This isn't exactly breaking news. However, most people do not realize the unanimous Han support for the current CCP government of Hu Jintao and Grandpa Wen.

http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?display=1841

"93% Chinese Support Hu Jintao: Global Leadership Poll

June 23, 2008
1566 Views
1 comments

Global Leadership Poll

Chinese President Hu Jintao got a 93 percent confidence ranking in the middle kingdom -- which proved that "when you're on the rise, there's an upbeat feeling that leads to a sunnier disposition" -- The Chinese feel that life is working for them!"

"The 93% Chinese Support for Hu Jintao" means that any U.S. attempt to orchestrate a "color revolution" (i.e. the current operation in Iran is called the Green Movement) in China is futile. The popular support for the Chinese government is probably the highest in the world. No amount of Tibetan unrest, Uighur riots, or human-rights complaints can dent the stratospheric 93% Chinese support for their leaders. Hans stand united.

Excellent! China is defending herself against unilateral aggression admirably.......and yet so many of the redneck savages wonder why they're despised by most civilised cultures

I think the poll said a lot more about how people in China feel about the current national policies and the direction of the country in general than the man himself. Of course, since he is the President, he always takes the credit. Collectively, it is a vote of confidence for the entire Leadership and the national development schemes being implemented in the coming years and deacdes.

why is this a suprise, Chinese goverment has truly proved that its done something for its people like no other country has, anyone going against Chinese goverment decision is most likely a traitor or US spy or sponsored by India

I'am happy to hears the new ,if fact ,we love the prisent from my heart!~~He is hussone and smart,especiall proximity...

Outside of China, CPC enjoys support from former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, British newspaper "Observer," Swedish Institute of International Affairs, and former CNN senior correspondent Michael Chinoy.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90...42/6690375.html

"CPC given high scores in performance

08:43, July 01, 2009

Related News
CPC observes independence, equality in cooperation, exchanges with foreign parties: FM
China's communist party members near 76 mln, 80% of recruits under 35

China has been taken as a vital motive force for world economy and regarded in an entirely new light, and the international community has also acquired a new, better understanding of the Communist Party of China (CPC) as the force leading the Chinese nation forward against the backdrop of global financial crisis.

China has spent only 30 years to finish the mission that took Britain and the United States a full century to complete during the Industrial Revolution, and greatly improved the livelihood of the Chinese people, said former senior CNN correspondent Michael (Mike) Chinoy. And he said he would give the CPC high scores on account of this point alone.

China's gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an annual average rate of 9.8 percent from 1979 to 2008, noted the"Observatorio de la Politica China"website in Spain. Fast economic growth over the last 30 years has lifted China's GDP ranking in the world from 10th in 1978 to the present 3rd only after the United States and Japan, and the country's import and export volume reported an increase of over 100-fold during the past three decades.

China contributed to 13.8 percent of the world economic growth during the 2003-2005 period, according to an NBS calculation based on World Bank statistics. With the deteriorating global financial crisis as its background, Chinese economy is deemed as an important impetus to the recovery and development of the world economy.

With regard to the role the CPC has played in the course of China's development and construction, Johan Lagerkvist, an ace expert from the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, acknowledged that the governing capacity of CPC can even be said the best to a certain extent.

For decades, the CPC has brought a relatively affluent and comfortable life to ordinary Chinese through economic development and helped improve their livelihood to the maximum, and this has endowed the CPC with a vital, important magic weapon to win the popular support.

China has a vast population but with insufficient arable land. So, it is no easy job for all people to have enough to eat and wear. To date, however, the Chinese people have already crossed the threshold of "Xiaokang", or a better-off life, and they are now enjoying a well-to-do, dignified and respected life.

China's implementation of reform and opening-up is a critical juncture for the humanity at large, noted the "Sydney Morning Herald" newspaper. Since then, one fifth of the global population has begun to rid itself of poverty and head for prosperity, it added.

For decades, the CPC has brought democracy and the rule of law to China through political reform, and this has precisely provided a guarantee for Chinese society to maintain its stability and healthy development. Hence, it has always been the governing concept of the CPC to understand, comply with and represent popular will or sentiments.

In his popular book titled "The Powers of the Future Winners and Losers in Tomorrow", former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt acknowledged that the political stability guaranteed by the Chinese existing (political) system is necessary… So, the Chinese people today enjoy more freedom in their own country than ever before.

For decades, another change the CPC has brought China is a profound self-confidence and pride deep-rooted among Chinese citizens, which has made the Chinese nation full of vigor and vitality. "Have the Chinese people really lost their self-confidence, the late eminent revolutionary writer Lu Xun (1882-1936) once asked in an article he wrote in the early 1930s. People of that era were undoubtedly short of self-confidence on the whole. Today, a 26-year-old girl employed in a foreign transnational firm in Beijing said however that she joined the CPC out of a sense of pride and the sense of belonging when asked by an AFP reporter recently. Meanwhile, British "Observer" newspaper also exclaims in its reportage that China seems to have a strutting mood of self-confidence anywhere.

The inherent reason why Chinese economy has retained its strong capacity and potential for growth despite an adverse impact of the spreading global financial crisis, indicate economic insiders, is that the people in China are more self-confident than ever before and, to date, they have plunged into the enthusing activity to expand domestic demand and consumption. So Premier Wen Jiabao said on a couple of occasions that "confidence is even more precious than gold or any currencies"."

Western Political Process vs. Eastern Results

"It is seen by the Chinese not as an alien presence to be constantly pruned back, as in the West, especially the U.S., but as the embodiment and guardian of society. Rather than alien, it is seen as an intimate, in the manner of the head of the household. It might seem an extraordinary proposition, but the Chinese state enjoys a remarkable legitimacy among its people, greater than in Western societies. And the reason lies deep in China's history. China may call itself a nation-state (although only for the past century), but in essence it is a civilization-state dating back at least two millennia. Maintaining the unity of Chinese civilization is regarded as the most important political priority and seen as the sacred task of the state, hence its unique role: there is no Western parallel."

The United States is insistent that China should adopt American-style democracy. From the Western perspective, your government is not truly legitimate unless you follow our ballot-box approach. This typifies the Western fascination with "process." The West doesn't really care about the quality of its leaders as long as they are elected via the ballot box.

Hans look at the Western process approach and say "no thanks." In the Han view, Western political systems lead to "gridlock," "partisanship," "endless bickering," and "government captured by special interest." Western governments are not any more and possibly less legitimate than China's government.

With our own eyes, we can all see that Western governments protect the interests of big banks (i.e. TARP anyone?), big insurance companies, bailouts of big car companies (i.e. GM and Chrysler), special tax breaks for the wealthy and big companies (i.e. "contract workers" for FedEx, UPS, Comcast, and others who don't pay taxes for Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, worker's compensation, etc.), and other special interests.

As far as Hans can see, Western governments do not primarily protect the interests of its citizens. Every American citizen knows that it's virtually impossible to arrange a meeting with your senator to express your concerns. The U.S. senator is too busy advancing the interests of his/her corporate donors for the re-election campaign.

The CCP is indeed seen as the "head of the household." The CCP delivers results. The country is finally safe from Western military invasions. The CCP has delivered 30 years of 9% economic growth per year. People's lives are becoming better with the building of bullet trains that drastically reduce travel times. The Global Leadership Poll has shown a 93% support of Chinese people for President Hu Jintao. Among Hans only, I suspect the support is closer to 100%.

The CCP leadership of the Han family/nation is doing a great job and ballot-boxes are an alien, unwanted, and unnecessary intrusion. No Han is interested in seeing the CCP leadership being transformed into an inefficient, ineffective, and directionless Western government.

Deng's view on democracy.

"((The United States is insistent that China should adopt American-style democracy.))

No fear. It is bananas like Squarehead Liang, John Mak, Coyote, yourself (closet supporter of democracy IN China), and many, many more living in North America and Taiwan who keep on pressing for "change" in China! ROFL :-)"

Deng's vision for China was gradual democracy after "30 years of reform." I believe that after Mainland Chinese attain a higher standard of living and general education for the broad population, it is inevitable that the middle class will demand a greater voice in government.

History has shown that in Taiwan and South Korea, democracy was not adopted until the per-capita income reached $10,000 to $15,000 U.S. dollars. I support "eventual" greater freedoms and more participation in government for China's people. However, the CCP is doing a great job and political reforms are probably twenty to thirty years away. When the political reforms do occur, remember that is fulfilling Deng's vision for China.

Finally, I do not recommend American-style democracy. I believe that China will eventually have to find "democracy with Chinese characteristics." I do not believe that American-style political partisanship will be constructive in China. I don't even believe that the current "take no prisoner" political attitudes in America is suitable or good for America's future.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/deng-xiaoping/

"After all, Deng famously declared that democracy was “a major condition that ... In the third part of a series on 30 years of reform, Bao Tong writes about ..."

Why Deng is right.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009...partys_not_over

"After all, Deng famously declared that democracy was 'a major condition that emancipated the mind.'"

Why do I think Deng is right? For the last thirty years and for the next thirty years, China is trying to catch-up to Western technology, standard of living, and standard of education for the general population. To achieve the goal of parity with the West, the most effective and efficient form of government is the CCP.

However, I also believe that Abraham Lincoln is right. It seems intuitively obvious that: "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." This is politically-incorrect, but I'm going to say it anyway. Currently, China has too many uneducated or under-educated peasants to permit an effective form of democratic government. I believe that China must wait at least twenty to thirty years.

The CCP is terrific as a transitional government. After the CCP accomplishes its incredible and historic task of modernizing China, it must eventually seek support from an educated Chinese populace. It would be an odd duck for a small group of people (i.e. an oligarchy in the politburo) to rule over 1.4 billion Chinese without obtaining their periodic consent. There is no mandate of heaven. There exists only a mandate from the Chinese people.

The current unspoken agreement between the CCP and the Chinese people is that the CCP delivers 8% to 9% economic growth per year and the people do not demand political reforms. This is the same agreement that was in effect in Taiwan for decades. The agreement will be revised when the country becomes wealthy, modern, and prosperous. This is common sense.

The Winds of Change.

China's government does not exist in a vacuum. China's government currently has the implicit support (i.e. 93% approval for Hu) of her people. Thirty years from now, China's government will probably seek explicit support from her people.

We are already witnessing China's government respond to netizens. Mark my words. In thirty years, China's government will be far more responsive to her citizens. Young people want accountability and change. China will continue to evolve with the times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9110818166.html

"China's 'netizens' hold authorities to new standard
Government must deal with online criticism as blogs ignite furor

By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, November 9, 2009

A severed finger sparked an online uproar that went viral. And very quickly, rattled authorities here took note.

The story of Sun Zhongjie, a 19-year-old driver who chopped off his finger to decry police entrapment, shows how the Internet has become an effective tool of public protest in this tightly controlled country.

Almost every form of open dissent is outlawed in China, but mass protests organized online are increasingly putting pressure on police, judges and other officials -- and getting results.

Last June in Hubei province, an online campaign by netizens, as they are popularly called here, helped free a 22-year-old waitress arrested for killing a local official in what appeared to be a clear case of self-defense. In Nanjing, a top official was expelled from the Communist Party and jailed after angry netizens posted photos online of him smoking expensive cigarettes, sporting a pricey watch and driving a Cadillac.

Across the country, online petition drives and surveys have prompted police to reopen closed cases, authorities to cancel unpopular development projects and the party's national leadership to fire corrupt local officials.

In the view of academic experts, lawyers, bloggers and others here, the Internet is introducing a new measure of public accountability and civic action into China's closed and opaque political system.

"This is the era of disguised accountability," said Hu Xingdou, a sociology professor at the Beijing Institute of Technology. "That means holding government officials accountable by relying on the Internet rather than on traditional means like elections and the checks by the Congress."

For the moment, the central government in Beijing appears to be allowing Internet protests to continue, and in some instances even encouraging them -- as long as the campaigns are confined to local issues and target local officials. It appears to be a way for the central government to keep track of what is happening in the provinces while demonstrating that it is responsive to citizens' concerns."

Over the years, I've changed my stance over which political system is best suited for any country's final form of government. There is a tidal wave from the Western countries of what I perceive to be an ideologically driven motive pushing for Western-style MULTI-PARTY democratic government. In my opinion, in China's case and many others, it is a mistake. This is not because I don't think it can work because once a country's general education level reaches a certain point, it most definitely can work just like it does in most post industrial societies. My contention is, MULTI-PARTY democracy inevitably leads to the creation of destructive politics. There are so many cases of multi-party democracies where the parties are simply arguing and fighting just to get re-elected that it begs the question whether all these arguments extolling the virtues of such governance have any solid merit when there are other examples out there that appear to be far more appealing.

Over time, the evolution of ANY multi-party democracy will evolve into a bureaucratic jumble of rules and regulations to protect this or that interest group until it starts to bog down the entire society in general into a general morass of stultifying gridlock. I look at the supposedly most developed multi-party democracies and can unequivocally proclaim that most of them are gradually evolving into bureaucratic, selfish, hedonistic cultures. This may sound like a bold claim but I dare anybody to intelligently refute it who actually lives in one.

Why do I say this? Take a look around the world and what do you see? Everywhere there is MULTI-PARTY government, you have a destructive dialogue between the competing parties as they each vie to get re-elected. There is often coalition politics to get into power without the entire coalition actually believing in the coalition's decisions. The result is what we see with huge bureaucracies being built up over time as every Tom, Dick and Harry gets to put their 2 cents into every law and regulation whether it's constructive to the society and culture or not.

Look at the development of Singapore, how efficient and effective the PAP government is and how they deftly acknowledge and fairly rule the vast majority of Singapore's population with a mixture of meritocracy and democracy. I believe this is the model that China and all countries of the world should follow. Looking at it's performance, it's almost unbelievable how Singapore has accomplished what it has without incurring some sort of black ops CIA/NED funded assassination of its leaders because it poses an obviously successful government alternative. In my opinion, this is the direction the CCP is heading towards and China's ultimate aim for the form of democracy they allude to. I think there has even been some public comments about this years ago that China was studying the Singapore model to see how it could fit into China's circumstances.

I've read this same comment maybe 50 different times and I don't know where it comes from. It seems to be some sort of accepted dogma that's being repeated over and over to the point where nobody is questioning its validity. I can understand how it could be derived though. If China were not growing 8%-9% per year, it would obviously start running into more problems of inequality, unemployment, etc. The correlation with development has little to do with democracy, yet this line of reasoning is repeated without analysis over and over.

As I see with alot of reporting, this appears like an ideologically driven belief, or perhaps in this case more like an oft repeated slogan since there always seems to be the need to throw in an obligatory jab at China, in most articles. Let's dissect this a little more. I'll take a guess that a large number of the people repeating this....NOT you though.... are not so secretly hoping that China has a revolution and falls apart to be reformed into a multi-party democracy American-style. Now, what is the likelihood that this will happen? Current estimates are that China's work force will stop growing by around 2010-2014. Given that all indications point to China continuing to grow close to double digits for the next 10 years at the minimum, dramatic unemployment won't be a problem. As a matter of fact, I could give a good argument that China's supposed rural under-employed will be fully employed, in cities, by 2025 and that there will be an employment shortage by 2030. While this is happening, China's economy will have multiplied 4-5 fold. In other words, if you really analyze the statement....

"unspoken agreement between the CCP and the Chinese people is that the CCP delivers 8% to 9% economic growth per year and the people do not demand political reforms"

...it's really much ado about nothing, but it makes the anti-China crowd feel just a little bit better. There are alot of little jabs that the anti-China crowd make to comfort themselves, it's just the way it is, but it doesn't change reality which I believe infuriates them. Why else the non-stop attacks and resorting to moral outrage when they've got nothing else?

Multi-party democracy may work if special interest is banned from influencing elections and government policy. America's government seemed to work pretty well for two hundred years and then it went downhill (e.g. gridlock and partisanship). With the rise of multinationals, good luck trying to get laws passed that are opposed by the oil companies, insurance companies, big banks, etc.

Since I'm not a political scientist, I have no idea how to design a political structure to effectively eliminate or minimize the power and influence of special interest groups/industries. One possible step is to ban all campaign contributions by big business. As China becomes prosperous, one of the challenges for the CCP is to design a fair and effective government that permits more participation by the citizenry and business concerns, without falling into the trap of being captured by special interest groups.

I have always been surprised by the myopic "anti-China crowd." Those people see the world as a zero sum game. In reality, the pie is growing and China's growth is good for the entire world. The world market for goods and services has increased dramatically. The price for some components and finished goods has dropped dramatically. As China's living standards continue to grow, imports are also growing at a fast pace. These changes are all beneficial for the world economy.

It should be obvious to everyone that China's growth is a win-win for everyone in the world. China's innovations are bringing new and better products to the world market. For example, China's 940 patents for its 350 kph high-speed trains are a boon for any country that desires fast and efficient mass transportation.

Actually, America's government worked terribly in the first two hundred years. It was nominally a so-called democracy but it was filled with discriminatory laws enacted by the free and fair elections of it's multi-party democracy. There were interest groups that lobbied for slavery, banning of land ownership by competing groups and ethnicities, denial of education to certain groups, institution of the financial interests of the financial oligarchies interests, etc, etc, etc. You've got to be kidding? The term Robber Baron capitalist has its roots in the unfair rules and regulations lobbied for by the interest groups of the time who kept the working classes under their boots. These monied interest groups also very often held political positions to further their goals...just as they still do today.



Banning campaign contributions would not solve the problem because the basic problem with any MULTI-PARTY system is that it is an inherently divisive system. Money will help move any interest group up any ladder faster and further than anything else. However, one needs to just look at how NGOs go about moving their agenda and you can see how a determined minority can move the masses who very often vote based on their gut feelings.

Concerning that part of the electorate that make decisions on the above....gut feelings, their emotions, etc, this is another reason why Singapore's hybrid system of democracy+meritocracy is vastly superior. It largely removes, to be honest, uneducated, ignorant and sometimes stupid, people who are unqualified to lead the people from the leadership and positions of power requiring some sort of expertise.

There are two ways to look at American history for the first two hundred years. As you have stated, there were many social and economic injustices. Another view is that the trend was a constant improvement. As time went on, more social groups received equal treatment under the law. Also, the living standard kept rising, which explains the wealth of Americans today. The government used to be able to deliver consistent 2% annual economic growth, foster the development of useful new technology, and stay out of debt except for wars. On balance, using the social standards of two hundred years ago, it is not unreasonable to claim that America's government was fairly effective, albeit unfair to many groups.

The thing that troubles me with the Singapore model is that elitism bothers me at a gut level. Surely, there must be a solution that includes granting the largest weight to the voice of the people. To me, Singapore's model looks like a modern form of aristocracy. There must be a different answer that is more inclusive. The common man may be "ignorant and sometimes stupid," but it is the job of government officials to explain the need for particular government policies to the people.

That there was constant improvement in American governance in its first 200 years isn't so much to brag about considering much of its beginnings and expansion was built on the extermination of American-Indians in unison with confiscating their land and African slavery, we're talking real slavery here not some hippie talk about pseudo-slave labour where somebody makes $1/hour. The barbarism of that period makes today's atrocities look tame. However, if you are narrowing this down to the Jefferson Constitution, then you may have a point....IN THEORY. Theory is only useful when it's put into practice and it was definitely not, considering the above, not to mention women's rights, racist laws, worker exploitation, child labour, you name it, it was a Dickensian nightmare. That America was successful from an economic-technological perspective early on doesn't mean it was a moral and fair society even though there is vast propaganda to the contrary just as Stalin's forced industrialization and purges of the 1930s does not make him a great leader because he accelerated the modernization of the Soviet Union and gave it the means to beat down the Nazis in WWII.

I think the American revolution has been overly glorified and too much of an attempt to link up the best of what exists in the U.S. today vs. what is an overly simplistic interpretation of the American Revolution and early U.S. history. This is not to say I don't admire what the U.S. used to represent. American leadership in the 20th century after WWI up until JFK, especially under Franklin D. Roosevelt was a shining beacon for the world at the time, something that America has all rights to be extremely proud of. Without the United States, the world would be a far worse place today, but not because of what the U.S. has become today.

The Singapore model is not based on elitism, although it may seem so if you read all the negative articles about it. There is an insinuation in Western mass media that Singapore's PAP party retains its political power as if it is a dictatorship. Let's get something straight, Singapore has a multi-party parliamentary form of government. What is interesting about it is that the Singapore PAP party has retained nearly monopolistic political control since Singapore's birth. They've been able to do this because their rule has brought massive absolute prosperity to Singapore and also because they instituted laws to prevent all political parties and their media supporters from spreading rumours, lies and hearsay, that would otherwise run amok as it does in all other multi-party democracies that allow unsubstantiated attacks on their political enemies. This is a good thing in my opinion, just look at the bi-partisan politics in the U.S. and the amount of garbage spewn as news in the name of free speech. It's a travesty to have the high ideals of free speech associated with much of what I read being passed off as news, rather than editorial or opinion.

With this continual PAP party control, Singapore has instituted a sort of soft authoritarian governmental style instituting meritocratic policies akin to a modern form of the Confucian Imperial exams of ancient China. To those who might interpret this as looking aristocratic, considering Singapore's leaders are democratically voted in on the back of an unprecedented rise of prosperity that has lasted nearly 50 years continuing even now despite having a per capita income closing in on $40000. Considering why Lee Kuan Yew and what appears like a long succession of PAP chosen heirs has been able to remain in power, its pretty obvious why they've been able to stay in power and why meritocracy in a democratic system work wonders. Singapore today is a high prosperity, low crime, clean, efficient, modern, educated, fiscally responsible, home ownership society that doesn't tolerate harmful drugs, hooliganism, crime, and other variety of negative social behavior. That's what happens when you have an uninterrupted string of capable, educated leaders with the expertise to manage a country and not a bunch of lawyers turned politicians who know how to talk a good talk.

Disagree with your last part.......their ideas they claim to promulgate are good but the practise of putting those ideas into action is little to none.......blacks were given the right to be freemen after 1865 but it wasn't till 1960 that they were given the right to drink out of the same water fountain or go to a same restaurant......if you study USA's history you will see many examples of this........all nations do this to a certain measure but two things separate the USA/UK from all others:

1. Other nations are not so ready to not accept their faults
2. They don't claim to be beacons for the world while trying to eradicate all other parts of the earth that they don't agree with. Perhaps the most striking problem with USA the last 200 years (this is not something new and has been present ever since 1780 in US history) is its complete hypocrisy in regard to written laws it ardently and impassionately supposedly holds true and respects

conclusion: these people follow the law ONLY when it suits them

I stand corrected, as I was referring to the narrow focus of America's role in dismantling the world order of the European colonial powers colonies, especially over the British by agreement, after WWII. Without this American pressure, many of the colonies would have had a much more violent outcome because the Soviet Union was beginning to supply arms to independence movements throughout the world by then. Perhaps this was done in anticipation of the former colonies becoming supplicant nations to the now formally acknowledged superpower status of the United States. The result though was the freeing of much of the world from bondage.

Concerning the discriminatory U.S. laws, I don't hold U.S. behavior below that of other countries for at that time, the whole world was like that. I agree that their historical hypocrisy of broken American-Indian treaties, biased interpretation of laws, and indeed for anything where they have the power to take the advantage, is unfortunate. However, this is to be expected, for the U.S. comes from the same tradition as England and Holland which have all demonstrated this pattern over many centuries. I'm sure this is why there are so many countries hoping for China to become the alternative to the U.S. hyperpower considering the expectation that the U.S. will stab them in the back whenever it suits them simply because they have the power to do it.

In a meaningful and fair debate, the rule is to acknowledge what is true and move on from there. I do not dispute any of the horrors mentioned in your "Dickensian nightmare." Nevertheless, if I dwell on those uncomfortable historical facts, my fellow Americans would be very upset. Therefore, I offer the only excuse possible. Most of those injustices and shocking behavior were not committed by most of the Americans alive today.

This is a difficult subject because if the Native Americans were not displaced by the Anglo-Saxon immigrants then North America would be mostly Native Americans today. Where does that leave most of the current residents of the U.S. of A.? Furthermore, without the U.S. government to sponsor the development of the computer and internet, what kind of technologically-backward society will we be living in today?

Despite the West's historical faults, modern China needed Germany to invent synthetic fertilizer (i.e. Haber-Bosch process) to feed China's 1.3 billion people. One pound of synthetic fertilizer is equivalent to 100 pounds of recycled ###### manure (e.g. natural fertilizer). Similarly, China also needed the U.S. to reverse engineer its modern technologies. Furthermore, China needed the U.S. to set up a worldwide trading system (i.e. GATT and its successor WTO). The bottom line is that there were unjust societies in the West, however China needed the West to become the technologically powerful country that it is today. How can ethnic Chinese seriously criticize the West when China clearly benefited significantly from Western development?

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_wo...ough_pig_manure

"Apr 30, 2008 ... the reporters note that one pound of chemical fertilizer contains more of the major nutrients -- nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium -- than 100 pounds of manure. ... And since synthetic fertilizer -- especially nitrogen-based ... There was only one thing missing from the Times story -- any ..."

There is no question that a one-party beneficent dictatorship is more effective and efficient at governing. However, this form of government is very risky when viewed from a long-term perspective. There is a reason that both Taiwan and South Korea chose to move away from beneficent dictatorial rule to a democracy with checks and balances.

After a country becomes developed, it makes the most sense to move to a form of government with fragmented power centers. In democracies, power is distributed among the executive (e.g. president), legislative (e.g. congress), judicial (e.g. courts), and media (e.g. tv and newspapers to expose corruption). An indefinite government based on dictatorial rule runs the risk of the emergence of a Stalin. In other words, when power is concentrated in the hands of one or very few individuals, your country and society can regress very quickly.

The usual argument in the United States to support democratic government is that it is the least bad of the choices available. In a democracy, a deranged president can be removed and the damage limited. In a country with one party rule, a Stalin or Saddam Hussein with consolidated power is untouchable. Democracy is messy, but it may be the only good long-term choice after a country becomes developed.

If this were the mantra of the currently living leaders of the U.S. then the lessons of history would mean nothing to them and is great cause for worry. History is taught for a reason.



You're beginning to play a what-if? game here using an unbalanced scenario. First, the current residents of the U.S. of A would not exist so the question of where Americans would go makes no sense. :) Secondly, what does the invention of anything have to do with this conversation? I'm not sure where you're going with this other than to imply that you think we were talking about the right of the U.S. to exist?



This is another unbalanced what-if? scenario and also seems unrelated to what the message thread was about??? What does Germany have to do with what I said about the U.S., which are facts, something that should just be declared true and we move on as you say.

There is a critical difference between Singapore and the former governments of Taiwan and South Korea. Singapore is already a democracy. Taiwan was an outright dictatorship while South Korea was similar to what Russia is today, nominally a democracy, with a president changing laws to remain in power.



I've always found that argument about America's form of government being the least bad, but there is no better form of government to be fundamentally flawed because all it's saying is that America is the best, right or wrong. I agree that there is a danger when power is concentrated within a single party which is why the concept of political party should be changed when it comes to Singapore. Wiemar Germany is a great example of a democracy turned into a fascist dictatorship overnight. However, accepting the obviously fundamentally flawed system of liberal-democratic multi-party democracy is a mistake and to be avoided if possible. Singapore isn't exactly a Gestapo style "regime". Free speech is limited to those who defame others, whether through rumours, hearsay or purposeful lies. There are also clauses that limit certain publications if those publications are found to be potentially harmful in their biased reporting. I think this is a positive thing. There is a big difference between a spirited debate vs manufactured bylines.

I'm injecting politics and realism into this debate. If we have a purely theoretical debate, which you seem to be winning big-time, then many people may dismiss this discussion as egg-head academic jousting.

The problems that I'm raising are that our disagreements on the merits and weaknesses of the American political system will have little effect if no one in America or China is interested in reciting the litany of American historical wrongs.

Your line of argument appears to be let's indict the American political system because of its long history of injustices. Your point is well-taken. You are placing a heavy focus on the journey. On the other hand, I'm pointing out that the "end of the journey" is a pretty fair and just society. The current American society treats almost everyone fairly, including trying to extend equal treatment under the law to gay people.

Let's use a manufacturing analogy. You point to all of the errors that were incurred in building a rocket. Instead, I place more emphasis on the nearly-perfected rockets of today. We are using two completely different measurements to evaluate America's democracy. You look at the sum of its history. I only look at the end product and sweep the ugliness of the first 150 years or so under the rug. Do you agree that slavery prior to the American Civil War from 1861-1865 has little relevance today?

Your arguments have me excited about experimenting with Singapore's type of government on a larger scale. Perhaps a province of China can try a Singapore-style government to evaluate its effectiveness. Or can you point to a larger Singapore-like government?

Singapore worries me because like ancient Athens, it is merely a city-state. City-states have unique characteristics due to their small size and their political structures may not be suited for anything larger than a city-state. For example, Athen's direct democracy could never work on a scale larger than a city-state. We need proof that Singapore's type of government is scalable and will retain its effectiveness.

Premier Wen Jiabao acknowledges that "maintaining a certain growth rate for the economy is essential for expanding employment for both urban and rural residents, increasing people's incomes and ensuring social stability." Premier Wen is explicitly linking economic growth (e.g. about 8%) to social stability (i.e. lack of demand for political reforms).

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/...nt_10948049.htm

"Premier: China "able to achieve" about 8% growth
www.chinaview.cn 2009-03-05 10:47:55

NPC, CPPCC Annual Sessions 2009

BEIJING, March 5 (Xinhua) -- China will be able to achieve the economic growth target of about 8 percent in 2009, if proper policies and measures are taken, said Premier Wen Jiabao in his government work report to the parliament's annual session Thursday.

"As long as we adopt the right policies and appropriate measures and implement them effectively, we will be able to achieve this target," Wen told the Second Session of the 11th National People's Congress (NPC).

It is the fifth year in a row for the country to target an eight-percent growth, after the economy reported a single-digit growth of nine percent last year.

"In China, a developing country with a population of 1.3 billion, maintaining a certain growth rate for the economy is essential for expanding employment for both urban and rural residents, increasing people's incomes and ensuring social stability," said Wen."

My argument isn't about any injustices, that was a response to a different line of discussion that popped up that was not related to my earlier message where I was talking about the problems with MULTI-PARTY democracy. I went back to re-read what I wrote about that, "MULTI-PARTY DEMOCRACY", and I think I expressed my thoughts about it pretty well. Concerning the end of the journey, who says there is only 1 way to that end?



Like I said, it was a response to a different line of discussion. I was simply providing my take on what I perceived as your painting of America's glorious first 200 years. I would like to provide my own manufacturing analogy though. Say I was pointing out all the errors that are inherent in the x86 CPU architecture while you were placing more emphasis on the already perfected 64-bit Pentium processor, which is a fully evolved x86 architecture, you'd be looking pretty good given that it's probably used on most peoples computers and is the de facto world desktop general purpose processor. However, since it's soon to run up against the physical limits of its architecture, it's eventually going to be replaced. That's how I view multi-party democracy. It's become so divisive and inefficient that as time goes by, it's getting harder and harder to get things done as well as being an inherently elitist platform. Problem is, political systems are not processors so I'm afraid we're stuck with this until there's a revolution. Thing is, it's stable enough that revolution is unlikely UNLESS some sort of financial meltdown occurs, something that only people who fully understand Fractional Reserve Banking can appreciate. I'm just hoping that China doesn't fall into this trap because it's the World's only hope for a new era of democracy, assuming it can survive the wave of subversive operations coming its way.

This is a very complicated analysis which involves not just the theoretical advantages/disadvantages of a government system considering the various cultures and groups within each country. There's an oft mentioned statement that democracy should only be introduced once the middle-class of a nation has grown to the point where their critical mass will be enough to demand a change in government. I don't believe this is true because it's relying on a straight-line statistical correlation between the history of some current democracies and the lower economic level of their past. I compare this to the statistical health studies that PROVE if you walk 2km per day that you'll have a 75% lower chance of heart disease. Now, what's wrong with this statistic? The issue is that there are many variables statistics often do not take into account, which together can alter the outcome dramatically. In this example, this person walking 2km per day might be eating 5000 calories a day and grossly obese, they might be taking harmful drugs, etc. I'm simplifying this....but the point is so are the people who take as religion the FACT...that multi-party democracy is the end result of a larger middle class instead of looking at this in more depth as having many many variables that isn't as simple as transplanting something one might call universal.

In regards to how Singapore's political system can apply to other countries, it is very very possible, but it depends on the country and over time, it may apply to countries that today it would utterly fail in. Concerning China's potential to attain a democratic government with success rivaling Singapore's, there are potential international barriers that might impede its implementation independent of China itself. This has to do with the existing world Fractional Reserve Banking order. I'll write up a bit on this concerning China later on after giving this some more thought.

I agree that America's political gridlock and partisanship are ill-suited to solve the challenging problems that are facing the country. While I disagree on the need for a revolution, there had better be some serious reforms or changes in the American political structure. Otherwise, the economic (i.e. debt, deficit, and lack of jobs), social (i.e. wealth inequality and lack of class mobility), and military (i.e. endless wars) problems will continue to fester and sap the country of its vitality and future.

Your point on more variables and a complex situation is well-taken. However, there is a strong correlation between a large middle-class and the demand for more economic and political freedoms (i.e. see Taiwan or South Korea). This is also logical. As people become well-educated and better fed, they want a bigger voice in organizing their society and country.

Due to the strong correlation and logical basis for believing that a larger middle-class demands more democratic freedoms, the burden shifts onto the shoulders of those who claim otherwise. To be persuasive, you must specifically mention some of the omitted major variables and explain their causal effect.

My point was to highlight the fallacy of the so-called "deal" that China's government provide high economic growth in return for the Chinese population's support. I think this idea of some "deal" was created in the mind of a democracy advocating journalist and just spread out as some accepted myth by all other like minded thinkers and that's how it became so popular.

To address the quote by Wen Jiabao, this does not dispute my earlier contention. All he's saying is that unemployment, inequality, etc, which fast growth helps to eliminate, is bad so it's better to not have droves of disgruntled, angry, unemployed people, same as in any other country on Earth I would assume. This actually supports my theory that China's government is trying to keep economic growth at this level to ensure a smooth urbanization transition. Here's a pertinent quote from what I said earlier...



In other words, China's policy is reflective of my above self-quote. If things do turn out as Wen Jiabao states, then it will mean China will have urbanized while maintaining low-unemployment in BOTH the urban AND rural areas AND avoid the related problems associated with mass urbanization from an agrarian society in 1 generation. It almost sounds impossible and yet this is where it looks like things are headed, so there is definitely a reason why I think they want to keep growth at this level for the next 10 years or so, but not because of some myth that China will disintegrate otherwise.

The skill with which China's leaders guide that country is almost beyond belief. I don't know if China's strategists planned things out this way or if it's just dumb luck. However, if it was on purpose, then the prescient foresight of China's leaders are in inspiration to every poor country in the world looking for a brighter future. Just goes to show what former engineers can do instead of former lawyers.

What the U.S. is now doing in terms of spending is like digging its own grave. This health care bill that they're going to pass, while well meaning, is just piling on more entitlements to destroy what chance America has of coming out of this financial debacle in good shape. There has to be a severe, and I mean severe cutbacks across the board or the U.S. as it is known today will cease to be. I'm not talking revolution, that can only happen if there is an utter total collapse of the monetary system, but that's not an impossibility anymore.

I disagree that the so-called strong statistical correlation you're referring to is correct. So, why should the onus be on me to prove this wrong instead of you proving it right? You're assuming it's correct and leaving it to me to quote history that may stretch decades to make my point. lol I won't go that route, too time consuming, so I'll try debunking this another way.

The strong correlation you're referring to is EXACTLY the sort of statistical mish-mashing that I was talking about in regards to the logic used to explain why countries democratize. With the statistical correlation you're referring to, most of it is based on comparisons between the percentage of middle-class citizens and the likelihood that that country/territory will become a democracy. Looking at the world today, the way each democracy evolved and when they became democracies, I would say it's accurate to say that most countries did not become democracies only when they gained a critical mass of middle-class citizens. The acceptance of democracy is due to many possible scenarios, variables. Some that come to mind would be committed atrocities, seizure of land, oppression of some sort, over taxation, the public persecution of some person, you get the picture. These would be some INDIGENOUS causes for calls to democratize, none of which require some critical mass of middle-class. There can be EXTERNAL causes as well such as foreign subversive movements, aka. via CIA, NED, wars, etc.

It may be getting obvious where I'm going with this considering the vast number of scenarios, variables, that may come into play. I'm emphasizing this point because this is omitted from the statistical studies. All mass movements are driven by events. They can be either traumatic or mild. The degree to which a population will want CHANGE, as Barack Obama likes to say, is commensurate with the problems present at the time, NOT with income and some mythological formula like you can predict Human behavior with a calculator. This is why the poorest of the poor who have been exposed to world media will often demand democracy even though the vast majority of their country's population hasn't reached any critical mass of middle-class. Witness the backlashes in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan after their color revolutions when their economies tanked. Same thing with Russia, after the economic crises of the 1990s there was a backlash and Putin now runs Russia like some sort of mafia democracy. If you start moving up the income scale of various democratic countries, there wasn't some magical point when they transitioned to democracy. It was usually a result of some event in their country whether indigenous or foreign that triggered a wave of anger or hopelessness. A country's population doesn't just start demanding democracy without reason unless there are underlying problems to trigger a desire for change. These are concrete ideas about real life that do not require egghead hypotheticals to understand. :)

You provided the specific examples of South Korea and Taiwan. I could easily bring up counter examples like Hong Kong, Monaco, Saudi Arabia, etc, that do not fit so nicely into this statistical model. Statistics is about probability, I think I put alot of doubt into the statistical predictability of this statistical model.

I'll say one thing. You have a very interesting non-mainstream point of view. You have provided sufficient variables and subtle counterarguments that I'll keep an eye out for those factors. In any case, you've shown me the roadmap to construct an alternative hypothesis to widely-accepted beliefs. Though you still have not pulled me into your camp regarding the major impetus for political reforms, your unconventional way of looking at the world is intriguing.

There is a reason that the burden shifts to you when conventional wisdom is being challenged. A lot of smart people over the decades have looked at the correlation between increasing living standards and the transition to democracy. The collective brainpower of all those scholars, Nobel Prize laureates, government officials, and many others have arrived at the conclusion that an expanding middle class will eventually want more participation in their own society.

A naysayer is challenging decades of collective knowledge, which means that a naysayer is basically making an extraordinary claim. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence and/or logic to persuade others that collective wisdom is wrong.

Here is conventional wisdom and the reasons behind the widely-accepted belief that a growing middle class eventually wants democratic political reforms.

http://www.demdigest.net/blog/regions/resu...-democracy.html

"But liberal democrats need not be overly concerned, argue Daniel Deudney of Johns Hopkins University and Princeton’s G. John Ikenberry. Writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, they dispute recent arguments of authoritarian resurgence, highlighting “deep contradictions between authoritarian political systems and capitalist economic systems”:

* rising living standards and education levels generating demands for political participation, articulated by a middle class with an interest in challenging unaccountable decision-makers;
* private property necessitates rule of law, and economic rights and institutions become “an intrinsic limitation on state power and, over time, create demands for wider political rights”;
* capitalist economic development produces a profusion of complexity and specialized activities, and this “diversity of socioeconomic interests leads to demands for competitive elections between multiple parties”.

Deudney and Ikenberry outline the “deeply rooted incapacities and dysfunctions …. inherent in the structure of autocratic hierarchies”:

* corruption arising from abuse of state power is hard to constrain in autocratic regimes without constitutional checks and balances;
* history suggests that the political cleavages and conflicts resulting from social and economic inequalities can only be resolved through universal-franchise democracy, political parties responsive to diverse needs and interests, and some firm of welfare state;
* autocratic hierarchies cannot perform optimally because of weak accountability and inadequate information. “Contemporary autocratic capitalist regimes … are still intrinsically impeded by censorship and the absence of open debate on policy alternatives,” as China’s 2003 SARS illustrated, with 'severe consequences for public welfare and political legitimacy.'”

The collective brain power of 10 million chimpanzees would still not be enough to invent fire, figuratively speaking. One only has to look at history to discover the fables that were once accepted as fact. I'm not disrespecting the intelligence of all the experts who may be involved in this, but I am claiming that many of them are sloppy with their research and sometimes are also ideologically biased in one way or another. There's a reason why the term, "Who's the source" became popular, whenever you quote something. Many Nobel prizes are obviously awarded for political reasons, so it is an untrustworthy source for anything other than hard sciences given its tendencies. Concerning the collective brain power of government officials, are you serious?....the only clear exceptions to this rule is Singapore and the top-tier of China.

Concerning the article you quoted, he's using some reasonably accurate statements to back up faulty conclusions. The points are also using some variables in isolation as if by themselves they can lead to a much larger result that requires a boatload criteria for them to happen.



This is one part that I am ALMOST in agreement with, but he still got it partly wrong. It's mostly because of the better education levels which would make it more likely that the educated person would be knowledgeable enough to recognize the poor leadership of the leaders. This doesn't mean ONLY the educated would be able to recognize poor leadership, just MORE "likely" to. If a leader is bad enough, the poorest of the poor and dumbest of the dumb will recognize it and will want another leader. This is all assuming something would trigger this, otherwise probably nothing would happen. You can have poor leaders in power, in the limelight, doing a very poor job, in a multi-party democracy and still nothing would happen if enough rah-rah types are pushing their agenda in the media.



This sounds correct, but what he's omitting, and this is more important then the institutions, is the culture that revolves around those institutions. Without the culture to respect and support those institutions, the institutions will largely be ignored or even abused to the advantage of certain groups. For example, if a brand new government were to start adding laws and it decided to add 2 laws....

1. Thou Shalt not kill
2. Thou Shalt pay 70% tax to support thy lazy neighbor

...pretty much every culture in the world will support the first law and it will become an institution. For the second law, it might be accepted in Sweden and maybe France, but in most other countries, there would be riots. :)



He starts off with a truth here about economics, then goes on to what I perceive as an incomprehensible conclusion about politics. So, he's saying that capitalism results in a creative explosion of activities, AGREED....and this will eventually lead to a multi-party democracy??? Say again??? China is just about the most capitalist country on Earth today and out of 1334 million people, there's barely a peep about this except from people who are being abused, which has nothing to do with the capitalist system. Indeed, said people usually protest by calling for the government to punish their opponent not to punish the government instead. The only reason this could lead to competitive elections between multiple parties is where lawyers would want to specialize into positions of greater wealth and influence, aka Politics.



Constitutional checks and balances are nice if they work. However, in the real world, constitutional laws mean nothing if they are not followed because of the sub-culture of the people who are supposed to be carrying out their execution. Witness the amazing Constitution of China and how it's often arbitrarily abused. There needs to be rule of law in order for a constitution to work as intended. Rule of law follows the preparation of the culture to follow it, not the other way around. I believe most people in China understand this considering their leaders and population have all nearly unanimously stated that democracy of some type is in China's future, but not for several decades.



I largely agree with this, although I think he's stretching it when he uses the word "ONLY' as if it's the one and only way to salvation. This sort of subtle language is rife in Western media and what I sense contributes to why so many people have become ideologically biased.



Largely true, although his example is a poor one since following SARS, China was overly responsive to the H1N1 so-called epidemic. So, in the case of China, this throws a monkey wrench into this theory because I have many other examples where they demonstrated an openness to debate, alternatives and improvement. This is not to say there still isn't even greater room for improvement, because there is. The point is to realize that this article and theory has some subtle bias in it and it's full of holes that I don't even need to research considering almost all of it can be argued just using common sense.

Considering China is undergoing a massive urbanization at the moment, still has the Hukou System in place, and has a still relatively poorly educated populace, I'd say the optimal time will not arrive for at least another 25 years. I say optimal time because China could implement democracy next week and it would work, but really badly, there would initially be lots of turmoil followed by a long decline in government efficiency eventually bogging down and turning into a more efficient version of India.

Now let's say we're in the year 2035. China now has a per capita GDP of $40000 USD$ (after currency appreciation), 98% literacy, university enrollment rate of over 50%. Great infrastructure reaches into every poor mountainous, isolated part of China. There's full employment, urban and rural, and the stark rich-poor income disparity has alleviated. Rule of Law is much much stronger by this time with decades of cultural acclimation. Now the conditions are ripe for a relatively SMOOTH transition. Those predictions are estimates garnered from the projections of government reports and independent studies.

The type of democracy would be an evolution of the existing Chinese government today. The difference would be that the description, "Communist Party of China" would be replaced with "Government of China" period. The idea of a party would be eradicated from the political thought of the Chinese and all officials would be either directly elected or assigned to posts by directly elected officials. The electorate would need to be a minimum age of 21 to vote, and they would be able to vote in all elections except for provincial governors, mayors of cities with populations larger than 1 million, and the national leadership. For citizens at least 35 years old, they would be able to vote for any government official in their jurisdiction, including for the aforementioned restrictions to the younger voters. The ageist census suffrage is reflective of China's culture and tradition as well as accounting for the increased experience and knowledge that could be argued is beneficial when voting for higher level officials. It's debatable what age to use for this but here I'll use 35. The influence each jurisdiction would have would also reflect their population, not any gerrymandered boundaries.

Anybody aspiring to enter politics would begin their campaign by trying to garner the support of the public in their jurisdiction. They would need to get the signature (aka. some sort of voter ID) of as many advocates as possible and then present this list to an electoral council who would evaluate the suitability of the candidate. This evaluation would be based on Rules and HARD NUMBERS dependent on the population of the jurisdiction, percentage of voter IDs garnered and how many total candidates that jurisdiction could reasonably support. For example, in a jurisdiction with 500000 people like a SMALL city, a candidate would need a smaller percentage of voter IDs than a town with less than 25000 people. If the candidate was able to meet the minimum required voter IDs, it would qualify them for government campaign financing commensurate with their share of voter IDs in relation to the other candidates in their jurisdiction and a minimum amount of funds for those having fewer relative voter IDs to better ensure fair exposure. All other campaign contributions would be abolished, including private and corporate. Mandatory televised debates would be held with ALL CANDIDATES present. News media found to be heavily editing and/or not broadcasting the full debates or omitting the comments of certain candidates, etc. would be blacklisted in subsequent debates for that campaign and future elections to hurt their advertising revenues.

The government would finance all political campaigns. Campaign contributions from the government would come from a small tax to every private tax payer in the country of approximately $30 dollars per year as well as 1/10th of a percent of corporate profits to yield approximately $60-75 billion per year for political campaigns (advertising, advisors, travel, security, etc), far more than enough but just to be safe. This money would be distributed to every jurisdiction commensurate with their population and then further broken down to each individual candidate as described in the previous paragraph. This would prevent illegal, immoral money politics that arise from interest groups looking for an eventual payback. It would dissuade the creation and propagation of interest groups because they wouldn't have the leverage to do what they do in other countries. So, instead of every interest group, union, corporation, whatever, financing their favored lapdog, they would have to work with candidates to include their interests instead. However, without the ability to basically bribe them, they would have to actually convince them of the real need for whatever they were looking to do. Of course, the interest groups could themselves get their own champion to try to become a candidate. Coalition politics would of course not exist because there would be no parties, just lots of individual politicians with their own individual ideas. Every citizen would also be LIMITED to providing 3 of their signatures (voter ID) to each specific election to prevent them from signing everybody and thus make their signature (voter ID) meaningless.

All election activities not financed by government funds would be free to support whoever they chose, such as Internet petitions, media interviews, commentary, talk shows, etc. However, NEWS MEDIA outlets, I stress NEWS, NOT non-news media, who could be proven by statistical analysis to be biased towards certain candidates or certain political viewpoints would have their access to government press conferences, political conventions, etc, restricted, again to hurt their advertising revenues. In persistent cases of news media offenders, the time slots of those news media coinciding with debates would be blacked out, as in their channel would be a black screen with no sound until the debates ended. If these news media did not comply, their station licenses would be revoked and they would be forced out of business. Opinion polls listing political orientation, candidate preference, etc, would be banned. Their influence upon the electorate who behave like sheep is far too great. All news media that has foreign financing whether via governments, NGOs, private, would be banned from the news realm. Any foreign financed media found to be supporting any form of subversion in the form of some methodical slow cultural percolation would eventually have their license revoked as well. This would not completely eliminate biased reporting, that is part of Human Nature. However, it would most definitely ELIMINATE PURPOSEFUL subversion and the worst excesses of media bias. This would be further enforced by instituting laws very similar to Singapore's political defamation laws to prevent immoral candidates and their media supporters from twisting facts, consistently taking things out of context, spreading false rumours, etc. This would put a stop to vile media that is in fact propaganda and dissuade candidates from using venom laden tactics more than good governance arguments.

Higher level officials (President, Premier, Standing Committee, Provincial Governors, city mayors-larger than 500000 population, Congress members) would only be eligible for office if they already served office in lower level positions first, to ensure they have more experience as well as simplifying the electoral process considering China's size. Higher level officials, except for Congress members, would be EXEMPT from this system of signature (voter ID) requests considering their influence and reputation would be well established by then. Instead of universal suffrage as would be used for lower-level political positions (21 year age requirement), a CENSUS SUFFRAGE system would be instituted for all Higher-Level political positions. Higher level political candidates would be NOMINATED by Congress using a similar signature (voter ID) system restricted to Congress members, then elected into power by the population (35 year age requirement). The highest offices at the top-tier (President, Premier, Standing Committee) would have their candidates nominated by Congress only from the immediately lower pool of politicians (Provincial governors and mayors of the largest cities). Note that Congress members would also be voted into power by popular vote through universal suffrage (eligibility 21 years old).

All elected officials, except for the President & Premier, would have no restrictions to how many terms they could serve with each term running 3 to 6 years. The President and Premier would be restricted to 2 terms and serve for 6 years per term. The NPC Congress would need to be given the constitutional power to be able to impeach the President, Premier or any member of the Standing Committee with a 75% majority vote. Declarations of war would require the permission of Congress. Important social policies could also be challenged and their decision requiring the permission of the Congress to pass, alter or remove. All gifts and donations to government officials and their immediate family would be illegal. All serving government officials would be paid VERY WELL in relation to their serving jurisdiction, as well as receiving free services (transportation, communications, media, limited expense account) and automatically eligible for a generous government pension commensurate with how long they served and at how high a level.

There is a very important financial element involving Fractional Reserve Banking that would need to be included to completely eliminate the potential for political corruption but that is a much much more complicated discussion. Let me know what you think of my embryonic perfect democracy. lol

How do you know that the President of China is in town?

The following video shows President Hu Jintao's motorcade during his visit to Seattle. Count the number of vehicles in his entourage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRuk05n_dw...feature=related

In the next video, try counting the number of bodyguards surrounding President Hu Jintao after his press conference in Hong Kong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-pGUDP_Q7E...feature=related

Here, President Hu Jintao is being escorted by the Royal Guards in Stockholm, Sweden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=079tSPt6Mz0...feature=related

Unbelievably, President Hu Jintao had even more vehicles in his retinue when he visited Lahore, Pakistan than he did in Seattle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgBFDNfN3vo...feature=related

By the way, a few years ago, I was driving into Boston on Mass. Pike when Premier Wen's motorcade passed on its way to a suburban farm (e.g. in Milford or Worcester(?); memory is foggy). I was amazed to see that the motorcade extended for about a mile. Out of curiosity, I checked the nightly news to see who was the "big cheese" (i.e. important person).

wow, impressive!!!! As far as the cars, I don't think all those cars are bodyguards solely........probably include translators, doctors, advisors, other cabinet members

i won't believe that