Chapter 21 4. Is there any play on "Game Democracy"?

Another theoretical basis of the Western multi-party democratic system is that there are multiple interests in society. These interests should be represented by different political parties. They compete in the game under the rule of law, but this emphasis on the differences and struggles between different interests The success rate of the Western model in developing countries is extremely low, because such conditions as the tradition of rule of law, rules of the game, a huge middle class, and relatively tolerant political culture that this model requires basically do not exist in developing countries.This "philosophy of struggle" often exacerbates social contradictions and conflicts in these countries.Blindly adopting Western systems is like opening a Pandora's box, with endless troubles, and the whole society may fall into endless party disputes and internal friction.The consistent practice of the West is to only support the political party it favors. As long as this political party does not come to power, you are not a democratic country, and it will intervene. In the end, your country may never have a peaceful day, and the cause of modernization will be wiped out. .

As mentioned earlier, from the perspective of national governance, we should think about a more essential question: Why does no company use one person, one vote to elect the CEO?Because by doing so, the company would go bankrupt; why doesn't an army use one man one vote to elect the supreme commander?Because an army that does this will not be able to fight; then will a country go bankrupt if it implements one person, one vote?Examples of bankruptcies abound in third world countries.The ancient Greek philosopher Plato explained this more than 2,000 years ago: this system presupposes that people, regardless of whether they are good or bad, exercise the same rights, and the result is "mob" politics, which either elects bad people or cannot tolerate nice guy.In some developing countries, due to the low overall cultural and educational standards, politicians often only need to collude with the underworld to control the majority of votes, and it is ordinary people who suffer in the end.

So why haven't Western countries gone bankrupt with one person, one vote?In fact, Iceland has gone bankrupt, Greece has also gone bankrupt, and many countries are on the verge of bankruptcy.Those countries that have not yet gone bankrupt did not practice one person one vote in the past, and none of them practiced universal suffrage in the process of modernization.The United Kingdom was a superpower in the 18th and 19th centuries. By the beginning of the 20th century, the urban population had accounted for more than 90% of the total population. It still did not implement one person, one vote.One-person-one-vote in the United Kingdom has been a thing since the First World War, and it has set many restrictions on voting rights for a long time. For example, women cannot vote until they are 30 years old, and Oxford and Cambridge graduates have double voting rights.

After the completion of modernization, Western developed countries have formed several characteristics: first, politics and economy have been basically separated, and whoever comes to power will not affect the economy or affect the lives of ordinary people; Ten times the resources per capita, which means that the country has the capital to bear political internal friction; third, the middle class has become the main body of society, and the middle class tends to be stable; fourth, the western elite has gained control through hundreds of years of political experience The capacity of the country's main resources and powers (such as Congress, finance, media, etc.).After these conditions were met, Western countries began to practice one person, one vote.

The basis of Western democracy is mainly the "philosophy of struggle", which is characterized by splitting the society into different factions and then integrating them through party politics. However, in non-Western countries, once a society is divided, it cannot be integrated again. It will only become more and more divided, and even collapse.The basis of Chinese political culture is the "harmonious philosophy", which is characterized by "less division and more integration", seeking the broadest possible social consensus.I once said in the book "China Touches the World": "It is generally believed that China is a society where social consensus is relatively easy to form. This has something to do with our cultural traditions. This is to a large extent our strength. An easy A society that forms a consensus is a mature society, and there is no need to artificially strengthen opposition for the sake of so-called 'democracy'. The naturally formed consensus culture is a very valuable political resource. Exploring the road of deliberative democracy on this basis is more beneficial to China. Significance. It is very one-sided and even stupid to think that in order to achieve democracy, you must learn from the United States, engage in party confrontation, oppose for the sake of opposition, and kill each other. A democracy that can form a consensus is a good democracy. A society of consensus is a good society.”

Western multi-party democratic systems have evolved into a kind of "game democracy" in many places, which is characterized by equating democracy with elections, political marketing with political marketing, and fighting for money, resources, public relations, and public relations. Strategies, images, and performing arts performances; politicians do not need to honor what they say, and voters understand it, because this is "election language", as long as it helps win the election; There are no political achievements to speak of, and they are all logical and beyond reproach.

"Game democracy" has turned many societies into "election societies" that consume a lot of resources.Taking Taiwan’s 2009-2012 election as an example, there were several “by-elections” in succession, followed by the election of the five major municipalities and “legislators” at the end of 2010, and then the general election in March 2012.These elections are highly correlated and have political significance, so even county-level elections require the mobilization of all Taiwan forces.Some scholars estimate that on the political agenda of Taiwan leader Ma Ying-jeou, there is only a "non-election period" of one year and seven months in the four-year term.More people simply refer to Taiwan as an "election society" where elections are held 365 days a year.

"Game democracy" has rapidly made the quality of democracy in many countries mediocre and inferior.The European Union is surprised that the democratization of Eastern Europe in the past 20 years has not elected a politician; in the so-called "democratic countries" of the third world, it is easy for corrupt officials to take power through bribery, and countries often fall into conflicts and wars because of this.Even in developed countries in the West, Bush Jr. of the United States was re-elected for two terms, and his leadership was incompetent. As a result, the national fortune of the United States plummeted, and it became the birthplace and hardest hit area of ​​the financial tsunami, and the world quickly entered the "post-American era"; The "Four Stupid Pigs" in southern Europe have also experienced financial crises one after another. One of the main reasons is that politicians only know how to curry favor with voters, and as a result exhausted the treasury.These countries were once quite prosperous, but only one generation of dudes has wiped out the treasury.

The two parties in Asia that have escaped this political banality are the ruling party in Singapore and the ruling party in China.They are both characterized by their ability to rise above partisanship and their rejection of mediocrity.Now it seems that these two political parties should be the political parties with the strongest administrative and organizational capabilities in the world, which is why they created the two world miracles of Singapore and China.The Asian political parties reformed according to Western standards have all become politically mediocre without exception. They can only represent some interests and factions in society, and they do not have the ability to integrate the interests of society as a whole.Political mediocrity and highly capital-driven problems generally appear in Western democratic systems.Many people of insight in the West are worried about this.

Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson published an article titled "The Flawed American Political Model Helps China" on March 31, 2010, expressing his dissatisfaction with the Concerns about the degradation of Western democracies and challenges to the Chinese model.He wrote: In the Senate, majority decisions are always blocked.The Supreme Court has ruled that big money can dominate our elections like never before.Do you think no one outside the border will notice this?Did Senate Republicans ever realize that our now arch-nemesis, China, was mocking the inability of our democracy to create jobs to revive the economy as evidence of authoritarian superiority. China Daily this month quoted Li Fei, deputy director of the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, as commenting on the flaws in our political system.Li Fei said that Western-style elections are a game for the rich, who are influenced by the resources and funds available to the candidates, and those who manage to win the election are likely to act on the side of their party or sponsors.Lee's point is powerful because it is fairly—though not quite—true.Many conservatives in the United States act in a way that seems eager to prove these words correct.A Supreme Court ruling in January allowed businesses to invest in the campaign without limits.This sounds like a deliberate attempt to validate Lee's point.The Senate is dysfunctional, leading to repeated setbacks in decision-making by the majority.This is a mockery of our democratic values ​​in front of the world.In the fierce competition with China, our first task is to show that democracy still works.If we don't, then China will win.

Nathan Gardels, an American political scientist and editor-in-chief of New Perspectives Quarterly, used the concept of "consumer democracy" to describe the characteristics of American democracy today.The so-called "consumer democracy" refers to an extremely short-sighted "diet coke-style culture", a democratic system that "want sweetness without calories; consumption without saving".This concept is similar to the "game democracy" I proposed.Nathan Gardel admits that the democratic system of the United States can no longer adapt to the challenges brought about by the rise of China. On January 27, 2010, he wrote in the American "Christian Science Monitor": Now we live in a consumer democracy.Under this system, all information fed back from politicians, the media, and the market guides society to obtain immediate self-gratification.This kind of system lacks long-term thinking and planning, lacks the political ability to continue to rule, and is far from being able to respond to China's rise.The new reality requires strengthening the governing ability of the government and designing a better management system - which not only has more constraints, but also better balances the interests of all parties.This system can not only resist the short-term tyranny of "one person, one vote" in the new media era, but also resist various pressures when regular election campaigns are approaching.These pressures are the result of political party planning and the exclusion of democratic deliberation from the instant television news. A system of rule cannot be maintained without the consent of the governed.But as every political sage from Confucius and Plato to Madison, the "father of the US Constitution" understands, when public greed negates governance, both sides suffer.You can all see the extreme example of direct democracy in California, where the power of the public has proved devastating.The California crisis has shown that a Diet Coke-style culture—sweet but calorie-free; consuming without saving; modern infrastructure and good schools without paying taxes—doesn’t work.The failure of governance in California is only a corner of the overall political problems in the United States.In China, when the energies of entrepreneurs were liberated by the free market, the rulers retained a great deal of political governance capacity.With the help of the powerful hands of the new Confucian government, they regulate the benefits released by development in the name of social harmony and long-term development. The example of the bankruptcy of the California government mentioned by Nathan Gardel is a good illustration of the problems of the American system.Politicians' populist short-sighted politics led to a race to cut taxes, first the property tax, then the auto tax, and finally the state of California went bankrupt.The state government later wanted to restore the car tax, but the state legislature obstructed it. As a result, California's finances fell into a vicious circle.Anyone who goes to the United States today will find that the aging and disrepair of various infrastructures in the United States is extremely common. In fact, the political system of the United States is also aging. Although many Americans seem to be unaware of this problem, they think that the United States can really remain unchanged. Should change.Strictly speaking, the design of the political system of the United States belongs to the design of the pre-industrial era, and it must be reformed, otherwise the United States will inevitably decline.The biggest challenge facing Western political systems, including the United States, is the lack of integration and competitiveness, and the lack of a strong concept of talent. The "separation of powers" cannot prevent financial crises at all, because the "separation of powers" is limited to the political field, and the politics of many Western countries have been kidnapped by capital forces.I think modern society needs another kind of balance, that is, the balance between the three forces beyond the political field, that is, the balance between political power, social power, and capital power.Such a country can function better. Today's era is the era of globalization, informationization, and post-industrialization.The new era is more demanding than ever on governments and politicians, as international competition has never been greater.Any wrong decisions could be more costly than ever.Frankly speaking, in today's era, a country that is only satisfied with "game democracy" or "consumer democracy" will not be able to compete with a "non-game democracy" that is committed to institutional innovation; a country that only knows "elections" but not If you know the institutional arrangement of "selection", you will not be able to compete with an institutional arrangement that can combine "selection" and "election"; a person who only knows how to live on his laurels, regards democracy as a game, and does not know how to establish a "learning government" and a "learning government". A country that does not have a "society" will become more and more powerless in international competition; a system that does not know what "macro-control" is may be eliminated in future international competition. "Gaming democracy" or "consumer democracy" is a lot like a spoiled child. If he has family property left by his ancestors, like the United States and major Western powers, he can naturally continue to "game" and squander, but in this competition In an increasingly violent world, this situation will become more and more unsustainable, and for those developing countries that have no family property left by their ancestors, once they become spoiled children, there is no cure.