Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
the best I've heard here so far;
Has China Discovered a Better Political System Than Democracy?
“One person, one vote is not the only morally legitimate way to select leaders,” a political theorist says.
is how it starts ... the most interesting part perhaps is "... if there is a coherent China model, it may be more of a “red empire” in which authoritarian leaders choose their own successors from a political elite and remain repressive in order to manage a complex society." ... not exactly
Every country has their own political tradition that suit them well that is why I said to each according to its own. Coming back to your post. You do know what happened to Soviet union after prestroika. Dissolution of Soviet Union, reduce status, economic chaos, misery, and the rise of economic mafia and oligarchy.
Only in recent years after Putin more or less turn back the prestroika that they managed a semblance of stability due to higher oil price. Now that oil price tank thing doesn't look so rosy again.
But coming back to your quote. Who would you rather have a leader that was trained and picked thru merit and has been proven for long time to be capable leader.
Or like they do in the west they choose some one who has charisma and good at speeches that can rouse the crowd. And he or she will promise everything to everybody . But knowing well they can't kept that promise and soon after get elected they renegade on their promise.
I would rather have some one who had proven track record in running government(meritocracy) rather than good orator(demo crazy)
Singapore is a good example economic crisis come and go but they keep getting richer and richer by the day
Fox: "Meritocracy" as a term -- and you go into this -- arose from a depiction of how it might work that . How do you think about the balance between the good side of meritocracy and the inevitable negative tendencies that seem to be built into it?
Bell: In China there is this that has a process to select and promote public officials based on superior intellectual skill, social skill and virtue. It's a highly imperfect system, but it has a long history in China. In the past two decades or so it's been brought back, and I think the country was primed for it because of its terrible experience with radical populism and arbitrary dictatorship in the Cultural Revolution. The advantages are pretty clear: you have long periods of training for public officials, you don't have to be so short-term minded. But the disadvantages are also clear: it can be easier for officials to be corrupt, to exercise arbitrary power, for the system to be ossified. But the disadvantages have to be addressed on the basis of a meritocratic foundation.
In China people generally accept -- intellectuals, government people -- that of course there are different countries with diverse political cultures. But somehow in the U.S. and Canada, where I'm from, there is still a view that the only morally legitimate form of selecting leaders is one person, one vote, and it's just a matter of time till China comes around.
