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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath