Thread: China refutes "Westerns-style Democracy"

Beijing - The latest revision to the country's Electoral Law, which grants rural residents the same rights as their urban counterparts to elect deputies to people's congresses but does not expand direct elections, shows China will adhere to its own mode of development instead of adopting Western-style elections, a top legislator has said.

"Different countries have different election rules and a socialist China won't follow Western election campaigns," Li Fei, deputy director of the legislative affairs commission under the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC), the country's top legislature, told China Daily following the adoption of the latest amendment to the Electoral Law last Sunday.

Li, who has been leading the revision, said some people want to expand direct elections, but the current priority is to perfect existing direct elections at county and township levels.

Whether in terms of justice or fairness, a society must pay more attention to "substantial democracy", which in China means that there should be representatives from all areas, ethnic groups and walks of life, Li said.

"Western-style elections, however, are a game for the rich. They are affected by the resources and funding that a candidate can utilize. Those who manage to win elections are easily in the shoes of their parties or sponsors and become spokespersons for the minority," Li said, referring to Western elections at the national level.

"As a socialist country, we cannot simply take the Western approach."

In many Western elections, candidates have to pay a deposit to run for office and only those who receive support from a certain percentage of voters can get their money back.

"Such rules raise the threshold for election. The mechanism makes it very difficult for poor people to stand for election, but this system is in line with its capitalistic social nature," Li said.

But in China, the election of deputies to people's congresses do not take into account candidates' assets.

"All of those who have the right to receive votes are equal," Li said.

"The priority at the moment is to perfect existing direct elections, instead of expanding it," he said, citing some of the latest changes in the Electoral Law.

Good move. Local elections should be the most democratic, while more national elections should be a bit more detached in a large, developing nation.

Is this the best way for a developing nation? Bottom-up political reform?

Originally Posted by AgentM

*shrug*It's not going to make much difference either way in the grand scheme of things as long as China remains a one-party state.

The Forward party holds a slight bit less seats than the GOP does in the house (to scale); not to mention how party is irrelevant: ideology is the way to judge a politician.

So many are born assuming that the partisan system defines political freedom, when by nature it restricts it.

Originally Posted by AgentM

How does a one-party system not restrict political freedom? Sure there can be a bit of wiggle room inside the party, but on the whole representatives have to tow the party line. Whatever that party line happens to be as decided by the politburo, or whomever.

Because it represents the people to the best of its ability; rather than representing its party (half the nation) to the best of its ability. There is a one-party system with multiple ideologies; representatives are, in my opinion, far more democratic in vote than western counterparts which literally follow party lines, dictated by special interest groups. China's votes aren't predictable based on how many seats one region or viewpoint holds.

Originally Posted by AgentM

But there usually aren't wide schisms in the party, because you have to tow the line of whoever is at the top to be promoted within the party/government. There likely are differences of opinion, but they're pretty minor compared to some of the ones you'll find in Western democracies. And who's to say that actions taken by one-party gov'ts don't cater to special interests? Do you think the Chinese gov't would do something that would seriously disrupt it's manufacturing industry?

Perhaps, but they have that luxury when it's basically a dictatorship by committee.

Such is not the case in China; the populists in the more agricultural regions obviously differ beyond debate with the East coast industrialists; and so on. The differences within the CCP are far, far greater than a matter of 10 or fewer points on a political scale as in the US, or the wider gaps seen in European-style coalition governance.

No, but the manufacturing industry is something that hurts employees, on a government that stresses employment over profit. Though, for example, some representatives brought up currency appreciation at the last meeting and strongly supported it; with little support, admittedly and for obvious reason.

A dictatorship of the people? Sounds good.

Beijing - The latest revision to the country's Electoral Law, which grants rural residents the same rights as their urban counterparts to elect deputies to people's congresses but does not expand direct elections, shows China will adhere to its own mode of development instead of adopting Western-style elections, a top legislator has said.

I don't understand this. China's version of democracy is different than that of western democracy (presumably American democracy in particular) because everyone - rich urbanites, rural peasants - has the right to elect their representatives? That's the fundamental principle of our democratic system as well. Moreover, I can't think of one western country which relies on direct democracy; it's too inefficient and has many flaws.

The point about money influencing politics is a fair one, although I'm not sure that China is doing anything to remedy this inevitability. The major parties require financial deposits, and the only reason people make them is because winning as an independent is nearly impossible. China may not have financial requirements for politicians running for parliament, but those with more influence and power have a significantly higher chance of winning. Removing money won't solve the problem, but rather force another alternative like the candidate's vocation, last name, ties with political heavyweights, etc.

Originally Posted by AgentM

Perhaps, but at the end of the day, what the leadership says goes right? Not a lot of room for public dissent once a decision has been made I imagine.

Well China hasn't exactly been at the forefront on worker's rights, given that they now have a type of industrial revolution-style capitalism.

Somewhat, the higher ups set the agenda; but such is somewhat the same in the west as well; a president can have an agenda that he 'pushes' onto congress to write up and get the details for. Last year, for example, China's big push was for renewable energy and universal health care; both of which were heavily contested and compromise was found; both programs will be slowly phased in over the next 5 years.

And indeed so, but that's more due to corrupt local officials, lax police, and a large population; hence why corruption is a big issue in China.. the central government can't do everything... it has to rely on generally corrupt local officials. Main reason I support a more populist driven local government.