The ‘myth’ of Western-style democracy is losing its appeal even in the West (China Global Times editorial)

[sutton9999]

The problem with the Western system is: only the USA can confidently run it without fear of foreign influence (except Israel).

So any countries running the Western system need to stay on the good side of the USA.
South American countries are a recent example. Even Lula escaped this time, there is another in a few years.

 

[kankan326]

Are you fxxking kiding me?

How many high-ranking have been removed? The central military committee only has two left, including Xi.

The system is different, still pretty bad.

Most them were removed because of corruption. Not because they are incompetent. Some corrupted officals are very competent. Take an example, Liu Zhijun(刘志军), who was sent to jail for corruption but every agrees he built foundation for China's high speed railway system.

High level officials being removed is a good sign. It means the political system is healthy. I would be worried if someday no senior offical is punished in China.

 

[BHAN85]

nowadays patriotic sovereign dictatorships (China) work far better than vassal democracies (Europe).

USA is a sovereign democracy, it works well if you have a good job, it has a stable future unlike vassal democracies who go straight and fast towards the cliff.

of course if there is something worst is a vassal dictatorship like current Ukraine or 1970s Latin America op condor regimes.

GCC enjoyed good life standards, but if they keep following Iran war stupid plans, it could be the end of all them.

 

[Leclerc]

nowadays patriotic sovereign dictatorships (China) work far better than vassal democracies (Europe).

USA is a sovereign democracy, it works well if you have a good job, it has a stable future unlike vassal democracies who go straight and fast towards the cliff.

of course if there is something worst is a vassal dictatorship like current Ukraine or 1970s Latin America op condor regimes.

GCC enjoyed good life standards, but if they keep following Iran war stupid plans, it could be the end of all them.

The US political system was designed to be maximally stable in order to prevent any single group from having too much power. The Founding Fathers were actually pretty open about distrusting direct democracy and they used the word republic to distinguish what they wanted from what they called democracy (which they associated with ancient Athens and with mob rule).

 

[sutton9999]

The US political system was designed to be maximally stable in order to prevent any single group from having too much power. The Founding Fathers were actually pretty open about distrusting direct democracy and they used the word republic to distinguish what they wanted from what they called democracy (which they associated with ancient Athens and with mob rule).

The US is a special case, can't be used to vouch for this system.

Remember, the USA used to have no standing army. It gave anyone 50 acres, as long as you reached the Wild West.

Even today, with modern tech, hardly anything except an ICBM can touch the USA.

 

[BHAN85]

The US political system was designed to be maximally stable in order to prevent any single group from having too much power. The Founding Fathers were actually pretty open about distrusting direct democracy and they used the word republic to distinguish what they wanted from what they called democracy (which they associated with ancient Athens and with mob rule).

yeah we have a "democracy" meaning changed over time. e.g: democracy never meant allow women to vote, until 20th century.

but even without vote, the west in general have a huge public political free speech compared to China or GCC.
is so important? make any difference in common life? I think barely, only for the 0.01% people who like to do political rants.

the concern for 100% people is income and life standards, and in some places and moments, a bigger and quick economic development can be achieved with dictatorship.

 

[Meengla]

If it were South Vietnam who annexed North Vietnam, Vietnam today would be another Philippines. Which is very unfortunate for your country. You should thank Ho Chi Minh who brought communism to Vietnam.
Even Cuba with communism is different than other Latin American countries. Where are full of crimes, voilence, gangsters. Cuba is a like an Asian country in Lantin Ameica. Philippines is like a Lantin American country in Asia.

Very interesting insights, whether one agrees with you or not.

 

[R2D2]

The Islamic model of governance or Khilafah is close to the Presidential form of government. The people give bayah to the Caliph and he appoints the governor's and Ammal and the Qazis. The Caliph should be of a strong personality and not be swayed by the opinions of others.

 

[BHAN85]

If it were South Vietnam who annexed North Vietnam, Vietnam today would be another Philippines. Which is very unfortunate for your country. You should thank Ho Chi Minh who brought communism to Vietnam.

Even Cuba with communism is different than other Latin American countries. Where are full of crimes, voilence, gangsters. Cuba is a like an Asian country in Lantin Ameica. Philippines is like a Lantin American country in Asia.

Cuba has street security, no drugs problems (easy, being island), but zero economic development since ussr collapse. In last decades they became a open air brothel for foreign tourists, very sad.

Without communism, they would be able to receive investments from their rich Miami cousins.

 

[Meengla]

Cuba has street security, no drugs problems (easy, being island), but zero economic development since ussr collapse. In last decades they became a open air brothel for foreign tourists, very sad.
Without communism, they would be able to receive investments from their rich Miami cousins.

You are right as well as the guy you quoted was also right.
Cuba not only suffers from a stagnant economy, much of which has to do with the sanctions and the USSR aid collapse but also from even travel restrictions. However, Cuba is safer than most Latin American countries and the Cuban system produces quality medical care to the point of helping other countries in their hour of need.

One would wish Cuba gets away from the failed communism experiment which has failed not all because of their own fault: They were too close the US mainland to be tolerated as a successful communist country. Nonetheless, it is a failed country now. But who relinquishes power after once tasting that? The communist hold on Cuba remains unless Trump really does something dramatic and violent.

 

[BHAN85]

You are right as well as the guy you quoted was also right.
Cuba not only suffers from a stagnant economy, much of which has to do with the sanctions and the USSR aid collapse but also from even travel restrictions. However, Cuba is safer than most Latin American countries and the Cuban system produces quality medical care to the point of helping other countries in their hour of need.

One would wish Cuba gets away from the failed communism experiment which has failed not all because of their own fault: They were too close the US mainland to be tolerated as a successful communist country. Nonetheless, it is a failed country now. But who relinquishes power after once tasting that? The communist hold on Cuba remains unless Trump really does something dramatic and violent.

I agree. Here in Spain I've seen Cuban doctors working in Spanish public health system, black people btw, who in other Latin America countries are marginalized and without same opportunities to study and develop themselves.

In Cuba they have little means, but it's awesome what they achieved in education and health with such little means.

Of course, I wouldnt like to see a war in Cuba, it wont be the solution. But if it would have some opportunity to a peaceful regime change with good USA relations, I guess they would develop a lot, with the huge amount of rich Cubans who live next to them in Miami.

 

[j_hungary]

If US presidents average score in competence is 50, China's leaders' average score would be 85. How? Becasue China' politicians have to climb ladder from bottom(junior officials) to top step by step under CCP organization department(组织部）gaze and evaluation. Which guarantees all officials who climbed top positions are super competent in governance. There is a small possibility that the one who climbed top position has low morality. There is zero possiblity that he is stupid. Xi Jinping will be the last leader who has second-generation reds(红二代) background.

Is there a point here somewhere?

Making decisions has nothing to do with competence; a bad leader makes no decisions, but anyone could make a bad decision. That's the same in politics as much as in the military.

On the other hand, just because someone starts at the bottom does not necessarily mean they are going to be good at management; otherwise, every CEO in every country, including China, would have started at the bottom.

 

[Meengla]

Making decisions has nothing to do with competence; a bad leader makes no decisions, but anyone could make a bad decision. That's the same in politics as much as in the military.
On the other hand, just because someone starts at the bottom does not necessarily mean they are going to be good at management; otherwise, every CEO in every country, including China, would have started at the bottom.

I really think you are discounting posts by @Michael and other Chinese-origin members here. One of those said something like 'If you start from the bottom, then you have to be very smart to even rise to the top. So at least smart people can rise'. And Michael's posts clearly imply there is a lot of consultative process in the 'communist' China.

You seem to place a lot of focus on 'one man' decision making in your posts which doesn't seem to apply to China. Had it been the case then the modern China--which started from the ruins in 1949--would look even worse the dumps like India and Pakistan which started around the same time. But current China is very different and better than those two 'democracies'.

 

[Feroze]

I think the Chinese system of One Party system, Mixed Economy, Industrialization, and manufacturing based economy has proved superior to the American system.

No need for American style democracy.

 

[j_hungary]

I really think you are discounting posts by @Michael and other Chinese-origin members here. One of those said something like 'If you start from the bottom, then you have to be very smart to even rise to the top. So at least smart people can rise'. And Michael's posts clearly imply there is a lot of consultative process in the 'communist' China.

Well, I don't know about you, but I myself have seen people promote beyond their means.

I am not discounting their post; it may work in China, and maybe that was the way, but the thing is, what is good for China may not be good for others; that's the same way as what is good for the US may not be good for others. Different systems have different rules and different customs here. As I said before, you can't copy and paste it wholesale 1 to 1.

You seem to place a lot of focus on 'one man' decision making in your posts which doesn't seem to apply to China. Had it been the case then the modern China--which started from the ruins in 1949--would look even worse the dumps like India and Pakistan which started around the same time. But current China is very different and better than those two 'democracies'.

I lived in China for 20 years before 2000; I studied in China, and I can tell you that things are not always as rosy as you might think of modern China as all shiny and bright, and there are no problems within; is this the case? I tend to think every country had their own problems.

On the other hand, "success" is a subjective discussion; think of it this way: can the US build new buildings and new cities to appease people? Sure, it's just money and resources; they can build whatever they want, but then why didn't they do it? Is it because of Political disadvantage? Or was it because of the will? Or was it simply because that was not necessary?

Look, the political system is not a single measurement; it's not just simply a one-word wonder. Is it a good one when everyone is "happy"? Is it a good one when everyone is "rich"? Is it a good one when everyone is "healthy"? It was never defined by one single parameter, because a community is a matrix of factors, and no system is perfect. I love some Australian Politics and hate some, same as I love some American Politics and hate some aspect of it; the fact of the matter is if it work for you, works for your community, that's a good system.

As for China, Xi is the supreme leader, so yes, all decisions he made are his alone. Again, he may ask people for advice, but this is not a group decision like we make them in Congress, where the president only has the power to Veto but not to table bills. Xi can nominate policy and execute it, that means it's his power, and he alone has that power, not his consultant, not the People Congress.