How did China choose its political leaders? How did Xi rise from village chief, from secretary of small town, cities to become provincial governor and eventually the Secretary of the CPC and President of China? Despite being a princeling, well connected, Xi's journey to the top was long and arduous, put to the test at every level, challenged, and survived a gruelling meritocratic system, competing against his peers all the way, before finally picked and elected by the cadres to be the top man.
All Chinese political leaders went through the same journey, trained and tested to be full time professional political leaders. And they are not simply pull off from the streets. The first credential is to be academically brilliant, the top of their cohorts to join the CPC. By the time they reached the position of provincial governor or mayors of big cities, they would have many years of experience and honed their skills in state management and prepared to manage the country.
The long process would have weeded out the weak and less capable leaders along the way, caveat, some may got through the process through unsavoury and unethical ways. But the real leaders would survive and made it to the end. It is in another way like going through an educational system and graduated to universities by proving themselves in front of their peers.
The American so called democratic system is a case of lucky draws. Every 4 or 5 years there will be an election, and anyone could offer himself to be elected to be mayors, governors, people's representatives and the President. The candidate can be from anywhere, can be clowns, charlatans, criminals, salesmen, conmen or professionals of all trades. As long as they can find the money and the supporters behind them, they are good enough to lead, even when they have not a single day of experience in managing public affairs or affairs of the people. There is barely any criteria to select the best candidate in terms of character, proficiency, ability etc to be a political leader.
This also applies to the highest position, the President of the United States. And when elected, he simply pull rabbits out of his bag to fill the rest of the top appointments in his administration. Mostly inexperience and untested men and women in political leadership and looking after affairs of the state and people.
The elected President is the new God in choosing his best team, dream team, based on his own intellect, if there is any, or his contacts. And this bunch of people coming from no where, would then make decisions for the country, the people of the USA, in the people's interests, hopefully, or in their own interests. And this is touted as the best system for the world to emulate, American Democrazy, oops, Democracy. It is like awarding university degrees without having to pass through every stage of the education system and be qualified to teach. And some would be awarded Ph Ds as well, like they were deserving and the best qualified for it. By the way, only the President is elected. The rest of his cabinet are not elected by the people. Yes, NOT by the people. No mandate or approval from the people.
Which system is more reliable to produce the better political leaders to lead the country?
4 comments:
Chinese leaders rose from the ranks - stringently tested, refined in experience, elected for their merits and have already gone through the baptism of fire in previous roles in Government.
USA leaders are all ready-made - plucked from the swamp for their loyalty, have little moral character, traitorous when the shit hits the fan and above all have not gone through the baptism of fire.
Just like the President and Vice President, they are just in the game for, maybe four years and another four years if they are lucky and therefore have little incentive to carry out the role they have been chosen, being just content to play out the years in office. Some even do not last the four years and are fired, only finding out their fate from text message on their phones, LOL.
Yes it is time to relook into so call "democratic" system. This type of system is gear more toward self/political party then citizen interest.
My suggestion: No more political party needed. All potential candidates who aspire to lead the country will join a "Political School" setup by government to learn about various aspect of governing a country. This "candidates" will spend 5 years learning + attachment to various grassroot/civil services on part-time basis (token $$ allowance provided). The 6yr is for them to stand for election with their selected choice of "ministers" for various position. This selling of "koyok" will last for half a year to let citizens to get to know the team better. Finally, sillyporean will vote to have the best team to serve them for a term of 5yrs (limit to 3 terms).
But that is against the narrative of a democratic system. Having election is the hallmark of a democratic system, the only criteria they always use to hang on as justification of sustaining a democratic system.
But then, what is a democratic system when they provide a fake choice of a two-party running for power, controlled by someone behind the throne, it is no better than a socialist system of a one-party rule. Furthermore, a one -party system ensures continuity of policies and direction, with citizen's aware of where leaders are leading them forward towards. What is wrong with that -to quote Yani Varoufakis?
And the USA and the West cannot now use the mantra that a socialist system is unprogressive and detrimental to people's interest. With China lifting more than 800 million of its citizens out of poverty, and providing all the infrastructures to make life more comfortable for them, how is that a justification for demonizing the Chinese CCP for neglect of its citizens? The sheet scale of such an endeavor is enough to show the world that socialism is not all bad as painted by the West.
This is one reason the USA and the Weat cannot continue with the old mantra of the democratic system being always touted to be better than socialism. But the USA and the West are formulating new accusations and policies, like starting trade wars, imposing sanctions, banning of Chinese tech giants, accusation of over-capacity and every kind of nonsense. Throughout history, The USA and the West had used underhand means and treacherous tactics to break China down, from using religion, to drugs, to divide and rule, all to no avail.
Their main objective is trying to tear down the socialist system to create a democratic system more suited for them to exploit and control. The rise of China under its socialist system put paid to the USA and Western agenda. The Chinese population are not convinced of the benefits of a democratic system, after what they have been going through and enjoying their life under the CCP. Of course, there are always detractors in every country trying to do otherwise, even in democratic countries.
What Chin Leong is showing us around his travels in China is testament to what I have been saying about the progress of China. Being there and having seen and providing all the pictures of the reality counters all the fabricated news about China by the Western MSM and anti-China vloggers and distractors.
Post a Comment