Who Picks Better Leaders: China Or The U.S.?

[JohnB]

Election Day in the States is this Tuesday, 6Nov. IMO, this has been a 'quiet' political season, unlike the recent campaigns. I think maybe it is because the Electorate perceptions of the two candidates are quite similar, in other words, not much of anything will be changing (witness Obama's 4 years repairing Bush's carnage of all things America).
It should come as no surprise that the U.S. is viewed under the constant political microscope, especially in China since their 10yr political transition takes place simultaneously. I thought it would be interesting to post this article, as it does seem as if democracy is the best form of government (any) since the citizenry (most) has a say in the direction of their government & ultimately the decisions that affect their lives.
“Free Speech” is important to China, increasingly so.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/03/164171900/who-picks-better-leaders-china-or-the-u-s
“By coincidence, the U.S. presidential election and China's once-a-decade political transition are taking place just days apart this month. The timing helped inspire a recent debate, sponsored by Intelligence Squared Asia, with the motion, "China Picks Better Leaders Than the West." NPR correspondent Louisa Lim served as moderator at the event in Hong Kong and filed this report.
In chairing my first ever debate, I didn't expect to have the participants marshaling the likes of Monty Python's Flying Circus and Winston Churchill. They also deployed Plato, Confucius and Eric Hobsbawm to argue their cases in the debate, which featured two teams each made up of a Hong Kong lawyer with a China-focused academic.
Holding the debate in Hong Kong — where leaders have been picked by Britain and China — made the motion a live issue rather than a theoretical question.
Hong Kong's former solicitor-general, Daniel Fung, pointed out that in the U.S., "it is possible — indeed it has been the case — that an individual who has never governed, or even run a large corporation, could end up in his very first job of government, running the most powerful government in the entire world."

U.S. Politicians And Short-Term Thinking
His debating partner, Daniel A. Bell, who lectures in political ethics at Beijing's Tsinghua University, contrasted that with the Chinese system, which he believes is meritocratic. Those who make it to the very highest levels of government are tried and tested administrators, having mostly served as governor or party secretary of a province the size of most countries.
"You can't have a Sarah Palin, or a [Silvio] Berlusconi, or even a George W. Bush succeed in the Chinese system because they lack the basic competence," Bell argued. "Instead of wasting time campaigning for votes and wasting money, [Chinese] political leaders spend much of their time improving their political performance and knowledge."
He also pointed out the chronic problem of short-term thinking in the U.S. system. "If there's a conflict of interest between future generations and the current generation, you can be sure that the interest of future generations will be sacrificed," Bell said. "That's not just a theoretical question. Think of global warming."
The high costs of U.S. electioneering also came under scrutiny; this election year in the U.S. is estimated to cost around $6 billion. Fung described the electoral system as looking "increasingly like a strange Rube Goldberg echo chamber, where the Republicans and Democrats only talk to themselves during election cycles."
Fung then invoked Winston Churchill. First he sprang one of the statesman's famous sayings on the audience: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have ever been tried."
But he followed that by quickly adding that "much less well known is Winston Churchill's observation that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

In China, Lack Of Accountability
But there was impatience with criticisms of U.S. democracy from the opposing team, particularly lawyer Ronny Tong, a Hong Kong legislator with the Civic Party. Tong compared the one-person, one-vote model to traffic lights: Even if people run through them "almost every day," it doesn't mean the system doesn't work.
"This motion doesn't make much sense," he said bluntly. Then he joked, "I don't want to openly criticize mainland China too much because I'm in Hong Kong and I'm in politics."
That didn't stop him from citing Hong Kong's unpopular current leader, Leung Chun-ying. In arguing against the motion, Tong appealed to the audience in true populist fashion.
"Hong Kong doesn't get to pick its leader. One thousand, two hundred people get to do that," Tong said, referring to the members of the Beijing-appointed selection committee that chooses Hong Kong's leader. "And look at the result. Do I need to say anything more?" That brought laughter from the audience.
Tong also brought up Chinese leaders' lack of accountability on human rights issues and the 1989 killings of unarmed protesters following weeks of demonstrations in Tienanmen Square.
"A selected leader has a huge sense of insecurity," he said. "This fear of not being accepted by those they rule will make him a very defensive, very often repressive, leader. That's what you get in China."
The Communist Party's legitimacy crisis also worried his debating partner, Kenneth Lieberthal from the Brookings Institution.
"You look at any mature democracy, and no one worries about the stability of the system," Lieberthal argued. "They worry about individual leaders, they worry about particular policies, but the system is stable. ... In China, they worry about the stability of the system every single day."
Lieberthal cited one of the fundamental philosophical differences between the two systems. He believes the American political system is premised on the notion that anyone exposed to power could be tempted to stray, therefore checks and balances — in the form of term limits and a transparent legal system — are in place to constrain them. In contrast, China assumes its leaders are virtuous, and so has a system that maximizes their power, assuming they'll shape a good society.
Both sides tackled the rampant corruption and nepotism in the Chinese system, though Bell attributed this to China's stage of economic development, rather than its political system. This did little to persuade the audience, many of whom asked questions about Beijing's lack of responsiveness to its citizenry, except when they mount demonstrations.

Debate's Conclusion
Those arguing in favor of the Chinese method had a harder row to furrow. In an audience of nearly 500, only 14 percent said they supported this position before the debate began, while 45 percent were against and 41 percent undecided.
In the end, those arguing for the motion managed to double their support to 28 percent. The team arguing against the motion carried the day with 65 percent of the votes, while 7 percent were undecided.
As moderator, mine was clearly the easiest job on the stage, mainly limited to cutting people off when they spoke too long and reminding debaters of their duties.
Fung likened the debaters' task to the Monty Python skit about the All-England Summarize Proust Competition, when competitors had just 15 seconds to summarize Proust's Remembrance of Things Past.
Joking aside, it's an unusual pleasure in this Twitter era to devote an hour and a half to a pure battle of ideas, with no multimedia distractions.

[Jason B]

As an outsider looking in it seems to me that the American Presidential race is all about who can raise the most money and who is more popular and can bribe his backers best.  It seems that it is not who is leading their particular political party but who decides I want to be boss now and see if I can buy some backers for my ambitions.  In Australia and most democratic countries around the world the leader of a party would end up being PM or President or whatever the top title is.  I do not understand why there is a need to raise so many millions of dollars just to fuel an ambition of a man who may not even be very good at his job.  Also if you did fluke it and get a good one who did wonders for the country after 8 years he gets turfed out anyway.  But one question remains what happens to all the money raised?  Oh well not my worry, I maybe out on a limb as I do have no real desire to know any answers but I am sick of hearing it all and pity the people of America who would have to put up with it 24/7.  We have some other race on Tuesday that I am not interested in either.

[shaun]

Gee Jason... Your not an American and you understand our political system better than most Americans.

[Willy The Londoner]

We all decry the Chinese system.  But that style of Government has brought about dramatic change in the Country in the past 3 decades since Ping instigated the new thinking in the 80's. 

Remember 'New' China has only been in existence for 30 years or so.  Just think what the next 30 years will achieve. (Some of you will be around to see it but unless I go past the 100 mark then I won't be.) 

At the moment being able to partake in a 'free' election as you have in America is not their first choice.  Getting on and making a good life is more important for them here.  Do you think they will want to give up the good life that a great many have created for themselves for the chance to vote. I think not.

I had a long talk with my wife's niece who has built up her manufacturing business from one room to a five story football pitch size factory in the past 10 years and she has just taken space in the adjoining building.  She said the new Chinese want to make money and spend it.  She is certainly doing that as this year she had two Mercedes 4 wheel drive cars and they have just added a brand new BMW 520 to their mini fleet.   

In Harrods London, the most expensive shop in the UK it was always American buyers who topped the buyers spending list.  Now Chinese visitors spend 20 times more than the Americans.

OK in rural area the people have far less income and are poor, very poor.  But look to your own country are there not people who are poor there, very poor I mean not ones just struggling to pay back banks for overpriced housing but people who are poor. 

People keep coming back to freedom and the killings in the square.  Remember this is not the only country that has killed students. I remember Kent Uni in 1970 when National Guard open fire on on demonstrating students killing and wounding them. But we do not want to dwell on the past.

The past is what we were living a few seconds ago.  The future is what counts. 

A country needs a leader, whether it is one that has 'bought favours' from a small number for influences or one who have courted others to spend tens of millions of dollars on getting him into power for just 4 years.  But in either case do we get the right leader? More important you need a leader with BALLS but all you get is someone looking to three and half years ahead to the next election.

I think there is not one Government in this world that has been elected truly democratically.   The USA in particular has so many positions that have to be filled by people 'voted in' that they are open to abuse more than others unfortunately the new coalition UK government is going the same way, elected mayors and now worse still elected police commissioners.   

Willy

[Jason B]

You are so right Willy, in Australia we have more than enough parties to fill an A3 election page with people to vote for.  But here is the crux of the issue for me, if the smaller parties or independent candidate standing election does not get elected they then pass their preference to one of the two big major parties for who they want in Governement and you do not find out until after the election.  So in reality a vote for the little guy could be a vote for the major party that you do not want in Government.  Scary if you think about it.  Don't know what other countries do, but I would suggest they have something similar.  This is how the current Government got reelected, bribing the little guys and it almost tore the country appart.  People want REAL leadership not backdoor deals to secure secondary votes.

[JohnB]

Jason B.
"...I do not understand why there is a need to raise so many millions of dollars just to fuel an ambition of a man who may not even be very good at his job..."

American politics is jilted. There is money to be made in how people vote and it appears the “Electoric” are brainless lemmings at the mercy of constant & slick advertising. Poll after poll, the constant bombardment of advertising, does have a way of numbing the good political senses of the voter. It has become a stupid & deadly game played by smart people. Money plays the Electorate. 
More bad news a couple yeas ago. The f8cking American Supreme Court has made a determination and “expanded” existing American law (2010) thus allowing corporate expenditures of inordinate sums of money to be spent on their so called “political” interests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Money has always played an important roll in the voting process, and much less so than the Court decision in 2010. Think the year 2000. The U.S. National Debt was projected to be retired, guess what, 2012? Unemployment was like 3.8- 4%. People worked. People spent money. People paid taxes.
All too good to be true, too long. America voted 2000. America got duped.
So it reasons one has to ask what went wrong? Few do. And that is the sorriest part of American history in the year 2000 & on. 

Willy, "...The past is what we were living a few seconds ago.  The future is what counts..."
The article I posted is within the time frame of “Today”. Think the probabilities 10 years out. 
The Chinese are the ones spending monies of late. Does it ever occur to anyone the wealth of a nation (individuals) begets more wealth, more education, & certainly (usually) more democratic institutions? Things will change for the better in China, much less so for my country, America.

A great book (fiction) to read but 'right on' (money- campaign contributions), is John Grisham's, “the Appeal”.
http://www.jgrisham.com/the-appeal/

[ron]

I am still waiting for them to put none of the above on the ballot.The president doesnt really control anything as far as bills go its more congress and the senate.But each one of them want their favors for his or her state.I am so thankful for the bill of rights but they are chopping at those as well.I also wish they would do away with the electorial college and make it so who the popular vote is that who is elected by the people for the people.

[shaun]

The President doesn't control?  How do you explain Obama care?  How do you explain the recent presidential acts?

I'm not wanting to pick a fight or get into a political discussion but...  I used to believe in that statement and no longer do.

[David K]

China picks the smarter leaders..   If they are not smart, they are dead   

[Willy The Londoner]

If a person got into power in the USA and by a stroke of luck changed the economy right round so that a vast majority was far better off then the whole country would be behind him.   If he turned round and said he wanted to change the constitution to give him absolute rule so that he could rule for ten years or more a time then how many would say NO lets keep to the four year plan and go back to the bad times as they were in 2010 - 2012?

People are more concerned with the dollar/pound/euro in their pocket than anything else.   The same goes for China the economy is growing 7% plus per year. More Chinese goods are being sold to the Chinese.  Younger people are not avid savers like there parents and grandparents are. People have a better standard of living year on year.  Controlled or not they are content and that's they way the authorities will try to keep them.

Willy

[Chong]

Here in Canada, it's screw up as well. People are voted in by ridings who then becomes a "MP" ... Minister of Parliament. There's 4 main parties ... Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Green + independents. Many people like the Green Party but if they don't win any ridings, they don't get a voice in Parliament. Popular voting doesn't count in Canada. At least we have more choices, anybody can become a candidate in his/her riding.

Case in point, the NDP selected a few no names in the Province of Quebec and they won their riding because of a stalemate clash between the Conservative & Liberal which effectively eliminated each other.

[fivetrout]

willy,
If a person got into power as you described by luck, manipulation, or whatever as the case is...and wanted to change the constitution or empower himself as you described...there would be a civil war. There is a good reason Americans will not give up their guns...and this would be one! Fifteen states today filed symbolic petitions to secede from the union.

[Neil]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/336662

Huh, it's true, but it didn't get much coverage.  I had to dig in google to find it. 

[fivetrout]

Another one with little coverage! 59 voting districts in Philadelphia and ZERO...not a single vote for Romney! Really?

[Arnold]

Another one with little coverage! 59 voting districts in Philadelphia and ZERO...not a single vote for Romney! Really?

Well of course... when these Polling Places put up a sign "Only Obama voters need to Enter"! I wonder how's responsible?