Ugly US election race a poor ad for democracy in China

[Independent voter]

Trump is proof that voters votes matter, the establishment would never let someone like Trump get this close to power. The Koch brothers with their billions are not Trump backers, their money doesn't matter.

Chinese government uses US election to prove democracy is a failure. For decades the most popular US play in China was "Death of a Salesman" because it reflected poorly on capitalism, things haven't changed much in China.

Chinese tend to be pragmatic. Once the Communist Party fails to produce economic growth and prosperity, I think the Chinese will throw the Communist Party out.

Meanwhile thousdands of political dissidents rot in Chinese prisons, their lawyers too.






http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37724839

For decades it has said that American democracy is a sham, rigged by and for a narrow elite. Now the Republican candidate for the White House says the same.

For decades Beijing has smarted under American disapproval for locking up political enemies. Now Donald Trump says "crooked Hillary" should be in jail.

Political prosecutions are staples of the Chinese Communist Party rule book, but no-one, least of all in China, expects that rule book to provide any guide for the United States. And then there's the trading of personal insults and allegations about Clinton's mishandling of emails and Trump's treatment of women.

"The race to the bottom will make people rethink the value of democracy," commented one Chinese state-owned newspaper. Another said the presidential race had become "an unprecedented joke".

Patriotic education'

In some ways, this disillusion feels like a long term trend. My own sense is that the highpoint of Chinese admiration for Western democracy came during and just after the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. And a quarter of a century ago, with the fall of communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the break-up of the Soviet Union, even many members of the Chinese Communist Party told me their own one-party state could not last.

But then Russian democracy faltered, military adventures and the global financial crisis dented US credibility, and the unravelling of the Arab spring undermined the appeal of electoral democracy among a Chinese public whose experience of civil war makes them fear chaos above almost all else.

In the same quarter century, China's one party state grew enormously richer. And its leaders embarked upon a huge campaign of "patriotic education" to take maximum propaganda advantage from the woes of others and the advances at home.

Since the arrival of President Xi Jinping, this trend has crystallised into an active confidence about China's model of "consultative democracy".

It may be conventional wisdom in political science that mature dictatorships inevitably democratise or stagnate. President Xi insists that China's scale and history make it an exceptional country, not bound by the rules that apply elsewhere.

American Dream or China Dream? In my experience, and despite their seven decades of communism, the Chinese public tends to be pragmatic rather than ideological. If their political system delivers, they don't care what it's called and they don't insist on going to the ballot box to vote for one team or another.

This doesn't make them blind to its flaws. Many are viscerally aware that their rulers can be corrupt, infantilising, arbitrary and cruel. But jail cells full of political and religious dissidents, labour organisers and human rights lawyers are proof that attempting to change the system is an act of almost suicidal courage, and is that act really necessary? Over the past four decades the Party has delivered growth, peace and national pride.

Does this amount to affection for the Communist Party? Pride in it? Hardly. More often I meet grudging toleration. Party leaders know this better than anyone.

For years, they have been warning that cleaning up Party corruption is a matter of life and death. Too many comrades have moved from delivery of public goods to the delivery of private ones for family and friends. No longer the Confucian or Communist ideal of elite public servant, they have become the nightmare vision of George Orwell's tyrannical pig on two legs in the novel Animal Farm.

The cost of fear

Entrenched elites are a problem for the US as much as for China. But China's "consultative democracy" has one glaring challenge of its own: the paranoia of the ruling party.

It never ceases to amaze me how afraid the Chinese Communist Party is of its own people, and how fear clouds its judgment and skews its decision making.

Fear of street protest ties its hands in tackling pension reform or state-owned enterprises. Fear of a punishing assessment of its mistakes makes it manipulate history in a way that distorts not only the past but also the future. Fear of competing narratives makes it drive some of China's brightest and best into exile or jail. Fear has become a huge overhead and a great brake on China's progress.

Expect another impeccable episode in political choreography at this week's Communist Party plenum in Beijing. And expect China's state media to enjoy the final days of a divisive American presidential campaign. But don't be deceived by the outward serenity of China's "consultative democracy".

All the problems that have been laid bare in the US - the entrenched elites, the generational divide, the bitterness of jobless blue-collar workers - these are all problems in China too. There may be no great ballot box moment, but behind the Party's firmly closed doors, the political fight is just as intense. And in China, the moment when the doors burst open and the debate explodes onto the public stage rarely comes with advance warning.

[Garnier Fructis]

I can't take seriously a writer who says that the Chinese public is more pragmatic than ideological.

[Mormolyce]

I can't take seriously a writer who says that the Chinese public is more pragmatic than ideological.

Chinese people seem pretty damn pragmatic to me.

The Beijing political elite, maybe a different story.

[LilSaihah]

I can't take seriously a writer who says that the Chinese public is more pragmatic than ideological.

I'd say 99% of the public is more pragmatic than ideological. Most people don't give a shit so long as work gets done and bills get paid.

[Azadina]

For decades it has said that American democracy is a sham, rigged by and for a narrow elite.

China is right on that too, except you can't even call the American system 'democracy' with a good conscience.

[Al Gorefiend]

I'd say they're right.

Regardless of who wins this election, I think worldwide opinions of the U.S. is at an all-time low. Who'd of thought there was a number lower than what it already was?

[Deleted]

And I believe the Chinese system is more democratic than they might think.
Their party has 89 million members.
That are 89 million people deciding what direction it has to take by voting, and they even have movements within that party.

That's 6% of the population, that's nothing. Democratic countries have more than half the population taking part in deciding which direction the country moves.

[Deleted]

But it are still a lot of people and that was my point.

It's 6%. That's not a lot of people, 6% should not decide in which direction a country is headed if they're democratic.

[Otimus]

The fact that Donald Trump literally has a 50% chance of being the president of anything is proof that democracy doesn't work. His entire election scheme has basically been like that Idiocracy movie.

[Flarelaine]

The fact that Donald Trump literally has a 50% chance of being the president of anything is proof that democracy doesn't work. His entire election scheme has basically been like that Idiocracy movie.

Not sure where you get your figure, most forecasts have him (well) below 20%.

[purebalance]

China is right on that too, except you can't even call the American system 'democracy' with a good conscience.

Except it is. Just because you either A) take issue with a party choosing their candidate which you should have as much say in that as who gets employee of the month at Walmart or B) You somehow think you "need" party endorsement or money to run which is a fallacy presented by bad candidates.

[Deleted]

Do you think the percentage is any higher in the US?

Yes, because they have actual elections where you vote for people based on what candidate best fits your opinions in which more than 50% of the population takes part in voting for candidates.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that Donald Trump literally has a 50% chance of being the president of anything is proof that democracy doesn't work. His entire election scheme has basically been like that Idiocracy movie.

Even if he had 50%, democracy does not mean "The person I like gets elected".

[Kaleredar]

I'd say they're right.

Regardless of who wins this election, I think worldwide opinions of the U.S. is at an all-time low.

Oh I'm pretty sure the opinion only sinks if one certain candidate wins the election.

The reaction of every other country in the world if Hillary wins will be a collective sigh of relief. It'll be the sigh heard 'round the world.

(...Save for maybe Russia. They'll whisper "Darn... maybe next time..." under their breath)


As far as China is concerned... they can keep lying to themselves all they want. They can pretend their system is doing right by their people, and they will. And they'll continue to push that message regardless of whether there is an election on, just as they've been pushing their same message lo these past 50 years.

Is there a China-specific term for whataboutism?

"Well sure our environment's in the crapper, we have burgeoning market bubbles we can't wrangle, our political atmosphere in utterly repressive and media is highly restricted, but hey, look at the silly orange-haired man running for president in the US!"

[NED funded]

China is right on that too, except you can't even call the American system 'democracy' with a good conscience.

Why not? 10c

[Deleted]

No, you get to vote on a handful of people who have been pre-selected by the top <5% of the country.
That is hardly democratic.

You can surely write your own name or anyone elses on a vote if you want to if you/they want to try to run, no?

[Azadina]

Except it is. Just because you either A) take issue with a party choosing their candidate which you should have as much say in that as who gets employee of the month at Walmart or B) You somehow think you "need" party endorsement or money to run which is a fallacy presented by bad candidates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/ho...-are-the-swin/

All but two states - Maine and Nebraska - use a winner-takes-all system, so if you win the most votes in a state you take its entire haul of electoral college votes.

That's not democracy. If you count my vote for X candidate for Y, then it's anything but democracy.

[Fenixdown]

It's 6%. That's not a lot of people, 6% should not decide in which direction a country is headed if they're democratic.

It's China. They're not a democracy.

Besides which, let's be honest with ourselves. At most 6% of America's population determines who runs our country. Rich people back the candidate that will be most beneficial to themselves, and we vote on that person like the sheeple we are because they make a bunch of promises of prosperity (trickle down economics...how'd that work out for the American people?) that get lost because we have to start a war with some Middle Eastern country or whatnot. The one time we FINALLY had the opportunity to pick a candidate that actually went against the grain...we as a nation of idiots blew it. We picked Hilary because it's what the rich old farts running America wanted us to do, and we did it for them thinking we did it for ourselves.

America hasn't been a democracy since Kennedy. It lives by The Golden Rule. Whoever has the gold...makes the rules. We just have to cross our fingers they'll remember to throw us a bone every once and a while.

[Otimus]

Yes, because they have actual elections where you vote for people based on what candidate best fits your opinions in which more than 50% of the population takes part in voting for candidates.

- - - Updated - - -



Even if he had 50%, democracy does not mean "The person I like gets elected".

Not sure where you get your figure, most forecasts have him (well) below 20%.

I mostly meant how there's only a "real" choice between two people. (as in, 50 50 chance).

Anyways, I don't like either of them, but the fact that someone LIKE Trump has a chance is why, exactly, Democracy doesn't work. Tremendously bad people can get elected.

It literally means there's no standards and anyone can make it up there if they're "buzzworthy" enough. That's why it doesn't work.

[NED funded]

No, you get to vote on a handful of people who have been pre-selected by the top <5% of the country.
That is hardly democratic.

Top<5%? You make it sound as if registered members of each party are some rich elite of some sort. Those that vote for the party candidate are individuals of all types of backgrounds and their vote can supercede the will of the party establishment. In addition people can vote for another party if they wish.

[zebreck]

I mostly meant how there's only a "real" choice between two people. (as in, 50 50 chance).

Anyways, I don't like either of them, but the fact that someone LIKE Trump has a chance is why, exactly, Democracy doesn't work. Tremendously bad people can get elected.

It literally means there's no standards and anyone can make it up there if they're "buzzworthy" enough. That's why it doesn't work.

Democracy is the worst system of government, except all the others.