When today you think of China you think of apolitical country run by colorless men who are quite obsessed and confident talking about detailed technical and economical data than attending a public rallies and handling large crowds, yet very few countries have experienced mass politics and all its ills like China. Palace intrigues and succession battles, political assassinations and purges, the great leap forwards and cultural revolutions.
The founding father of the Chinese republic, Mao Zedong was a master politician, great orator, a true revolutionary who surrounded himself with men and women of similar prowess in the top echelons of the Communist Part. Politics and grand ideals were rife and opponents and commoners suffers the negative effects of this mass politics.
Entered Deng Xiaoping to many the founding father of modern China, and a man solely credited with the economic revolution of the Chinese state. In late 1970's Deng started reforms of replacing the high drama of Chinese mass politics and focus on economic development. He wanted to turn the communist party into aings professional organization run by technocrats.
He famously said in one of the party meetings "if you dont have anything to say, save your breath, the only reason to hold meetings and to speak at them is to solve problems". He discouraged long ideological speeches and told his party members to concentrate on problems and how to solve them. By the 1980's the CP was dominated by young technocrats and promotions within the party and to the central govt were given to top performers mostly engineers, economists, management experts and discouraged anyone with grass roots political skills.
By the time of his death in 1997, Deng had helped to uplift millions and millions of Chinese from poverty and turning China into a genuine global economic superpower.
Though there are negatives in this Chinese system, we are forced to look at it more closely in more than one angle as economic recession in Europe and North America has exposed the weaknesses in mass politics (partisan politics, ideological differences, long time to make a decision, and other useless political fights)that something called democracy favors.
Kiranga, that's exactly what I meant to say, we can not have an effective democratic system if we have an illiterate and ignorant society. It just wont work, until we have a society that at least understands that they have a major role in the way this country needs to be led.
MtamaMchungu,
Glad to have made your evening great.
Please differentiate between a democracy and an electocracy. In an electocracy, the main objective is to project a semblance of democracy by having elections every few years.Regardless of the level of awareness on the part of the electorate.
In a democracy, education is central. You cannot claim to have a democracy if a good portion of your population are illiterate/ cannot follow the issues.
Someone posted a cartoon here caricaturing the committee responsible for gathering the people's views on the new Tanzanian constitution, they were asking some villager his views on the constitution. His reply was something akin to "What is this constitution? Is this a new political party? Aren't there enough of these already?".
My quip on that thread was rolled into a shorthand, democracy without education is like a car without fuel. No bueno!
While democracy's importance is often overblown (H.L Mencken is a favorite satirist of mine on this subject) and the concept itself oversimplified -so much as to be equated with electocracy-, on the other hand, in the right context, it's importance cannot be overstated.
Anyone touting the Chinese system as an alternate system because of it's nimble decision making hasn't familiarized him/herself with the pitfalls of that very facetious lure.