The people are uneducated. In order to protect them from themselves, a strong government must control them. Since a strong government controls the people, there is no need to educate them. The people are uneducated...
Our own country was organized to be run by an elite of educated landowners. Many of our founding fathers felt that the masses were not educated enough to participate in self-rule.
Fortunately, many of our founders also believed in the ideals of the Enlightenment, and this led to the United States strongly favoring universal education.
Arguably, the current Communist regime in China was founded on ideals that also favor universal education.
> this led to the United States strongly favoring universal education.
I'm all in favor of folks getting as much education as they want.
I question, though, whether the current system of universal education is really doing all that much educating, or whether it's mostly a jobs program for unionized teachers.
There's no direct english translation, but the term "su zhi" has class, cultural, economic and even ethical implications beyond that of just education level.
It (very) roughly means something like "basic cultural quality level."
To focus on the "education" inflection of that word could result in misunderstood arguments like the Chinese government wants to keep its population uneducated. If anything, their basic educational policies over the past few decades have been the complete opposite of that.
Your Internet is almost as ignorant as your statement, but I take it you already knew that given your factual characterization of some people not from the west.
As long as the sentiment like this is taking precedence over, and please pardon my French, the fucking world-wide web then I'm afraid the Zap Brannigans of America will continue to control all of you.
Oh and I almost forgot to mention this. . .Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001_suptables.pdf
I think you misinterpreted my comment. I wasn't saying anything about China or its citizens specifically, I was just showing that governmental paternalism for an uneducated/low/dumb/weak/however-disadvantaged population can wind up being its own justification. I could've been a bit clearer about that, but then my comment wouldn't have sounded so wise ;)
In my experience, Chinese people tend to be more critical in general (and correspondingly less affected by criticism.) Maybe that's a massive overgeneralization, but if you transplant this taxi driver to the United States, he would have the same complaints about Americans.
I'm not sure if it's being more critical or just being more honest (or less tactful) when talking to or about people.
I think people everywhere in the world are also critical of others but don't show it because it's not politically correct or tactful or whatever reason...
A bit OT, but I find it rather interesting how much the definition of being tactful when talking about people changes according to countries... In Japan for example, it's considered a bit tactless to point out your mistake in Japanese whereas in France or in China, they are much more likely to correct you whenever you make a mistake without considering that as being impolite.
A lot of middle class Indians would agree with the sentiment that democracy causes chaos.
In the brief period of time India was undemocratic (the Emergency), anecdotal evidence suggests that the middle class was happy with the way things were. The poor, meanwhile, were miserable, and they responded by voting out the incumbent govt by a record margin.
So it won't be very surprising if middle class China actually supports the lack of freedom.
This is the first time that China's really HAD much of a middle class. Most of this newly minted middle class has moved from being poor peasants to decently paid professionals, and they're quite happy with the current state of affairs.
The Chinese public definitely acknowledges problems with the system. However, for the past thirty years people have been getting richer, living longer, and quality of life has been hugely improved. It sure beats the period before, when they were dealing with war, famine, and the cultural revolution. So, when the government that's brought (relative) prosperity says that democracy is bad, people are inclined to just agree and go along with whatever the government says.
Bottom line: The middle class in China won't support democratic reforms so long as life is improving without them.
Someone else pointed this out before in a different thread but why should they want to change if life is improving without them? If you look at the US as an example of democracy then at the moment it doesn't make a lot of sense. That being said things are always changing and who knows what will happen in the next 20 years.
If things stop improving for most people in China then there will probably be social unrest and they may move to another form of government or the reverse could happen and the US might decide that it wants a nother form of goverment if things don't eventually improve.
Is he right? There are places in the world where democracy doesn't work very well. I'd say that this is the sort of question that deserves actual thought instead of the regular "Democracy Uber Alles!" platitudes that we get so often.
(Yes, I know what Churchill said about democracy. However, Churchill would have said the same thing about absolute Monarchy if it were still around. He was that sort of guy.)
This is a hot research topic right now in the social sciences. The general theme is that democratic institutions (transparency, professionalism, corruption-resistance) are probably more important at first than actual democracy.
The "Asian Tiger" economies -- South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan -- all started ramping up their growth under extremely authoritarian governments which then liberalized once they had reached a certain level of prosperity.
I don't know how much research this requires, as someone who had a front seat for the conversion of Eastern Europe to democracy it all seems obvious to me.
OBVIOUSLY you need law and order to get democracy. Democracy is the pinnacle of a working society not the root cause of it.
Now,people will often mistake the results of lawlessness and corruption as the reason peoples X just ain't made for democracy and freedom.
I hope I don't have to explain how stupid that is. It is just as stupid at the theory that democracy would flourish in Afghanistan and Iraq with little to no effort, like magic!
Is democracy a means or an end? To me, it is a means - a way to achieve better government by making government more accountable.
But you are basically saying, in order to have democracy, you already need to have good government. Well, if you already have good government, then what's the point of adding democracy? Why not just stick with whatever government is working so well?
I think democracy is a means to preserve good government/stability. A means to guarantee sanity.
With a perfectly functioning authoritarian government there's always the danger of it going to hell. A good king replaced by bad king, or what ever. With no checks and balances there's no guarantee things won't go crazy.
And obviously authoritarian governments are almost never good, because they are by definition not accountable.
But a functioning democracy, which functioning institutions and laws above individuals, that's a difficult system to achieve. In a very troubled part of the world, democracy is not something that just naturally wins over armed strong men.
I think most people in the West do treat it as an end. That is the only way to explain the passion people put behind their support for Democracy. When discussing policies, "anti-democratic" is used as a synonym for "bad".
Indeed, a wise and benevolent dictator could be much better than democracy in general.
Besides, the democracy we have now in western countries doesn't really make governments particularly accountable. Compared to some insane African tyrant, sure, but as much as appropriate? Not even close.
You're not being nit-picky. You're exactly right, and I obviously wasn't paying attention when I was editing. I don't know what Singapore was like when its economy was developing, but today it is legendarily (sometimes hilariously) authoritarian.
The wikipedia article on their universal chewing gum ban is a fun read:
Indeed it is. Check out this quote contrasted against the typical aseptic, fragmented prose of wikipedia:
Details of the closed-door negotiations are unknown, but it became apparent that by the final phase of the negotiation in early 2003, there remained two sticky issues: the War in Iraq and chewing gum.
That is by far the funniest thing I've read on Wikipedia.
Not just the Asian tigers - pretty much every country in the world established rule of law, property rights, contract law, and the other foundations of economic growth under authoritarian governments.
Funny enough, Churchill did not say what people think he said about democracy. He said, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;" In other words, he was para-phrasing his opponents. Churchill was actually giving a speech defending the existence of the House of Lords! ( http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105chu... )
And while Churchill's misquote is famous, few have heard of Gibbon's quote:
--------------------------
OF the various forms of government which have prevailed in the world, an hereditary monarchy seems to present the fairest scope for ridicule. Is it possible to relate, without an indignant smile, that, on the father's decease, the property of a nation, like that of a drove of oxen, descends to his infant son, as yet unknown to mankind and to himself; and that the bravest warriors and the wisest statesmen, relinquishing their natural right to empire, approach the royal cradle with bended knees and protestations of inviolable fidelity? Satire and declamation may paint these obvious topics in the most dazzling colors, but our more serious thoughts will respect a useful prejudice, that establishes a rule of succession, independent of the passions of mankind; and we shall cheerfully acquiesce in any expedient which deprives the multitude of the dangerous, and indeed the ideal, power of giving themselves a master. In the cool shade of retirement, we may easily devise imaginary forms of government, in which the sceptre shall be constantly bestowed on the most worthy, by the free and incorrupt suffrage of the whole community. Experience overturns these airy fabrics, and teaches us that, in a large society, the election of a monarch can never devolve to the wisest, or to the most numerous, part of the people.
----------------------------------------
In other words, the principle of hereditary rule may be ridiculous, but it's the best way to keep the monsters out of power. And note, after Gibbon wrote this quote, many European countries proceeded to cast away their monarchs and elect monsters ( Robespierre, Napoleon, the Bolsheviks, Hitler, etc).
Which places are those? Also, not ll democracies are equal, maybe sometimes the system simply has flaws. For example, in Germany Hitler managed to rise to power even though his party did not even have the majority at the beginning. Since then, rules where introduced with the aim to prevent the same thing from happening again (I remember from school that for example a minimum share of votes became required to prevent too much fragmentation).
