貴陽党秘書の選択に民主的な味がある
ファイルされる:ニュース | 札:民主主義, 貴陽, 改良
コメントを加えなさい
実験は何丁度であるか。 それは西部の民主主義ではないが、またいつものようにビジネスではない。 CCTVのレポート(次のビデオ)はプロセスを説明する:
- 82人の候補者は4つの位置のために公に指名された; それらの81は最初のスクリーニング工程を渡した。
- 貴陽の市庁の「責任がある図」から、および異なった企業から党代表は各位置に成っている会議5人の候補者、すべての20人の候補者を選ぶ。
- この20人の候補者は公共の会議に現われたり、TVおよびインターネットによって広く放送し、彼らの性能のために等級別になった。 候補者はスピーチを与えたり、および公衆が提起した答えられた質問討論した。
- 高い等級を持つ8人の候補者(地区ごとの2)は続くために選ばれた。 等級分けはこうすれば破壊される: 「民主党の指名」 (20%)、「研究レポート」の(20%)、「公共のスピーチおよび討論」 (20%)、「世論」 (30%)、「リーダーシップの機能の見積もり」 (10%)。
- 地区ごとのこれら二つの候補者間の最終的な選択はローカル人々の議会によってなされる。
CCTVからのニュースレポートはここにある:
ビデオを見た後私の第一印象…私の神は、これらの候補者若い。
私の第2そしてより意味を持った思考は… XinhuaおよびCCTVからのまさに世間の注目中央政府がこのタイプの実験に注意を払っていることを示す。 プロセスがまだ非常に扱いにくく、完全に透明(等級分けプロセスは濫用のために非常に神秘的、開いている)であるが、私はそれが少なくとも一歩前進であることを考える。 本当の主任がであるかだれの役人に(公に位置のために競わせる役人を人々からの困難な)質問に答えさせるうまく行けばメモである 想定された あるため。
明らかに、プロセスはここに停止できない。 連続的な政治改革の長い旅行はうまく行けば続く。
更新: より多くの研究をややして、それはより低いランキングの役人のために以前このメカニズムのように使用された見える。 This is the first time it’s been raised up to the district or county party secretary spot, and certainly the first time this process have been so widely publicized before and after. Other mainland Chinese reports have pointed out that only a small group of local officials could even be nominated for the contest.
The reforms planned in Shenzhen and Guangzhou are likely more ground-breaking.
There are currently no comments highlighted.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
More significantly to me at least, this is moving towards a concensus selection model where the candidates’ records and past performances are also explicitly considered. When has that ever happened in a Western “democratic” horse race/beauty contest? … In the Western model, the opponents (especially challengers to an incumbent) have a hard enough time bringing up something … anything that sticks, nevermind any real evaluation. That is a huge problem with Western systems, no actual accountability and nearly all campaign promises mean nothing.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I agree Nimrod. Sure we get to vote on a number of names on a slip of paper but how did those names get on that paper in the first place. In the last election in Alberta, the real contest happened in the Conservative’s leadership convention - not in the public ballet. If you wanted a real vote for the leadership, you should buy a Conservative party membership.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
@Nimrod - By ‘western’ you seem to mean ‘American’ - I can’t see how you could look at something like Irish, Dutch, Swiss or British politics and describe it as a ‘horse-race/beauty contest’
July 16th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
@FOARP,
I’m ignorant of the fundamental difference between these systems. Can you give us a summary, and how they differ from American politics, how they avoid being a horse-race/beauty contest?
July 16th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
@ Buxi,
I’m not really sure what is meant by “horse race/ beauty contest”, but there are significant differences between the electoral systems in different Western countries. One of the most basic differences is between those countries that use proportional representation models (New Zealand, most of northern Europe -not the UK though) and those countries that don’t (like the US). You can read up on it in Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
Basically, the outcome of it is that it’s not a waste of your vote to vote for smaller parties, which means a broader range of choices for voters, a broader range of opinions in parliament. It also tends to mean that all the deal-making, guanxi building, factionalism is more open to the public. I think its a better system than that used in the US. Is it less likely to produce beauty contests? Again, I’m not sure what that means. Politics here does get a bit vulgar at times. But then the system outlined above also has its own flaws: like how will the public feel if their clear favourite doesn’t end up being chosen? -I’m not saying its a bad system, but I don’t see it as clear winner over other models.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
@Buxi - What JL said, plus many countries do not have presidential elections - they have parliamentary elections. Most people who vote in parliamentary elections are doing so on party lines - not particularly on personality, and coalition governments are allowed.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
@JL & FOARP,
I’m not sure how well and successful this above mentioned system will be. But what impress me most isn’t the particular rules or ways it functions, but that it is an adventure to find alternative democracy system other than, say US/Canadian election democracy. I assume you also know alone with many advantages, the electoral democracy also has many disadvantages - huge chunks of money wasted each time, empty political promise etc. Can there be more efficient way to select more competent leaders than the elections? I think we certainly don’t have to stop there.
ps. As for Europe system, I have yet to read up.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Proportional representation is not effective in solving problems, see India.
In election system, the government is controled by a very small group of system.
In an authoritarian system, very effective in solving problems but it highly depends on “wise and good” leaders, which nobody know what they expect until they see the result, hence great potential danger.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Sorry, made a mistake.
In election system, the government is controled by a very small group of riches and elite, not real democracy.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
China now is Proportional representation within the party, but with media and information control, CCP doesnt have much credit among Chinese.
Dont know if it is possible that one-party system and freedom of information and media can co-exist, maybe like Singapore, but it also involve the problems of freedom of religion and organization.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:53 am
@Wahaha
“Dont know if it is possible that one-party system and freedom of information and media can co-exist,”
Thats the great question that we might find out the answer to as China continues to reform.
Concerning Singapore, I can see how its an appealing model for China. but my opinion is that despite the common Chinese heritage, China and Singapore are too different to expect that the same political system could work in both. China is a little bit bigger than Singapore, to start with, and has a touch more regional variation.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:58 am
JL,
Here is link about Vietnam (if you can read Chinese), I think it is a democracy within party,
http://www.sinovision.net/news.php?act=details&col_id=3&news_id=50891
July 17th, 2008 at 3:17 am
Wahaha, independents as well as advisory party candidates are now competitive in China’s elections.
- Coverage of 2003 district People’s Congress deputies in Beijing, where independent candidates are nominated by any group of 10 or more voters during the:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/08/content_288018.htm
- Primary election coverage of above election, where combination of primaries and caucases where used:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-11/26/content_284996.htm
Here’s a balanced critique of China’s election system:
http://www.chinalawedu.com/news/2004%5C12%5Cma5043191931122140025776.html
July 17th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Charles,
Thx for the link,
From the link in #12, I feel that vast majority of people only care if they are given the choice, whether the candidates are from one-party or from different party is not important. Hopefully this will allow CCP open the door for election from bottom to top.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:36 am
@Wahaha,
I agree. Many of those insisting on multi-party candidates (or at least candidates outside of the Communist Party) hold a deep grudge against the CCP. For those of us who don’t love the CCP and also don’t have a grudge against it, we just want to see a “democratic” system in which politicians and public servants respect the wishes and interests of the people. If the CCP had internal democracy, it would go along way towards achieving that goal.
I’m definitely watching political reforms in Vietnam closely.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
@Buxi - Democracy is not simply the right to choose between a selection of faces - how can there be democracy where there is no manifesto put before the people?
@Nimrod - “this is moving towards a concensus selection model where the candidates? records and past performances are also explicitly considered. When has that ever happened in a Western ?democratic? horse race/beauty contest?”
I don’t know, let me think, it could be . . . . umm . . . .ahhh . . . . ALL OF THEM?!? I’m presuming you live in the US - haven’t you noticed all those adverts you’ve been seeing on television lately? Now, try listening to what the candidates are actually saying (I know it’s hard, but try) d’you notice how many of them seem to be talking about past achievements and they’ve performed well as governors/congressmen?
July 17th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
@Wahaha,
Thanks for the link about Vietnam; it looks like an interesting system.
In spite of what you might think, I’m really not opposed to China having its own system of democracy. It would be pretty weird if I thought all countries in the world should adopt New Zealand’s electoral system. But I do think there’s no point in trumpeting new reforms in China as inherently better than the variety of other models that exist in other countries. Sure, China’s developing systems will have their strong points, but they will also have their disadvantages, which need to be discussed.
The exciting thing about China is that politics is changing, and that lots of new ideas are emerging, so lets make the most of this situation and have a proper discussion about them, rather than just getting stuck at the level of “ours is better than yours”.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Just keep it simple and let the people vote. The only purpose of such a convoluted process is to ensure that the democratic flavour tastes sour. Unimpressive. Any serious move towards political reform deserves public debate and scrutiny. That’s not happening.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
JD, it’s no more convoluted than what ours:
“??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????”
Above describes 1) nomination process by nominating bodies; 2) local primaries, before general elections of local representatives.
It’s similiar that what we have in the US.