Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 18

Decision by The Wise v. by Majority

I have mentioned that a state leader needs the professional knowledge, skill and experience more demanding than a complicated profession of law, accounting, etc. but in a presidential liberal democracy such as the USA the state leader, i.e. president is elected by laymen out of their interests without such knowledge, skill or experience.

The United States, a presidential liberal democracy, is declining but it seems only its last but one president Donald Trump and some of his supporters are aware of that so that they want America to be great again. Others do not seem to be aware of that though almost every American has fallen into Thucydides trap and wants to contain China in order to prevent China from surpassing the US and becoming world no. one. Americans are not unanimous on making their country strong again but only on containing China. As quite a few of them do not agree with Trump that there is need to make America great again, it is very likely Trump’s successor will not carry on his efforts.

That is the problem in election of president with universal suffrage in a liberal democracy like America’s. As the system cannot generate a satisfactory leader, there is always the need for changes in electing a new leader. As a result, a new president usually will have his new policies, which may not be better as such election cannot generate a better leader but at least, the elected successor can show he is different from his predecessor. That is common as in the past few decades no president was satisfactory to most American people.

As a result, there is no long-term good efforts for improvement. Only a president’s mistake can be long-term. That is why erroneous wars can draw on for a decade or longer until total defeat or there is no hope to win.

Chinese Tradition: Decision by the Wise instead of Majority

In the US, a good leader is rare but cannot be kept due to limited tenure.

In China, decision is almost by the wise instead of majority

In Chinese history decision, especially important one, is made by the wise instead of majority though the wise is even a very small minority. A small number of decisions might be made by majority and brought about poor results, but there was no process of voting in making such decisions in old China.

There have been lots of examples of good decisions being made by wise minority. Here I only give two typical examples of the decisions on the battles vital for the survival of those involved: Liu Xiu’s Battle of Kunyang at the end of West Han Dynasty (Liu Xiu later founded the East Han Dynasty) and Zhu Yuanzhang’s war of resistance against Chen Youliang, the most powerful warlord at that time (Zhu Yuanzhang later founded the Ming Dynasty).

The Battle of Kunyang (昆陽之戰)

When Wang Mang, who usurped West Han Dynasty to become Emperor of the short new Xin Dynasty he set up, sent 430,000 troops to attack Kunyang, the 9,000 rebels in Kunyang wanted to scatter or flee to Jingzhou to protect their relatives and assets as they were greatly outnumbered by the Xin force. Liu Xiu (who later united China and set up East Han Dynasty), however, opposed their plan and told them to guard Kunyang. He alone convinced all the other leaders of the rebel troops that if they scattered they would fall easy prey to the enemy and lost not only their relatives and assets but also their own lives.

If the decision had been made by vote, Liu Xiu would certainly have been voted down as he was the only one that advocated fighting instead of fleeing. However, as his view was wise, the rebels eventually agreed to his view.

Liu went out of the city, gathered the about 20,000 troops outside the city, bravely attacked the enemy force encircling the city and hit them hard. Encouraged by Liu’s brave example, the troops in the city charged out fiercely into enemy ranks. Together with Liu’s force outside the city their less than 50,000 troops defeated Wang Mang’s 430,000 troops and almost annihilated them with the help of a sudden rainstorm.

Zhu Yuanzhang’s War of Resistance against Chen Youliang

At that time. Chen Youliang had the most powerful troops in China and decided to defeat Zhu Yuanzhang’s much smaller troops in Zhu’s much smaller area. He soon took Taiping that shielded Zhu’s capital Yingtian (now Nanjing). At that critical juncture, Zhu held a meeting of all his advisers to decide what to do.

All the advisers advocated giving up Yingtian either to run away or to retreat to Zijin Hill for defense. Only Liu Ji opposed their views. Liu told Zhu that they had nowhere to retreat to. If Yingtian had been lost, everything would have been lost. Zhu’s troops had to defend Yingtian to their death. There was no other way out.

Moreover, Liu pointed out that Chen, though strong, was arrogant. If seduced into an ambush deep in Zhu’s area, Chen’s troops could be defeated. Liu’s bravery inspired Zhu’s courage. He accepted Liu’s advice, fought bravely and wisely and finally defeated Chen Youliang. He had thus laid the foundation for the establishment of his Ming Dynasty.

Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour

The above are both decisions-making on war. What about decision-making on economic development and state governance? Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour was a good example.

Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening up has opened the way for China to become rich and strong and greatly improve people’s living standards. However, when Deng’s ways had achieved initial successes, in 1989 the Tienanmen Incident caused a reverse to the old way of monolithic public ownership and planned economy. At the advanced age of over 90, Deng conducted his Southern Tour to bring China back to his ways of reform and opening-up almost alone, resulting in China’s more than 4 decades of continuous reform and opening-up that turned China from a very poor and backward country into world no. 2 economy with no. 1 position in many sectors of economy and technology.

Chapter 18 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy 17

Choice of Best for Performing Obligations v. Competition for Power, Interest, Perks

Campaign for State Leader, a Competition for Power,. Interests, Perks in a Liberal Democracy

The position of a state leader, normally a president or prime minister, is accompanied with great power and intrests including high income and perks; therefore, candidate fight for the position may mostly aim at obtaining the power and interests instead of the obligations to serve the country.

As candidates pursue their personal interests, they certainly do not want anybody to monopoly the job whether or not the job may be monopolied by somebody with with exceptional talents as a state ;eader.

A Party wants its candidate elected to enhance its power for its interests, as various parties pursue their respective interests and as the successful election of their candidates will greatly facilitate realization of their interests, they certainly do not want others’ monopoly of the job with great power.

Due to the great power and interests a state leader has, potential candidates fight fiercely for their personal gains and the gains of their party instead of the benefits of their country and the people in general. That often makes election campaigns for state leader dirty especially the employment of such dirty tricks as mud slinging.

As people and parties have grown rich and influential, more and more people and parties have the resources and ambition to have them and their members elected as state leaders, they certainly want to establish some rules to put an end to above-mentioned monopoly. With the excuse of equal opportunity and avoidance of autocracy. Most presidential liberal democracies set limit to the tenure of state ;eaders. In the US, the limit is two terms of four years, while there are limits to number. and length of terms in other liberal democracies. Though a realy competent state leader is rare and difficult to find, they would not allow a proved good leader longer terms to serve their people,

China’s Leader Nominated by Retiring Leader to Continue serving the people

China is a country led by the Chinese Communist Party ((CCP), a party that puts the people first and regards serving the people as its goal. The Party’s leader Xi Jinping is the core of its leadership. He was selected by retired leader Jiang Zemin and approved by Jiang’s associates as competent to continue the Party’s service for the people. That is why Xi as China’s leader gives some details of his state serving the people as follows in his report to CCP 20^th National Congress:

“We have implemented a people-centered philosophy of development. We have worked continuously to ensure people’s access to childcare, education, employment, medical services, elderly care, housing, and social assistance, thus bringing about an all-around improvement in people’s lives. China’s average life expectancy has reached 78.2 years, its per capita disposable annual income has risen from 16,500 yuan to 35,100 yuan, and more than 13 million urban jobs have been created each year on average over the past 10 years. We have built the largest education, social security, and healthcare systems in the world. These achievements have allowed us to make historic strides in making education universally available, bring 1.04 billion people under the coverage of basic old-age insurance, and ensure basic medical insurance for 95 percent of the population. Timely adjustments have been made to the childbirth policy. More than 42 million housing units in run-down urban areas and more than 24 million dilapidated rural houses have been rebuilt, marking a significant improvement in housing conditions in both urban and rural areas. The number of internet users has reached 1.03 billion. We have ensured a more complete and lasting sense of fulfillment, happiness, and security for our people, and we have made further progress in achieving common prosperity for all.”

Chapter 17 of Chan Kai Yee’s new book “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics v. Liberal Democracy”