Can a group of people used to taking orders be their own masters? If freedom suddenly falls in your lap, would order collapse overnight and result in anarchy?
The 2007 documentary by Chinese director Chen Weijun (陳為軍), Please Vote for Me (請投我一票), portrayed how a class of elementary-school students in Wuhan, Hubei Province, chose their class leader in “democratic” elections. Just as their parents are deprived of their political freedom, students have no voting rights as class leaders are appointed by their teachers. The film was a political experiment allowing us to observe democracy in practice.
On the surface, the film is a disappointment for those who support China’s democratization. The intense competition between the three candidates led to vote buying, slander and even intimidation and threats. Through the director’s camera, the Taiwanese audience could see many problems that are familiar from our own grassroots elections where violence and money distort our free choice. Ironically, although the students were granted the right to vote, they elected the candidate who was originally appointed by the teacher. Since they reached the same goal by different means, why put in so much effort to play this democratic game?
Maybe we should see this film in a broader perspective. The new authoritarianism movement in China in the 1980s and New Leftism today both stress that democratic reform is not the key to Chinese development. Rather, it is strong government leadership along with the ability to continue to push for economic development and social equality.
Obviously, this view could easily become a defense for those in power. Aren’t claims of “different national conditions” or “insufficient public preparation” and other absurd reasons often used to resist calls for democratization? The film creates a sharp contrast between how orderly the students behave when they raise the national flag, do physical exercise, line up, shout slogans, and how the strong bully the weak, or the majority bully the minority, as soon as it comes to free elections.
If we take a closer look, however, we see that democracy cannot be simplistically described as just voting. The teacher who arranged the election did not explain the game’s rules. As a result, the students thought being class leader meant being a ruler who can order classmates about according to their own wishes. More importantly, when the candidates stirred up the crowd to make trouble or clearly practiced vote buying, the teacher simply sat back and didn’t interfere.
When the candidate that had bullied more than 20 classmates was elected, how should we view the result? Was it a helpless decision of the disadvantaged who were forced to exchange their freedom for safety?
As the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: “The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is nothing.”
His comment can also be applied to the democratic farce in Chen’s documentary.
If elementary school students do not have the right of freedom from the playground bullies or the interference of powerful parents and if the authority of class leaders cannot be restrained, their votes are only meaningful in a nominal sense. The same reasoning applies to the wider Chinese society.
The right to vote brings little change unless all disadvantaged groups can be free from the oppression of powerful individuals and government representatives. This is why diverse rights protection groups are key to China’s democratization.
Ivan Ho is an associate professor of sociology at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS