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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS