In international discourse, there has always been a distinction between the East and the West. In Chinese discourse, there is also a distinction between Huaxia and Yidi. The discourse that has been formed over a long period of time has created an impression in the Western world that China, representing the East, is backward and authoritarian, while the West, such as Europe, America, Japan, and South Korea, represents democracy and progress. When we look at this issue from the perspective of Western society, it seems that there is no problem. We are advanced, so others should learn from us. Can we say that this is a conclusion?
However, when we look at it from a non-Western perspective, although it is true that we are not as advanced as the West in many aspects, when we look at the superiority complex of Westerners, especially from the perspective of China, we can't help but feel a sense of familiarity. Isn't this the same as the "Celestial Empire" mentality of Westerners? In other words, in terms of technology and culture, you do have your advanced points, but just because of this, you put yourself in the role of a feudal patriarch and view countries that are not as developed as you as objects to be civilized, while considering yourself as a civilized person walking ahead of the trend. Isn't this strange?
Especially when we seriously try to understand and interpret the thoughts and cultural theories that the West has instilled in China, we should also understand that in order for these theories and thoughts to conquer the people, they must be able to withstand debate and the test of actual social life. When the Western powers invaded China in the past, faced with the thoughts and culture brought by the West, we accepted them without question. If it were not for communism ultimately triumphing over everything, we would probably still be in a chaotic era today.
In this situation, when we face various values of the West, especially democracy, we should have some independent thinking. Do we need democracy? Do we want the same democracy as the West, or do we want to create a democratic system with our own characteristics?
The answer is, of course, yes. China is a socialist country, and democracy is the most important thing in a socialist country. Unless one day we give up following Marx, democracy will always be with us. As for what kind of democracy we need, I believe everyone has their own opinions. Some say we should follow the European path, some say we should learn from Japan and South Korea, and some say we should directly copy the United States. These arguments have their own reasons, because these countries are developed or have a good economy and advanced technology. I think few people would say we should learn from India's democracy.
The most important aspect of the democratic system in these Western countries is multi-party system, and even a system like separation of powers. This is our theme. When we discuss democracy, especially internationally, we always encounter a question: our leaders are not elected through so-called Western-style multi-party elections, but are elected through meetings of the central government. Why can't this kind of election be applied to China?
First of all, Western-style multi-party democracy basically only exists in theory.
This is not difficult to understand. Although many people long for Western-style democracy, even if they go to Western countries, they can only be ordinary people and have no opportunity to participate in presidential and parliamentary elections. Westerners invented the concept of politicians in essence to professionalize politics, that is, to transform certain national public offices into a kind of identity symbol.
In Western society, under the universal capitalist system, there is no concept of the people, only taxpayers, the middle class, the rich, and the poor. According to general political theory, in a bourgeois society, the majority is often the middle class, and the rich and the poor are only a minority. However, in reality, the lower class often constitutes the majority, but the social resources or wealth they occupy often do not match their numbers. If the social hierarchy in a capitalist society is pyramid-shaped, then social wealth will be like a sieve, with a small number of extremely wealthy individuals occupying the majority of the wealth and resources.
This also means that in such a society, the problem of unfair distribution is widespread and cannot be solved. Social contradictions can only be redistributed through social means such as robbery and crime, but this situation is a serious deviation and can easily cause social unrest. Therefore, in recent years, various class conflicts and racial contradictions have occurred in Western society.
This has resulted in the majority of people not having the opportunity or the wealth to support their participation in the entire electoral system. In order to participate in elections, one must have money and education. Money, I believe most people understand, a small number of people control huge wealth, they certainly have the ability to support a candidate who represents their interests in the election, so that they can have enough funds and policy support after winning.
As for education, readers also have their own opinions, but generally speaking, Western countries have different education systems. The rich go to private schools and strive to obtain prestigious education. The talented ones go to prestigious schools and then attend business schools to obtain educational capital. Those who don't have talent directly donate money to buy the qualification of an honorary alumnus of a prestigious school, which is equivalent to gilding themselves. What about those who don't have money? They often enjoy so-called happy education and quality education in public schools, just like many Chinese people hope. They also want to adopt the reduced burden and happy education of the West. As a result, those Westerners only graduate from elementary school and may not even be able to add one plus one correctly. Many people have also read articles advocating German technical and vocational education. Of course, we do not discriminate against anyone, but once a person in the West graduates from happy education and cannot even do basic arithmetic, how can they have the ability to do technical work?
Of course, we need to think from the perspective of state officials. They need to be responsible for managing national institutions and often need their own expertise. On the one hand, they need to attend various activities and face the media, which may cause suspicion or even ridicule from some countries. On the other hand, when facing voters, I believe that an election candidate who cannot even do arithmetic will definitely arouse suspicion from the voters. This kind of education division has arranged a person's life properly. Even if someone among the common people is extraordinary, they will mostly choose to join the elite camp rather than stand in their own class position.
In other words, even if a poor person can participate in the election, he or she will inevitably need to change his or her appearance. Either forge a virtual and magnificent education and resume, or he or she really has a unique ability. But obviously, most people will not be the latter, and those who dare to cheat will mostly be punished.
I have summarized some qualities that candidates must have. You can also take a look at what kind of person can qualify to become the president of a country:
Enormous wealth. Taking the United States as an example, election campaigns often require two to three years of preparation. Candidates often need a large amount of wealth to travel around and give speeches about their policies and the benefits they bring to voters. This in itself requires a large amount of money. Without money, you can't even leave your village, let alone travel across the country.
A team. One person cannot compete with a professional team. Think about it, without the support of a team, a person cannot handle the various criticisms and attacks they face during the campaign. Organizing a professional team, such as hiring lawyers, also requires a large amount of money. Ordinary people can only bankrupt themselves at the county or city level, and cannot reach the state or national level.
Education. The work that the president of a country faces is very complex, including diplomacy, internal affairs, and dealing with the military. Without sufficient education or organizational skills, it is likely to cause great embarrassment in various aspects. The president represents the face of the country. If mistakes or inappropriate remarks occur in international occasions, it is very likely to cause international disputes. People who have enjoyed happy education don't even know that the earth is round. How can they formulate various policies?
Connections. This is a necessary condition for a candidate to obtain various resources during the campaign. Without extensive connections, even if they win the election, it will be difficult to sustain. If they don't get support from business groups, they will probably end up being a destitute president.
Oratory skills. Running for president requires participating in various debates, including televised debates that are broadcast nationwide and showcased worldwide. If a person lacks eloquence, speaks hesitantly, and has nothing substantial to say, will the public still support them?
Good health. There seem to be few disabled presidents in American history, perhaps only Roosevelt. So, in other words, will there be any disabled presidents in the future? A person with physical disabilities is inherently a disadvantaged group in the public's impression. When such a disadvantaged group participates in the election, they often stand more on their own disadvantaged position, wanting to speak for the disabled. However, this cannot resist the manipulation of capital. If capitalists confirm that they can profit from these people, it is entirely possible to have a disabled president. But in fact, these people are ultimately a minority, with extremely low utilization value. The president represents the image of the country. In the absence of television and the internet, a disabled person photographed in a picture is just a static effect. If dynamic images of disabilities appear in front of the world, people will have doubts. If some children are afraid of disabled people, it will have a negative effect.
Moral perfection. People who have committed crimes or have moral stains, although they do not lose the right to run for office, it is almost impossible for them to succeed. Criminals are always guarded against by ordinary people, let alone in elections. Who would be willing to say that their president was originally a criminal? Who would want their president to be an adulterer?
In addition to these, there are many other qualities. For example, mental health, maturity of thought, and sufficient acting skills. It is difficult for ordinary people to meet all of the above conditions at the same time. Therefore, although Western society claims to have a democratic system with multi-party rule, it has been only senior politicians, wealthy businessmen, and the descendants of senior politicians and wealthy businessmen who have the qualifications to participate. Including Japan and South Korea, the descendants of politicians often become politicians themselves. If one member of a family becomes president, his or her descendants will likely become presidents as well.
This is common in capitalist societies. People who have received long-term education in Confucianism and the people's standpoint in communist societies, how can they tolerate such a situation? However, in order to implement this democratic system in China, it is necessary to have at least two political parties representing two classes. One is the bourgeoisie, and the other is the proletariat. If two parties participate in elections in the same political arena, does it mean that the two parties are in opposition?
Secondly, Western multi-party systems are inefficient and difficult to adapt to the development process of society.
This does not mean that Western society will not develop, but it will develop slowly in many areas. For example, the construction of major infrastructure projects often involves people's livelihoods. In multi-party elections, the two parties can never agree on major political issues unless they are related to foreign affairs. For example, the construction of railways, the restoration of ancient buildings, the construction of roads, and the construction of hospitals all require various discussions and meetings. Under the debate of civil and human rights, many things often cannot be accomplished. This may not necessarily involve conflicts of interest, but it will definitely involve party opposition. For example, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the United States are completely opposing parties. Although the separation of powers in the United States has a certain effect on restraining power, unfortunately, the two parties often treat it as a tool for their own political struggles. When your party's president takes office, my party will control the positions in the House and the Senate, and I will investigate you, obstruct the passage of your bills, and even deliberately oppose you.
The Congress, the president, and the courts are said to be a system of separation of powers and checks and balances, but in essence, they are institutions that serve the people. However, in reality, everyone treats these three institutions as props for checks and balances rather than using them to handle national affairs. This has resulted in wasted resources and a waste of national funds. It only achieves half the result with double the effort. There is always struggle but no real efficiency. The textbook says separation of powers and checks and balances, but these people only see checks and balances, but they don't think about really serving the people. In this process, there is an exploration process, which is normal.
The Congress is a deliberative body, but in reality, it has become a tool for political struggles in multi-party politics. This is often the case in institutions in the United States, Japan, and even the Taiwan region of China. Many jokes have been made, such as when the Republican president stepped down, the House of Representatives could actually mobilize law enforcement agencies to search his residence. After the Democratic president took office, the House of Representatives began investigating the Democratic president. Investigations, investigations, they are not serving the people. This kind of multi-party system, is it beneficial to the people or to the parties?
The biggest problem with Western democracy is restraint. Restraint is not a bad thing, but the problem is that democracy has become a normal state of restraint rather than the ultimate means to practice democracy. Without restraint, power will certainly expand, but democracy is not for the sake of restraint. Instead, this kind of restraint will become a political struggle tool with multi-party rule. Because my Republican House of Representatives will generally not pick on the faults of a Republican president unless there are various internal political factions and constant disagreements. However, a Republican House of Representatives will always pick on the faults of a Democratic president. This is the case with a two-party system. With a three-party or four-party system, the division will be even greater. There will not only be vicious restraint and supervision between parties, but also increased interest exchanges. In order to obtain the relative majority needed for policies, there will often be interest exchanges between political parties. Recently, the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Republican Party has been in a deadlock for a long time in the United States, and in the end, it had to rely on this interest exchange to achieve the final result, which is ironic.
Multi-party systems inevitably lead to social divisions. This division refers to the social contradictions caused by the differences in political ideas among the people. Taking a two-party system as an example, for a political party to win, it must either obtain the support of a class or the majority of classes.
We can imagine that in a society, there are various different classes of people, including capitalists, the proletariat, and the middle class. In a multi-party system society, unless a political party puts aside class issues and talks about other issues, it is impossible to obtain a majority of votes from these classes. If a political party obtains the votes of a certain class, then the remaining classes will inevitably have to give their votes to other parties.
We know that the policies of a political party cannot change all the time. The Conservative Party will always be the Conservative Party, and the Progressive Party will always be the Progressive Party. If two parties take turns in power, their social policies will also change continuously. If the two policies happen to be in opposition, then the accumulation of social contradictions is inevitable. Today, you say you want to legalize drugs, tomorrow you say you don't, and the day after tomorrow you say you do...
Society is not just about the economy. The United States has the world's largest economy and national strength, but it also has the world's largest social contradictions. The social divisions caused by multi-party systems will become more and more apparent to the public over time.
One party becomes the majority party in the government, but the policies and laws it formulates may not satisfy everyone. On the one hand, democracy does not emphasize a united front, and people have different understandings of certain major issues, or it is not a case of the minority obeying the majority, which always causes some people to be dissatisfied with society. They may endure and not express their dissatisfaction in normal times, but at critical moments, it can lead to major public security incidents, such as terrorist attacks and anti-immigrant violence. On the other hand, the social stratification formed by the immigration of different cultures will also have expectations for multi-party systems. Chinese people tend to be conservative and oppose gender diversity and the abolition of the death penalty, for example. As a minority ethnic group, if you support a Republican president in the United States, you will definitely become an outsider because the Republican Party is extremely anti-China. So as a Chinese person, either completely give up Chinese nationality and never have any connection with China again, or you will have an extreme contradiction within yourself, causing social division. Especially now, most Western countries tend to support illegal immigrants. The political culture constructed by this political ecology will inevitably lead to various social conflicts, regardless of whether you believe it or not. This kind of contradiction creates multiple levels of distrust in society, and the entire political form often appears very distorted.
Today, our problem is just a superficial discussion of my understanding. I dare not say it is correct, but I just want to explain my point of view. I believe that the problems caused by multi-party systems are far more serious than the superficial form of democracy. Because multi-party systems cannot guarantee the participation of the majority of people, the final decision is still made by a minority. I just hope that one day our people will understand that in order to have democracy, we must take the right path, rather than imitating others. Otherwise, it will end up being a mess. In this process, there is an exploration process, which is normal.