>> Michael (Cummings) was saying that the arrival of democracy in china would embrace all of china so in a sense taiwan(democratic principles) would take over china(communist party rule). That is what he meant. Do you not recognize Taiwan as a democracy and China as a one party state? Do you think political democracy is not essential in china and that freedom can exist in a one party state with the democracy that exists with the one party as enough. mike <<
Ok, Mike, I think I already posted somewhere that I, as well as a lot of average Wang, could not care less whether there is a democratic election for the high ranking officials or not. And here, I say once again: as of now, this one-party system in China works just fine, especially now this Party has been starting to recruit “capitalists”<g> . Maybe some day in future, there will be an election system in China, when China can afford, but I could not care less because that is a non-factor for the modernization of China. All what matters now in China, is a political and economic stabilization. Political democracy has never played a role in China’s history (I am not saying it will not play a role), and China had been pretty powerful for quite a few centuries.
Taiwan does have an election system, started only about a decade or so ago (after JiangJingGuo passed away)? But Taiwan politicians are just as corrupted as the ones (actually worse in terms of the highest ranking officials – LiDengHui is among the most corrupted politicians on this planet) in China. Yes, sometimes election system can curb corruption to certain degree, but no guarantee. Just look at the politicians in the US, Japan, and Taiwan, it shows corruption can be just as bad, if not worse, in a country with democratic system, as in a country with only one-party system.
Democratic system can be quite expensive to maintain. I read somewhere that it cost $900 million dollars in advertising just for 2000 presidential election, add the cost for the staffing, the computer system, the vote counting, and the cost in each of all 50 States, and 3000 or so counties, we are not talking about small change here. China still is, and will remain to be, a relatively poor country, in the near future. And there are so many other ways to spend its limited resource rather than on the democratic election system, which may, or may not, control the corruption among politicians. Now before you are telling me that India is almost as big as China, and has an election system, all I can say is that China is NOT India, each country has its own way to do things. There is NO cookie cutter in the social system.
Now, since I believe in Hegel’s Dialectic, and I think every thing has two sides, one is good and the other is not so good, yes, even if one-party system in China has its benefit. Here are two:
1) If it were not because of the one-party system, the family planning would not be this successful, and the current pop. In China would be more like 1.6 billion instead of 1.3 billion now. And a lot of people would be worse-off than they are now. The unemployment rate would be much higher than it is now (already pretty high now). The environmental depletion would be much worse than now (it is already bad enough as of now- 7 of 10 most polluted big cities in the world are in China). The government would have to reserve much more funding just to provide the food and shelter for those “extra” lives, and thus much less money to be invested in the infrastructure and other social welfare. This list can go on and on… you get the idea.
2) China has relatively fast economic development in the last 2 decades or so, and a lot of these can be contributed to a one-party system (I know some of you may laugh at me because of this). There is NO money has been wasted on the on-and-on bipartisan bickering, and no need to invest and then de-invest in some expensive project simply because of the politics (one example, like some projects in the environmental protection, the switching bet. Democratic and Republican presidents and their dif. Policies). In other word, one-party system, although has its drawback, it also provide higher efficiency.
There are other benefits as well, I just do not have time to list them all here. But you get the idea.
Last but not the least, no democratic election in China means that a person like Bush can never become the Chairman (an equal of the President in the US), which is a relief<g>. Since China has a lot of problems and needs a very capable person to lead.<g>
To Rascal (hehe, why you gave yourself such a weird name?), thanks for your support, and I appreciate. |
