Single-Party Democracy

[Ordie]

J anuary 22, 2010
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Single-Party Democracy

By ROGER COHEN
BEIJING — I’m bullish on China after a couple of weeks here and perhaps that sentiment begins with the little emperors and empresses. In upscale city parks and rundown urban sprawls, I’ve seen China’s children pampered by grandparents, coddled by fathers, cared for by extended families.

Scarcity may explain the doting: China’s one-child policy makes children special. But there are deeper forces at work. The race for modernity has not blown apart the family unit, whatever the strains. After witnessing the atomization of American society, where the old are often left to fend for themselves, China feels cohesive.

It’s seeing that most natural of conspiracies — between grandparents and children — flourishing. It’s listening to young women in coastal factories talking about sending half their salaries home to some village in Guangxi where perhaps it goes to build a second floor on a parental house. It’s hearing young couples agonize over whether they can afford a child because “affording” means school, possible graduate education abroad, and a deposit on the first apartment.

The family is at once emotional bedrock and social insurance. “My” money equals my family’s money. All the parental investment reaps a return in the form of care later in life. “Children are a retirement fund,” a Chinese-American friend living here told me. “If you don’t have children, what do you do in old age?”

The Chinese, in other words, might be lining up to play karaoke after long factory shifts, but they’re not bowling alone American-style. They’re not stressing because they’re all alone. That’s critical. There so much heaving change here — China’s planning to open 97 new airports and 83 subway systems in the next five years — the family strikes me as the great stabilizer (even more than the regime’s iron fist).

As Arthur Kroeber, an economist, said, “High-growth stories are not pretty. If you’re growing at 10 percent a year, a lot of stuff gets knocked down.” It sure does: China looms through the dust. But the family has proved resilient, cushioning life for the have-nots, offering a moral compass for the haves (rampant corruption notwithstanding).

After the emperors and empresses, in my bullish assessment, comes the undistracted forward focus. After a while in Asia, you notice the absence of a certain background noise. It’s as if you’ve removed a negative drone from your life, like the slightly startled relief you feel when the hum of an air conditioner ceases.

What’s in that American drone? Oh, the wars of course, the cost of them, and debate around them, and the chatter surrounding terror and fear.

There’s also the resentment-infused aftermath of the great financial meltdown, navigated by China with an adroitness that helped salvage the world economy from oblivion. In the place of all that Western angst, there’s growth, growth, growth, which tends (through whatever ambivalence) to inspire awe rather than dread. The world’s center of gravity is shifting with a seismic inevitability.

I know, China has kept its foot on the gas of its stimulus package too long and there are bubble signs in housing and labor is no longer limitless, with resultant inflationary pressure. I also know there are tensions between state economic direction and market forces, with resultant waste. But my third bullish element is nonetheless an economy entering a 15-year sweet spot where rising disposable income will drive the domestic market.

Think of what Japan, Taiwan and South Korea went through decades ago, but with a population of 1.3 billion. Think of the 10 to 15 million new urban residents a year and the homes and infrastructure they will need. Think of all the stuff the world demands and can’t get elsewhere with the same quality, quantity and price. Think underlying drivers. They remain powerful.

Of course, political upheaval could unhinge all the above. Given that China’s open-closed experiment is unique in history, nobody can say how this society will be governed in 2050. Immense tensions, not least between the rage that corruption inspires and the difficulty of tackling it without a free press, exist. Still, my fourth reason for running with the Chinese bulls is perhaps the most surprising: single-party democracy.

It doesn’t exist. It’s an oxymoron (although a U.S. primary is a vote within one party). It can easily be the semantic disguise for outrage and oppression. But it just may be the most important political idea of the 21st century.

Rightful resistance is growing in China. Citizens are asserting their rights, not in organizing against the state (dangerous) but in using laws to have a say. Nongovernmental organizations are multiplying to advance agendas from the environment to labor rights. This is happening with the acquiescence of smart rulers.

“They know they cannot manage in the old way,” Ma Jun, a leading environmentalist, told me. “They cannot dam the water, but they can go with the flow and divert it to the places they want.”

Whether that place will ever resemble one-party democracy, I don’t know. But I no longer laugh at the idea. Harmonious discord is an old Chinese idea. The extended Chinese family is a daily exercise in just that.


Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22iht-edcohen.html?sq=single%20party%20democracy&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print

[clue]

Is there a reason why you have an obsession with China?

[Ordie]

Is there a reason why you have an obsession with China?

I like the place.

I've been there several times.

[clue]

I like the place.

I've been there several times.

You didn't answer my question. I'm sure you like a lot of places, but your thread starting history says otherwise.

Is there a reason why you have an obsession with China?

[plato]

I like the place.

I've been there several times.

Me too.


You didn't answer my question. I'm sure you like a lot of places, but your thread starting history says otherwise.

Is there a reason why you have an obsession with China?

Is there a reason why you have an obsession with that question?

[clue]

Is there a reason why you have an obsession with that question?

Just curious, that's all.

[plato]

Just curious, that's all.

then you had your answer.

[TheMiddlePath]

Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22iht-edcohen.html?sq=single%20party%20democracy&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print

Multiparty democracies will just end up spliting the country into 2. One party in power, and one party doing all it can to gain power. Both parties just fighting each other. Nothing is done together in the interest of the country.


Seeing what is happening in Taiwan is so sad. The country is slowing spliting into 2 halfs that is constantly promoting hatred of each other instead of working together for the good of the country.

[plato]

Multiparty democracies will just end up spliting the country into 2. One party in power, and one party doing all it can to gain power. Both parties just fighting each other. Nothing is done together in the interest of the country.


Seeing what is happening in Taiwan is so sad. The country is slowing spliting into 2 halfs that is constantly promoting hatred of each other instead of working together for the good of the country.

How do you make sure that the single party is working for the interest of the country?

[TheMiddlePath]

Well US always talk about Bipartisan ship. Why have 2 parties in the first place ?

Singapore is also a one party state, See how sucessful they are.

Perhaps JZM 3 representative will give you your answer.

[plato]

Well US always talk about Bipartisan ship. Why have 2 parties in the first place ?

Singapore is also a one party state, See how sucessful they are.

How big is Singapore? US has 2 parties? I did not know that?

[TheMiddlePath]

How big is Singapore? US has 2 parties? I did not know that?


So size matters ? Or is it just a matter of organisation ? I do not know. But what I know is both countries hire the smartest and the brighest into the governemnt so the country is run by the most qualified people......not by lawyers.

Yes in US you only have 2 REAL choices. Choose a 3rd party and it is a wasted vote.
Just like in Britain, the Liberal party will never be in power. If you hate the Consevative party you vote the labor party not because you like the Labor party. You have no choice since only the bigger party matters.

[plato]

So size matters ? Or is it just a matter of organisation ? I do not know. But what I know is both countries hire the smartest and the brighest into the governemnt so the country is run by the most qualified people......not by lawyers.

Yes in US you only have 2 REAL choices. Choose a 3rd party and it is a wasted vote.
Just like in Britain, the Liberal party will never be in power. If you hate the Consevative party you vote the labor party not because you like the Labor party. You have no choice since only the bigger party matters.

I highly doubt a system based on connections can hire the smartest and the brightest into the government. Sorry! I just don't think so. But, you are entitled to have your own opinions. Chinese leadership constantly make personnel changes based on loyalty, not on ability.


I beg to differ with you. The third party was very important in the current health care reform. Their votes were the key.

[Alfacentori]

As one of my politics professors said, be wary of any state which has 'Peoples' or 'Democratic' in the title

Alfa

[ting]

Is there a reason why you have an obsession with China?

I'm also interested in China, care to guess why?

[shoora]

As one of my politics professors said, be wary of any state which has 'Peoples' or 'Democratic' in the title

Alfa
Good one :-) I'll try to remember this.

[Yehuda]

I highly doubt a system based on connections can hire the smartest and the brightest into the government. Sorry! I just don't think so. But, you are entitled to have your own opinions. Chinese leadership constantly make personnel changes based on loyalty, not on ability.


I beg to differ with you. The third party was very important in the current health care reform. Their votes were the key.
well,seeing the last three american presidents,you can see,easily that they weren't chosen by talent

[plato]

well,seeing the last three american presidents,you can see,easily that they weren't chosen by talent

Care to explain?

[Yehuda]

Care to explain?
cme on,are you joking to me?
bush jr,was a an incompetent (being overly generous to him),and clinton and obama,not far off

[plato]

cme on,are you joking to me?
bush jr,was a an incompetent (being overly generous to him),and clinton and obama,not far off

no, i am not kidding! do you care to explain? thanks

[Yehuda]

no, i am not kidding! do you care to explain? thanks
of course
bush,destroyed the economy,wiped out the positive in the accountrs,leaving a huge deficit,started the war in irak and afganistan,that costed a lot of money and lives,and one that in the end,will see a defeat,damaged the internatioanl realtions of usa in the world,badly executed the war on terror,leaving unscather the two most dangerous countries in the middle east,iran and saudi arabia,those should have been the objectives

obama,stupid foreign policy,and doesnt seem to have an economic one,also

clinton,bad foreign policy,specially in the middle east,and mediocre internal and economic one,the economic succes was only the result of the general trend of the world,layed also the basis for the future economic problems we have now

[CMNot]

People talented in politics and political science tend to be behind the politicians.

I wouldn't exactly describe China as a single party democracy. For that you would have to have some form of democratic representation. Closest I can think of to a single party democracy is the ANC.

[Yehuda]

People talented in politics and political science tend to be behind the politicians.

I wouldn't exactly describe China as a single party democracy. For that you would have to have some form of democratic representation. Closest I can think of to a single party democracy is the ANC.
singapur is the best example
china is an authoritarian regime

[TheMiddlePath]

This data is abit out of date as Malaysia now has a new PM and cabinet but a good comparison.

Singapore Cabinet Minister versus Malaysia's
PM Lee Hsien Loong
Cambridge University – First Class Honours (1974)
Harvard University – Masters (1980)

PM Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi
University  of Malaya  - Bachelor of Arts Honours (1964)

SM Goh Chok Tong
University of Singapore – First Class Honours (1964)
Williams College , USA – Masters (1967)

Deputy PM Dato’ Sri Najib Razak
University  of Nottingham  - Bachelor of Arts Honours (1974)

MM Lee Kuan Yew
Cambridge University – First Class Honours (1949)

Minister of Foregn Affairs Syed Hamid Albar
(can someone tell me his univeristy? )- Bachelor of Arts [ UITM ]

Minister for Law Prof. S Jayakumar
University of Singapore – Bachelor of Law Honours (1963)
Yale Univerity – Masters (1966)

Ministry of Works- Dato’ Seri Samy Vellu
(Education Unknown) [ Form 6, Anderson School ]

Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng
University of Singapore – Bachelor of Arts & Business Admin (1977)
London Business School – Masters (1979)

Ministry of International Trade & Industry Rafidah binti Aziz
Universiti Malaya – Bachelor of Arts Honours

Minister for Foreign Affairs BG George Yeo
Cambridge University – Double First Class Honours (1976)
Harvard Business School – MBA w/ Distinction (1985)

Minister of Agriculture Muhyiddin Yassin
(Education Unknown) [ Polytechnic Ungku Omar ]

Minister for Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang
Cambridge University – First Class Honours w/ Distinction (1976)
Harvard University – Masters (1986)

Ministry of Domestic Trade Shafie Apdal
(Education Unknown) [ Form 5, Failed English ]

Minister for Defence Teo Chee Hean
University of Manchester – First Class Honours (1976)
Imperial College, London – Masters w/ Distinction (1977)

Minister of Education Hishammuddin Hussein
(Education Unknown) [ Bachelor of Arts, Social Science ]

Minister for Education Tharman Shanmugaratnam
London School of Economics – Bachelor of Arts
Cambridge University – Masters
Harvard University – Masters

Minister of Home Affairs Radzi bin Sheikh Ahmad
(Education Unknown) [ Kolej Islam Malaysia , Diploma  ]

[Hollis]

Part of the concept of checks and balances is a multi-party system. Anyways, that is the idea. If we look at the states, one might say that within any single party we have three groups, National, State and local level. The National leadership has some influence on the State or local parts, but not control. Probably the biggest aspect is not the number of parties, it is the activity of the people, do they have free choice? Can they exercise their free choice? Are elections with out corruption or governmental interference? If that is all true, then I don't think, the number of parties matter. Too many parties can convoluted the process, confuse it, maybe a better word. When people fail, for what ever reason, to exercise their control over the government, the government heads towards being a oppressive regime. It is probably more about human nature, than what ever the structure of the government is.

[BearInBunnySuit]

For all intents and purposes, I see Japan as a single-party democracy.

[Yehuda]

no,its not,the Ldp,its not in power anymore

[Jobu]

Walter Durante would be proud of this article.

[Hollis]

For all intents and purposes, I see Japan as a single-party democracy.

That has been said about the US from European commentators too. Depends on whose interests they represent.

[Yehuda]

that is certainly not the case with japan,anymore,the ldp,is not in power anymore
there is a difference,its not the same a system with a one party preponderance,like japan was in the past,or singapur today,that a country with one party,like china

[CMNot]

People repeatedly voting in the same party of their own free will is very different to having absolutely no control over who rules your everyday existence. Mentioning 'China' and 'Democracy' in the same sentence is about as daft as writing 'gay' and 'moral'.

[Yehuda]

People repeatedly voting in the same party of their own free will is very different to having absolutely no control over who rules your everyday existence. Mentioning 'China' and 'Democracy' in the same sentence is about as daft as writing 'gay' and 'moral'.
never sayd that china was a democracy

and nothing inmoral about being gay,its just a ****** choice

[Mastermind]

Describing any system as a "Benevolent Dictatorship", which seems to be the these here, even though it is not directly states as such, is an adventure into fantasy land. It would seem, so long as no one complains or offers criticisms of the dictatorship...and just goes on living in agreeable discord "like one big happy family" allows the people running the dictatorship to do anything they want, regardless of the comfort zone of the people. Yes, it is easy for the dictatorship to let people live a comfortable life style...to let them express their desires and achieve their goals outside of the politic. but, what happens when times get tough? What happens when the government comes under the direction of a not-so benevolent dictatorial leadership? People just begin dissappearing...for no apparent reason (think Pinochet) and whoel groups begin to get rounded up a..secret labor camps (which I understand exist today in China)...and unreported horrors from prisons begin to be rumored...people toe the line and eventually, you wake up one morning and find the whole country is an armed camp....think of North Korea.

Governments should not ever be depended upon for benevolence...men are too full of dark desires to allow them to control your government without guidance. China is going well for now. But, let one serious thing go sour and then see how nice it is.

[TheMiddlePath]

People repeatedly voting in the same party of their own free will is very different to having absolutely no control over who rules your everyday existence. Mentioning 'China' and 'Democracy' in the same sentence is about as daft as writing 'gay' and 'moral'.

If democracy mean "Rule by the will of the people" then based on this poll below China is more democratic then you think.

‘Asked how much the country should be governed according
to the will of the people, the Chinese give an 8.0 on a
10-point scale (with 10 meaning ‘completely’). When asked
how much the country is currently governed according to
the will of the people, the Chinese give their country the
highest rating (6.7) of all publics polled.’

Source is......

The Lowy Institute China Poll 2009 (Page 7)



L



http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1193

[shiftypowpow]

If democracy mean "Rule by the will of the people" then based on this poll below China is more democratic then you think.


‘Asked how much the country should be governed according
to the will of the people, the Chinese give an 8.0 on a
10-point scale (with 10 meaning ‘completely’). When asked
how much the country is currently governed according to
the will of the people, the Chinese give their country the
highest rating (6.7) of all publics polled.’


Source?.......

[IconOfEvi]

It is a true insight, to be wary

The Democratic People's Republic Of Korea is neither democratic, nor a republic, and not at all for the people.

[Yehuda]

It is a true insight, to be wary

The Democratic People's Republic Of Korea is neither democratic, nor a republic, and not at all for the people.
well,a republic,we can debate that,on the rest,i agree a 100% with you

[TheMiddlePath]

Governments should not ever be depended upon for benevolence...men are too full of dark desires to allow them to control your government without guidance. China is going well for now. But, let one serious thing go sour and then see how nice it is.

There are already things going sour almost every year for China.

In just one year 2008, China experienced the worst snow storm in the south, a 8.0 earthquake that killed 80,000 people and an ethnic Tibetan riot. And then went on to hold the biggest and best Olympic ever.

And in 2009, the Financial melt down (NOT CAUSED BY CHINA) resulted in over 20million unemployed then another ethnic riot by the Uiugers and then when on to hold the 60th anniversary celebration.

And in other recent news.....
China GDP grew 10.7% in last Qtr.
China banks hold top 4 of 5 places in the world.
China set to be 2nd largest economy by end 2010.
China launches the largest vessel 3 times the weight of US Aircraft carrier.

[clue]

China launches the largest vessel 3 times the weight of US Aircraft carrier.

Interesting. Link?

[Yehuda]

Interesting. Link?
well,its not that strange,many civilian oilers have that displacement

[Alfacentori]

Seems to me that the whole question of what constitutes a single party democracy isn't whether one party dominates but how it does so. Many countries have a single party that dominates but have no constituational and legal controls that limit other parties, i.e. the poeple could vote in/for another party if they wished, where as in states like China, Iran etc their are deliberate controls to keep a single party in power, this does not make them a single party democracy. As the concept of an enforced single party and democracy are not compatiable.

There are of course definitional questions and points that can be argued here, but the basic tenaments are sound

Alfa

[BloodyTalon]

Interesting. Link?
Non-existent

The largest ship in the world is the Knock Nevis which was built by the Japanese in the late 70's and has been used mostly by the Norwegians. It's been beached and is about to be scrapped.

[TheMiddlePath]

I highly doubt a system based on connections can hire the smartest and the brightest into the government. Sorry! I just don't think so. But, you are entitled to have your own opinions. Chinese leadership constantly make personnel changes based on loyalty, not on ability. .

How is Hu JinTao connected to Jiang ZeMin and how is Jiang ZeMin connected to Deng XiaoPeng ? If you are talking about such a system based on connection and lineage perhaps you should look at Japan.
Besides even if loyaly is involve, you still need a good track record in order not to be shot down by others.



I beg to differ with you. The third party was very important in the current health care reform. Their votes were the key.

You have your opinion.

As for the current health plan, if the President and the Republicans called each other a liar, how do an ordinary guy figure out who is telling the truth ?