We Can Marry Democratic And Authoritarian Values Into One!

The above video tries to explore the idea of marrying Democracy and Meritocracy values into one system.  In real life, currently, we do not have a system in which both values could be incorporated in a balance manner.  For an example, in the West, Democracy is being valued more, thus the systems lean toward mediocre leaders with greatest popularity.  In the East, the opposite case mostly occurs.  Still, there probably are situations that smooth sailing does occur for the West, and bad sailing does occur for the East.  This is a luck and bad luck happenstances.  For an example, the people in the West might just pick the best leaders by chance, thus the system could be run by the most popular leaders who are not mediocre.  In the East, bad luck could occur, thus the system could have corrupted, mediocre leaders who hold the positions of power and don’t want to relinquish such powerful positions — thus they become unpopular for sure.

The luck and bad luck happenstances are the unexpected elements, thus these things are beyond the control of the system.  What people want are the system that can be configured in a way that ensures the highest chance of electing the best leaders that could run the country in the best manner if possible.  Unfortunately, electing is more of a popularity contest than electing the best leaders.  Why?  Election is about who got more votes, and thus in theory anyone could be running for a position to get votes.  Strangers vote for each other — it’s more about who appears to be the most competence gets the popularity — thus getting the position.  In the Meritocracy system, a pretender who could keep the act together might also appear to be competence, thus fooling the previous leaders who vouch for his or her promotion.  Still, the Meritocracy system is built to ensure the highest chance of picking leaders according to meritocracy values.

When marrying Democracy with Meritocracy, we’re running into a direct conflict.  Democracy encourages the priority of voting while Meritocracy encourages the priority of strictly observing/testing before a promotion.  Thus, in reality we don’t see any system which distributes equal powers to Democracy and Meritocracy.  In China, I think some local regions do have elections, but it’s obviously one party state — so there is no true election at the very top.  So the true dilemma is how are we marrying the Democracy and Meritocracy together?

I have an idea!  Why don’t we have a constitution that ensures a house of Democracy which governs by election, but the house of Democracy is there to examine the performances of the most popular leaders who had gotten the positions through the voting process.  After the leaders’ terms are up, they need to be either promoted to longer term positions according to their performance-report-cards, but if their performances are poor they could be demoted or even be impeached.  Once they got promoted to longer term positions they could move into the house of Meritocracy.  Still, even once they reach the house of Meritocracy, more examinations must be done to ensure that the leaders within the house of Meritocracy are truly excellent.  If they’re just pretending to be excellent at their jobs, they could still be impeached within the house of Meritocracy.

Well, I think the idea I suggest above could be tested out for the case of marrying Democracy and Meritocracy together.  It’s like the people got to participate in a popularity contest before the real leaders could eventually be recognized.  Such a system does provide layers of examinations of our leaders so they could not take it easy and get so corrupted such as becoming lazy in serving people, involving in corruptions and scandals, and so forth.  What do you think?


Why Are The Chinese Flourishing Under An Authoritarian Regime?

Why isn’t the Chinese government allowing the Chinese to elect the country’s leaders and yet China is still flourishing?  Western people like us are often wondering why this is the case.  Some people from the United States and other western states have believed that once the Chinese are wealthier, they would demand a full blown democracy sort of governmental regime.  Nonetheless, I think this sort of belief is kind of make believe.

Chinese history had recorded many Chinese historical dynasties that were able to provide prosperity that had no equal in historical time periods, and so the ancient Chinese were able to flourish and get wealthy in all sorts of manners.  Yet, in those time, the Chinese were all ruled by a king or an emperor.  The modern Chinese regime is similar yet different than the past dynasties in several ways.

Basically, the modern Chinese regime is an authoritarian body, because the Chinese cannot elect their leaders.  This is very similar to how past ancient dynasties had ruled China.  Nonetheless, Chinese modern regime is different than the past ancient Chinese regimes/dynasties in a sense that Chinese modern leaders are not likely to be able to pass their positions down to their children as if their positions could be inherited.  Instead, there is a process within one party system that would weed out the bad and pick the good to govern an institution within China.  Nonetheless, this process is very similar to how the ancient Chinese dynasties had done in promoting meritocracy.

Anyway, as historical periods in China has shown us that the Chinese can unite and operate just fine under one party system, and so we in the West should not expect China to emulate the Western democratic systems.  Nobody knows the future, perhaps China may emulate the West in the future, but in my opinion I don’t think this will likely to occur at all.  Instead, I think China would still be one party state in foreseeable future, and yet the Chinese will be able to flourish in this particular environment.