Downsides of democracy

    There are various types of democracies and every country has its own way of running it. I can only speak about the US, and The biggest downside to U.S. democracy is:

    - Voting is often a popularity contest, highly qualified candidates are ignored for the establishments

    - As you said, Efficiency, nothing gets done.

    - Lack of engineers, scientists, and professionals from the STEM Field. It's mostly politicians with social science degrees. Politicians are good at patching up problems but never will find the root cause. In other words, problems are never fixed. You can patch up holes in a boat, but eventually, the holes will propagate into cracks.


    As for democracy in general, a downside that is often not noticed is the abuse of the word "democracy" to initiate conflicts. I think we're at the point where we have democratic extremism. If a country doesn't embrace democracy, then they are "Bad" and they must be converted... If some countries don't value the characteristics of democracy, then they will violate human rights.

    ✧ "Got no time for haters 모두 다 집어치워 버려" ✧

    Edited 5 times, last by winniethepb ().

    You seem to enjoy Social/Political threads. If you ever make a thread on cultural appropriation, tag me, I have a lot to say.

    ✧ "Got no time for haters 모두 다 집어치워 버려" ✧

    Quote from winniethepb

    There are various types of democracies and every country has its own way of running it. I can only speak about the US, and The biggest downside to U.S. democracy is:

    - Voting is often a popularity contest, highly qualified candidates are ignored for the establishments

    - As you said, Efficiency, nothing gets done.

    - Lack of engineers, scientists, and professionals from the STEM Field. It's mostly politicians with social science degrees. Politicians are good at patching up problems but never will find the root cause. In other words, problems are never fixed. You can patch up holes in a boat, but eventually, the holes will propagate into cracks.


    As for democracy in general, a downside that is often not noticed is the abuse of the word "democracy" to initiate conflicts. I think we're at the point where we have democratic extremism. If a country doesn't embrace democracy, then they are "Bad" and they must be converted... If some countries don't value the characteristics of democracy, then they will violate human rights.

    Popularity is one democracy baseline representing majority's will, aka part of political candidates' job is to get popular in every way possible and elected. Why do you think in the US elected politcians mostly came with social science degree?


    A democracy side effect is populace are entitled to different views even definition of problems from where they stand while politicians are public servants " patching holes " upon situations / voice heard from the group of ppl they served under law, I have heard more debates in the US over laws , integrity and appropriateness of law than how politicians are. Still good for democracy to render politicians replaced on people's will over certain period of time, they stayed longer if liked by a good majority.


    Democratic extremists have to be responsible for what they say like everyone else. I believe some are manipulated, some just wanted to be loud on plain ignorance.

    I want to take a controversial (but if you have seen me around, an expected) stance, and advocate for a Soviet/Sino/Juche Democracy.


    A Soviet Democracy, as used in the USSR, and used today in China, DPRK, Cuba, is a system in which multiple parties Govern under a united front, representing the people in a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat System". These Governments often have specified requirements on how to become a politician for that country.


    How it works, people in local regions form councils, or representative groups (in the USSR, these were called Soviets), and these are committees that manage day to day affairs in specific regions. These are not councillors, or politicians, just workers, neighbours, and ordinary people, that come together to communally run regions.


    These councils then elect a Local Representative, through a direct and secret ballot, from the local council, to represent them in the Regional Government (lots of councils covering a larger region). The Representative nominates himself for the party that the local council chooses, and he will become a politician for that region, representing the Constituency in the Regional Government. They attend Regional Councils, where representatives vote on issues in the way the Council tells them too. If at any time, the local council becomes unhappy with the representative, they are "recalled" and a vote to find a new representative is held.


    Local Representatives also elect a Delegate at what are called "Plenary Meetings" to elect someone to represent this collection of local councils at the National Level, also representing the Government Party the Regional Government chooses to vote for. The delegates then go to the national government, and vote on issues as how they are told to cover the whole nation. Once again, these delegates can be recalled.


    Countries like the DPRK, China and Cuba have multiple Government parties. But, even though one party has a majority of votes, all parties work together in a "United Front". Every set number of years (usually five) the parties form Plenary Committees, to formulate a policy for the next five years. In China, this is called the Two Sessions, this is when all the parties agree on the laws they will introduce. Over the next five years, they vote on these specific motions, and recalling can happen if local councils become unhappy with what is happening.



    The pros of this system;

    - Bottom Up Representation: All of the Representatives and Delegates are regular people, from regular areas. Even Xi Jinping comes from a family of farmers who managed to get himself elected all the way to the top, the first in his family to attend university.

    - Effective Representation: Once again, with politicians and representatives being "regular people", there is more effective representation. Cuba was the first country to have an equal gender split in its Government. The DPRK's Government has 1/6 of its spaces taken by farmers, and over 1/2 of them are manual labourers. over 1/2 of the Chinese Government are "peasants", or from families with no money.

    - Effective Legislation: When the Government is united under a United Front, it can better work together without the delay that appears in normal democracy where parties attack and fight each other for representation.


    sleeplessnights also raised the point of political myopia;

    Which again I would argue is countered in a Soviet Democracy. Because all parties work in the United Front, and having more "seats" matters less as policy is decided as a group, I would say that politicians are less likely to be short sighted. Communities care about the future, even if normal career politicians do not. So when you can recall your local representative if you feel that they are not doing a good job to protect the future, politicians working in a United Front, where they know they can be heard, will be more likely to prepare for the future. The Five Year Plans work with this in mind. They are specific plans for the future, five year plans outline goals for the future that they want to set out for over the next five years.

    ZKMUJeg.gif

    Edited once, last by Yan20 ().

    I can only speak for my country. It's always the ones who speak louder that win, not the ones more qualified. The people is majorly ignorant - they don't vote for the more reasonable candidate, they vote for the one that says what they want to hear. Candidates that speak using reason are very often ignored, except by a select group of reasonable voters.

    Democracy is the so called worst form of government, except for all the others.


    I guess the biggest challenges of democracy in general are how to apply representation, curb voter ignorance, effective opposition instead of gridlock one, and not fall in short term objectives only.


    If representation isn't taken into account, it may just be a flawed democracy where only the elite is properly represented or if it is a proper one, it can alienate the ignored group. Sadly it seems that overtime democracies may fall to two camps and they may go more and more extreme on their position which would make lack of representation worse over time. Mob rule may also occurs even with proper mechanism to prevent this.


    If voters aren't properly educated on how government and laws work, people will be very susceptible to propaganda and vote against their own interests and out of ignorance. People may vote for populists or perceived strong men. People in power tend to not invest in this type of education as it isn't in their interest. Even with proper education, people may become apathetic anyway.


    The way most election systems are designed favors short term planning. Elected politicians may only plan for 4 to 5 years only when problems may only be solvable in longer timelines. Some necessary grand projects may take decades. Successors may undermine or reverse policies from past administrations independent on how needed they were. Politicians may be just too focused on being reelected or have their successors elected and not properly look at problems and challenges that the nation is facing. They may just drag the problems to the next term and the cycle restarts no matter who gets elected.


    Oppositions who only care about gridlocking may arise because of factionalism and only caring about political career instead of legacy. These may be the root causes of the lack of efficiency.


    Another problem is democracy may just be a umbrella to disguise a fascist/oligarchic/authoritarian government or unbalanced of power between government branches.

    Although it doesn't seem to be the scope of this topic, I do like to think about which would be the best system.


    I kinda like a technocratic democracy. I kinda liked the ideal behind Chinese keju/civil service examination system. Just have a more balanced individual freedom philosophy to it and it could be good.


    At the same time, any system where there are incentives/rewards are fated to be corrupted and exploited. People will find ways to play the game for their own benefits. In the end this is an exercise of how to think about a system where people in general can get benefits and reach their full potential even with mediocre and corrupt elites in power.


    I guess maybe if we can create an AI that choose the best people for the job through some form of trial and error which would overtime auto-correct till it finds the sweet spot. Of course, some nightmare fuel scenarios could arise from that.

    Scopes are an invention of man :wink:


    The Keju was a good system, and whilst not used in the *exact* same way today, I would argue that largely it still exists, but in a way that fixes the problems that came with the Keju. It had a pretty significant flaw in that, it gave birth to a gentry class, and it became massively exploited. Exams would be targeted in a way that specific aristocratic classes performed better. Kinda in the same way IQ tests are massively flawed because they serve the cultural interests of the majority.


    Because of Roko's Basilisk, I am incentivised to not discuss AI, although by simply mentioning it I have doomed us both. But, I agree with your final premise on nightmare fuel. I do not think AI will ever be a better judge of humans, than humans, even when AI can mimic humanity to a 100% degree of accuracy.

    Quote from JaedaKim

    Entitlement for sure

    How does it lack efficiency>

    For example, each nationwide election/referendum costs billions which can be used for something more organic. Politicians also invest trillions more. So much money and natural resources are consumed for each election.


    And, for a law bill, a new megaproject, to pass, various fractions, tycoon sponsors included, must discuss and compromise. So, it often takes forever for each new bill to come into effect, for new megaproject to start and, the efficiency is compromised because it has to be the middle ground for various stakeholders.

    Your description is exactly what is technically called "oligarchy".

    This is exactly the root of the economic collapse of Greece and Venezuela.

    Quote from Yan20

    How? The power rests with EVERYONE in a Soviet Democracy. It is a dictatorship of the proletariat. That is not an oligarchy. It is "technically called" a Soviet Democracy, which is what I was explaining.

    Democracy can't go along with dictatorship but authoritarianism.

    Quote from bzzz

    Democracy can't go along with dictatorship but authoritarianism.

    Perhaps you haven't read much socialist theory, but Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the term used to describe any Government elected by the people, for the people. It isn't the same as Dictatorship in Government, which is authoritarianism.


    Read more if you like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…20the%20state%20apparatus.

    I get current US election mechanism was designed and put in practice when the United States became a country..elites

    selected as peoples' representatives fitted the need at that point when most were not proper educated to participate in election and government operation, understand how it makes you feel looking at the 200+ year old system and project possible advances.


    The Soviet democracy depicted applied to some countries on earth today has its ways of selecting politicians that appeared to be reasonable in design, do you know how final/ major decisions are made while multi parties work in a "united front", single party that is in my comprehension.? How politicans / representatives be recalled..by what ..even by whom? tbh bzzz kind of hit my spot saying your description is about oligarchy which I found it highly suspicious

    that turned the seemingly fair politician election process and result into a smoke bomb at some level.. Rid all stereotypical images on different political systems do you think oligarchy would fit the US?


    What do you make of " one man one vote" concept as a whole in the US, would that justify any reason to even replace electoral college?


    BTW,- even Xi Jinping comes from a family of farmers who managed to get himself elected all the way to the top- this is a yes and no....where did you get this info?

    Political benefits exist in different political systems and always will, reckon it be a race of the less ugly won when people put systems in comparison.

    I think you and that other person are failing to understand the same thing. They can be recalled by the citizens in the area that elected them to be their representative. What makes this an oligarchy? I am at a complete loss. A Soviet Democracy is an actual form of Government that is recognised among political pundits, I have never ever seen it compared to an oligarchy.


    An oligarchy places a large amount of power in a small group of people. That is what an oligarchy is, they represent either a single party/business or institution. None of these apply to Soviet Democracies. No single person has more power than another person in a Soviet Democracy, and no single party has more power than another party in a Soviet Democracy.


    In a Soviet democracy, a representative or a delegate is recalled by the citizens of the area that made them a delegate/representative, if they are unhappy with that person.


    I do not support the Electoral College, so I would be very happy to see its eradication.

    ZKMUJeg.gif

    Edited once, last by Yan20 ().

    Quote from Yan20

    I think you and that other person are failing to understand the same thing. They can be recalled by the citizens in the area that elected them to be their representative. What makes this an oligarchy? I am at a complete loss. A Soviet Democracy is an actual form of Government that is recognised among political pundits, I have never ever seen it compared to an oligarchy.


    In a Soviet democracy, a representative or a delegate is recalled by the citizens of the area that made them a delegate/representative, if they are unhappy with that person.


    I do not support the Electoral College, so I would be very happy to see its eradication.


    All right.


    What do you make of this ?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy

    Quote from Yan20

    Perhaps you haven't read much socialist theory, but Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the term used to describe any Government elected by the people, for the people. It isn't the same as Dictatorship in Government, which is authoritarianism.

    I've learnt much enough to know dictatorship and democracy are separated "regime".

    Quote from Freddie235X

    I get current US election mechanism was designed and put in practice when the United States became a country..elites

    selected as peoples' representatives fitted the need at that point when most were not proper educated to participate in election and government operation, understand how it makes you feel looking at the 200+ year old system and project possible advances.


    The Soviet democracy depicted applied to some countries on earth today has its ways of selecting politicians that appeared to be reasonable in design, do you know how final/ major decisions are made while multi parties work in a "united front", single party that is in my comprehension.? How politicans / representatives be recalled..by what ..even by whom? tbh bzzz kind of hit my spot saying your description is about oligarchy which I found it highly suspicious

    that turned the seemingly fair politician election process and result into a smoke bomb at some level.. Rid all stereotypical images on different political systems do you think oligarchy would fit the US?

    A con of oligarchy is that every politicians are on the same side, the same boat. There is no opposition, no transparency. You can see the con from Chinese politics where minority is suppressed and criticizing mouth is shut.


    Yet, various pros exists as seen from China's quick economic development and pandemic control. Not just the GDP number, China has successfully moved millions lives off poverty.

    Quote from Freddie235X

    Political benefits exist in different political systems and always will, reckon it be a race of the less ugly won when people put systems in comparison.

    In my opinion, different regimes have different fortes and weaknesses and befitting different countries. To believe there is a certain regime best for all is a myopia.

    Quote from Freddie235X

    separation of power....how you do think primary national policies and decisions are made in North Korea, China, Russia today?

    I can tell you how they are made in two, I do not know much about Russia, but today, Russia is an oligarchy. The political houses in China (there is an Upper and Lower House) gather once per year in a Joint Sessions meeting, this where the committees present their findings on issues that need addressing. They then work together to help prepare new measures to tackle these issues.


    Over the year, the measures may be adjusted and changed based on what needs to be done. The same sort of happens in North Korea, but it only has one house, as opposed to two.


    The Supreme Court in both countries is independent, and reviews these measures in a process called "Judicial Review" to ensure that the laws are protecting the rights of the people. There are obviously other aspects, so for example, China has a third house, an advisory body, where there are no CPC members, only members of the public who are not allowed to be affiliated with party. A set number of seats is taken by special groups. 1/3 of them are STEM, 1/3 are manual labourers, for example. There is also a set number of seats for Women, LGBT groups, young people, religious and ethnic minorities. This house has the ability to pass its own laws concerning these groups, that the Government has to follow.

    Quote from bzzz

    I've learnt much enough to know dictatorship and democracy are separated "regime".

    A con of oligarchy is that every politicians are on the same side, the same boat. There is no opposition, no transparency. You can see the con from Chinese politics where minority is suppressed and criticizing mouth is shut.


    Yet, various pros exists as seen from China's quick economic development and pandemic control. Not just the GDP number, China has successfully moved millions lives off poverty.

    In my opinion, different regimes have different fortes and weaknesses and befitting different countries. To believe there is a certain regime best for all is a myopia.

    China has an opposition, the CPC has an opposition. I have no idea what you mean with "suppression of minorities", Government satisfaction remains however than ever across all groups in the country. Minorities were exempt from birth control laws, religion is freely practiced and protected by the Government, their native languages are protected languages.

    Quote from Yan20

    I can tell you how they are made in two, I do not know much about Russia, but today, Russia is an oligarchy. The political houses in China (there is an Upper and Lower House) gather once per year in a Joint Sessions meeting, this where the committees present their findings on issues that need addressing. They then work together to help prepare new measures to tackle these issues.


    Over the year, the measures may be adjusted and changed based on what needs to be done. The same sort of happens in North Korea, but it only has one house, as opposed to two.


    The Supreme Court in both countries is independent, and reviews these measures in a process called "Judicial Review" to ensure that the laws are protecting the rights of the people. There are obviously other aspects, so for example, China has a third house, an advisory body, where there are no CPC members, only members of the public who are not allowed to be affiliated with party. A set number of seats is taken by special groups. 1/3 of them are STEM, 1/3 are manual labourers, for example. There is also a set number of seats for Women, LGBT groups, young people, religious and ethnic minorities. This house has the ability to pass its own laws concerning these groups, that the Government has to follow.

    OK, good sharing and illustrations. I say democratic structures exist for "general issues" in China and NK, Beijing and Pyongyang stepped in take over decision making go above laws when they think necessary. Multi / opposition parties in China are set for the democratic western eyes on surface, never saw other parties than CCP ruling. Intriguing but controversial in my opinion.


    Why do you think elected US politicians mostly have social science degrees?

    Quote from bzzz

    I've learnt much enough to know dictatorship and democracy are separated "regime".

    A con of oligarchy is that every politicians are on the same side, the same boat. There is no opposition, no transparency. You can see the con from Chinese politics where minority is suppressed and criticizing mouth is shut.


    Yet, various pros exists as seen from China's quick economic development and pandemic control. Not just the GDP number, China has successfully moved millions lives off poverty.

    In my opinion, different regimes have different fortes and weaknesses and befitting different countries. To believe there is a certain regime best for all is a myopia.

    That's why I said efficiency is a weak side of democracy of all kinds. True that China as a late comer of economic entity since 80s last century boosted all walks from low base periods that offered consistent high growth rate for decades, good to see that happen by hundreds of millions of hard working Chinese labors contributing most of the prosperity, CCP certainly earned credits policy wise for the achievement. Countries of "quintessential" democracy may not be able to catch up with that in the same situation and time given for their norms and nature in book, there are trade offs.

    Quote from Freddie235X

    OK, good sharing and illustrations. I say democratic structures exist for "general issues" in China and NK, Beijing and Pyongyang stepped in take over decision making go above laws when they think necessary. Multi / opposition parties in China are set for the democratic western eyes on surface, never saw other parties than CCP ruling. Intriguing but controversial in my opinion.


    Why do you think elected US politicians mostly have social science degrees?

    Indeed, China does not have opposition party yet, CCP itself can be the opposition to the president of the state. President of the state is not the leader of CCP and, occasionally, he may fall into a conflict with the party leader. The party leader has not direct power to intervene the state administration but he may find a way to kick the president out. CCP's executive committee can vote the president out. At times, it is a political game between the president and the leader of CCP. Still, most of the time, the party leader and the president have shared interest thus, they can compromise.


    If you look into how most politicians became politicians, you may find the answer. Imagine you are an engineer or a scientist, how may you cross path with politician and form some kind of relationship that the politician will introduce you to politic circle? Then, imagine you work in the field of law or social workers.

    Quote from bzzz

    Indeed, China does not have opposition party yet, CCP itself can be the opposition to the president of the state. President of the state is not the leader of CCP and, occasionally, he may fall into a conflict with the party leader. The party leader has not direct power to intervene the state administration but he may find a way to kick the president out. CCP's executive committee can vote the president out. At times, it is a political game between the president and the leader of CCP. Still, most of the time, the party leader and the president have shared interest thus, they can compromise.


    If you look into how most politicians became politicians, you may find the answer. Imagine you are an engineer or a scientist, how may you cross path with politician and form some kind of relationship that the politician will introduce you to politic circle? Then, imagine you work in the field of law or social workers.

    Points taken


    Yan20 what do you say?

    Quote from Freddie235X

    Points taken


    Yan20 what do you say?

    I would disagree. Not only does the CPC have an opposition party, it has 7 opposition parties in the central Government, and hundreds of opposition parties in specific local elections, and hundreds of non-affiliated opposition. Operating in a coalition does not mean they are without an opposition, coalitions are not always going to agree on issues. It also has to tackle an entire House, where the CPC has 0 party members (because it isn't allowed any), and a Supreme Court, where the CPC also cannot influence decisions, and has the power to strike down CPC legislation and challenge the Government.


    I would say this misconception that the WPK in DPRK, CPC in China, are completely unchallenged, is one of America's greatest propaganda successes. It is filled with so many subtle influences you wouldn't even notice unless you looked. For example, American media refers to the CPC as the CPP, the Chinese Communist Party, instead of their real name, the CPC, the Communist Party of China. This subtle language change that has become widely adopted implies that the CPP is the Chinese government, as in, the only party to exist in China.


    Not only does the CPC constantly have to haggle with opposition and independents at elections to maintain its United Front, it also gives its large autonomous regions complete self control in much of their affairs. The Central Government has less power than most people would think.

    Quote from Yan20

    I would disagree. Not only does the CPC have an opposition party, it has 7 opposition parties in the central Government, and hundreds of opposition parties in specific local elections, and hundreds of non-affiliated opposition. Operating in a coalition does not mean they are without an opposition, coalitions are not always going to agree on issues. It also has to tackle an entire House, where the CPC has 0 party members (because it isn't allowed any), and a Supreme Court, where the CPC also cannot influence decisions, and has the power to strike down CPC legislation and challenge the Government.


    I would say this misconception that the WPK in DPRK, CPC in China, are completely unchallenged, is one of America's greatest propaganda successes. It is filled with so many subtle influences you wouldn't even notice unless you looked. For example, American media refers to the CPC as the CPP, the Chinese Communist Party, instead of their real name, the CPC, the Communist Party of China. This subtle language change that has become widely adopted implies that the CPP is the Chinese government, as in, the only party to exist in China.


    Not only does the CPC constantly have to haggle with opposition and independents at elections to maintain its United Front, it also gives its large autonomous regions complete self control in much of their affairs. The Central Government has less power than most people would think.

    Why do you think elected US politicians mostly have social science degrees?

    Quote from Freddie235X

    Why do you think elected US politicians mostly have social science degrees?

    Having a STEM degree is only important (in the US), if you wanted to work for a Government dept where that was important, most politicians (I would argue) do not go into politics with an intent on working for a scientific Government department, but working their way up the ranks of being a politician. A social science is a good way to obtain knowledge on debating/appealing to groups.


    When you learn psychology, you can play the game of psychology, for example.

    One of the downsides which many people fail to see are the things politicians willing to do for votes. Just look at the current situation between Israel and Palestine. Both the Israeli government and Hamas are willing to escalate the conflict just to score popularity points with their respective populace. You can also see the same situation happening with Modi handling of the coronavirus situation in India.

    Quote from Yan20

    Having a STEM degree is only important (in the US), if you wanted to work for a Government dept where that was important, most politicians (I would argue) do not go into politics with an intent on working for a scientific Government department, but working their way up the ranks of being a politician. A social science is a good way to obtain knowledge on debating/appealing to groups.


    When you learn psychology, you can play the game of psychology, for example.

    This I agreed.


    Politicians in US are defined as someone able to understand laws, operate political mechanisms of the country under laws , obtain popularity and deal with people - voters /other politicians. I would call that professional service.

    people of STEM or non- social science major need to possess these features to be politicians. they do not stop STEM

    major people from becoming politicians after all.


    Whether if problems fixed to the core or patching holes have to do with how political system works and politicians' terms of office as bzzz indicated rather than technical expertise of politicians, some of that can be addressed as flaws of US , or all democracy.


    All in all what western democracy sells and is taken for granted is seperation of powers and containment between branches, transparency level, again this I agree with bzzz , is lot higher than democracy in China/ NK /Russia now where leading political party is single ,never swapped in the form of " united front", CCP , WPK and Putin's party own absolutely overwhelming power than other parties in the countries, this is very questionable albeit efficiency wise western democracy needs to be improved, 2 camp obstinacy n gridlock in the US is an example of bad practice.. Can see traces from the fact that Xi extended his term to infinity, Putin is not far from it, Kim is a perfect example of Feudalism.


    Feudalism/Monarchism is proved not working after practice in China for thousands of years , good Chinese emperors better the country in his time of a dynasty bad ones lost the dynasty or the entire country to intruders, one thing in common they all work lifetime long that being said populace in China / NK/ Russia are rolling dices on their types of democracy.

    I have just learnt about quote splitting so bear with me! Lol

    Quote from Freddie235X

    All in all what western democracy sells and is taken for granted is separation of powers and containment between branches, transparency level, again this I agree with bzzz , is lot higher than democracy in China/ NK /Russia.

    China and NK both have a separation of powers, I am not too familiar with Russia, and I would not compare it with China or NK, but I would *assume* given its role in the UN, it does have to an extent some separation of powers. I would say that I have seen this in action too, as Putin attempted to make Russia a beacon of being "immigrant free", to have anti immigration measures shot down in the Russian courts.


    Most World Governments have 3 branches of Government - Legislative, Executive, Judicial


    China has 3 separate political houses, making it the most spread out nation currently alive in its legislative branch, the US has two, of course, as does the UK. Canada for awhile had 3, but this was abolished, South Africa also had a tricameral legislature for awhile, but again was abolished. In one of these houses, the CPC has 0 members, 0 influence. You cannot have party affiliations in this house. Seeing as laws are contested in ALL 3 houses, it means that the CPC has to win over unaffiliated votes to make any law come to fruition, or to avoid measures being contested. In two of the houses, the CPC has a healthy majority.


    China has a separated Supreme Court, again, not affiliated with the CPC, that has the powers of Judicial Review. It can shoot down CPC laws. This is the judicial branch.


    China, naturally, has an executive branch. That being Xi Jinping. The Executive Branch seldom has power, actually, US politicians tend not to refer to Xi as "President", because Xi technically has less power than Joe Biden does. There is no such thing as Executive Orders in China, for example.


    The Chinese Government has 3 separated branches, like the US Government, and like most other Governments in the World, and the 3 branches are just as separate as they are in the US.


    Onto transparency, I will have to look for the Twitter thread I saw recently, of a Chinese netizen detailing how they were able to sue the local Government from an app in their phone, and win without ever having to officially pay anything (free lawyer representation), and win of course, against the Government. I would consider this a pretty good measure in terms of transparency.


    In the UK, I know they have the FOI, or the Freedom of Information Requests, where you can request information from the Government pertaining to a particular topic, and they will provide it. China also has this, usually done through the Chinese Statistics Bureau. This is the biggest measure, I would argue, in transparency. The fact you can request the Government for information, and they are legally mandated to provide it upon request.


    If I am missing anything, please let me know.

    Quote from Freddie235X
    never swapped in the form of " united front", CCP , WPK and Putin's party own absolutely overwhelming power than other parties in the countries

    The opposition is never swapped because the CPC and the WPK win elections. If another party performed well enough to win the election, then the CPC or the WPK would become the opposition, and it would be up to the winning party to decide if they want to maintain the United Front.


    In China, the CPC does not have "overwhelming power", in one of the houses they operate, they actually only *just* have a majority. The WPK, I would say, does have considerable more influence, and performs wayyyyy better than the CPC does, election wise. But I can understand this. The WPK has done a lot for Korean people, and they know it.

    Quote from Freddie235X

    Can see traces from the fact that Xi extended his term to infinity, Putin is not far from it, Kim is a perfect example of Feudalism.

    Xi didn't extend his term for infinity. This is another misconception. He simply eradicated term limits. He can still be voted out. Actually, the US and China were amongst the only countries in the World to impose term limits on the top politician. The UK has no term limits for Prime Ministers (and of course, the Queen), and neither does much of Europe. Now, China has removed these term limits, but it does not make Xi President for Life, unless he is voted in, every 4 years, again.

    All scientists have to learn to make rational analysis/hypothesis basing on empirical evidences and, they can use their scientific logic approach to their advantage. Angela Merkel is a legendary leader of Germany and she was once a scientist. Everything she said was logical.


    Unfortunately, absolute democracy does not guarantee transparency. India is fully democratic yet, you won't put its administration on the top transparency list. USA has been doing various shady things its citizens unaware of. Bribery in the form of lobbying is even legal in USA.


    I disagree that Putin's party holds absolute power over Russia. Putin has been worrying as his popularity is dropping. And, the party may get weak after Putin's era.


    Multiple strong parties can lead to coalition government, which leads to another headache of ruling parties fighting. For example, A is the major ruling party holding 40% of seats, B is the minor holding 20% of seats. B wants the Minister of Internal Affairs post but A declines. B pressures A to reshuffle the cabinet so B can negotiate for Minister of Internal Affairs again. Coalition govt also often cannot last full term.


    NK is not feudal and feudalism is not a regime and more of a subset of monarchy. Mainland China and NK are both not democratic by any mean.


    Absolute monarchy still is well functional in some Islamic states, Brunei, Abu Dhabi etc. I rather put NK under absolute monarchy too as the ruler title is inherited through the bloodline.

  • This thread contains 2 more posts that have been hidden for guests, please register yourself or login to continue reading.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login