, you have to become a city official in charge of industry or agriculture or education or commerce. Then, you become a mayor. It will take you another few years. In 1990, President Xi became the top leader of Fuzhou City, Fujian Province.

Now, fight for the governor! You need to repeat your previous work. The difference is that your responsibilities are greater and your work is more onerous. In 2000, President Xi became governor of Fujian Province. A new political star.

After becoming the governor of a relatively small province, you have to be the governor of a relatively large province. Or you can go to border areas, such as Xinjiang or Tibet. President Hu Jintao, the former Supreme Leader of China, was once the governor of Tibet.

The Political Bureau is one of the central leading bodies of the CPC. You must be a member of it. Members of the Political Bureau are elected by the plenary session of the Central Committee. It's your next goal.

Deputies to the National People's Congress ( NPC) are members of the highest organ of state power in China and are elected in accordance with law. You also have to be one of the NPCs.

If you can become a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, it usually consists of seven or nine people, which means that you have entered the core of China's state power. In 2007, President Xi was elected. Similarly, different standing committees are responsible for managing different areas of the country. Through fierce competition, you finally become the top leader of China.

In 2012, President Xi succeeded. Although he can be called "political genius" (which country's leader is not? )He still spent 40 years on this road.
Image

The above is the difficult road for you to become China's top leader. I call it Chinese style democracy. It is based on a strict selection system and the election of deputies to the people's Congress at all levels. In China, it works.

Every country should choose a political system suitable for its national conditions. No "good" or "bad". I don't think that only west style democracy system is "good". I only believe in the facts.
#15180924
ThingkingPanda wrote:If you work hard and are lucky enough, you will become the highest official in a district or county. As President Xi did in 1983, he became the highest official in Zhengding County. You have to own the experience to manage hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.
Image

Next, you have to become a city official in charge of industry or agriculture or education or commerce. Then, you become a mayor. It will take you another few years. In 1990, President Xi became the top leader of Fuzhou City, Fujian Province.

Now, fight for the governor! You need to repeat your previous work. The difference is that your responsibilities are greater and your work is more onerous. In 2000, President Xi became governor of Fujian Province. A new political star.

After becoming the governor of a relatively small province, you have to be the governor of a relatively large province. Or you can go to border areas, such as Xinjiang or Tibet. President Hu Jintao, the former Supreme Leader of China, was once the governor of Tibet.

The Political Bureau is one of the central leading bodies of the CPC. You must be a member of it. Members of the Political Bureau are elected by the plenary session of the Central Committee. It's your next goal.

Deputies to the National People's Congress ( NPC) are members of the highest organ of state power in China and are elected in accordance with law. You also have to be one of the NPCs.

If you can become a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, it usually consists of seven or nine people, which means that you have entered the core of China's state power. In 2007, President Xi was elected. Similarly, different standing committees are responsible for managing different areas of the country. Through fierce competition, you finally become the top leader of China.

In 2012, President Xi succeeded. Although he can be called "political genius" (which country's leader is not? )He still spent 40 years on this road.
Image

The above is the difficult road for you to become China's top leader. I call it Chinese style democracy. It is based on a strict selection system and the election of deputies to the people's Congress at all levels. In China, it works.

Every country should choose a political system suitable for its national conditions. No "good" or "bad". I don't think that only west style democracy system is "good". I only believe in the facts.


Thanks for this exceptionally insightful and mentally stimulating analysis.
#15180926
Russianbear wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO3izbn201s


First of all, an hour video is not a proper answer nor is the video title indicates that it has anything to do with your claims.

Please explain and provide evidence for your claims that we can discuss which is your own text.
#15180927
@ThingkingPanda
You literally responded to none of the posts. People are here to debate, not to hold monologues.

ThingkingPanda wrote:Deputies to the National People's Congress ( NPC) are members of the highest organ of state power in China and are elected in accordance with law.


:lol:

The NPC is a rubber-stamp parliament. It has no power whatsoever.

ThingkingPanda wrote:The above is the difficult road for you to become China's top leader. I call it Chinese style democracy. It is based on a strict selection system and the election of deputies to the people's Congress at all levels. In China, it works.


The CCP is a top-down hierarchical organization where those at the top decide who's allowed to advance. That may be a good thing or not, but labeling it "democracy" is preposterous.

ThingkingPanda wrote:Every country should choose a political system suitable for its national conditions.


Who's "the country"? The CCP?
#15180928
ThingkingPanda wrote:If you work hard and are lucky enough, you will become the highest official in a district or county. As President Xi did in 1983, he became the highest official in Zhengding County. You have to own the experience to manage hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.
Image

Next, you have to become a city official in charge of industry or agriculture or education or commerce. Then, you become a mayor. It will take you another few years. In 1990, President Xi became the top leader of Fuzhou City, Fujian Province.

Now, fight for the governor! You need to repeat your previous work. The difference is that your responsibilities are greater and your work is more onerous. In 2000, President Xi became governor of Fujian Province. A new political star.

After becoming the governor of a relatively small province, you have to be the governor of a relatively large province. Or you can go to border areas, such as Xinjiang or Tibet. President Hu Jintao, the former Supreme Leader of China, was once the governor of Tibet.

The Political Bureau is one of the central leading bodies of the CPC. You must be a member of it. Members of the Political Bureau are elected by the plenary session of the Central Committee. It's your next goal.

Deputies to the National People's Congress ( NPC) are members of the highest organ of state power in China and are elected in accordance with law. You also have to be one of the NPCs.

If you can become a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, it usually consists of seven or nine people, which means that you have entered the core of China's state power. In 2007, President Xi was elected. Similarly, different standing committees are responsible for managing different areas of the country. Through fierce competition, you finally become the top leader of China.

In 2012, President Xi succeeded. Although he can be called "political genius" (which country's leader is not? )He still spent 40 years on this road.
Image

The above is the difficult road for you to become China's top leader. I call it Chinese style democracy. It is based on a strict selection system and the election of deputies to the people's Congress at all levels. In China, it works.

Every country should choose a political system suitable for its national conditions. No "good" or "bad". I don't think that only west style democracy system is "good". I only believe in the facts.


Most of this forum is aware of this and want to discuss specifics. Similar systems have existed in a large chunk of the world and was very wide spread in the European 18th, 19th century for example or more recently the Soviet Union and its satellite states. The current party and official appointment model is to a very large degree a copy of the Soviet Model.

There are clear reasons why countries moved away from this that were brought up before.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

@JohnRawls ; This is a lie because you are cl[…]

So not "medievalism" then. Lol. Wh[…]

I do not think it is possible to make any sort of[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

Ok, so first of all evidence is usually understo[…]