BERLIN: The European Union can no longer afford to keep national vetoes when deciding on European Union foreign and security policy if it wants to maintain a leading role in global politics, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said. Moscow's war in Ukraine makes unity in Europe ever more urgent and increases pre
The problem isn’t with having many layers. Any complex organization will have layers. The problem is with accountability. The government in China consistently acts in the interest of its constituents because it depends on social stability to stay in power. The EU bureaucracy does not have this relationship with the people living in the countries that are part of the EU and the results speak for themselves here.
I don’t follow.
In China, the stability of central government is directly dependent on social and economic stability in China. In EU that’s not the case as far as I can see.
I don’t like replying in memes, because it feels a bit rude, but this is just: https://pics.me.me/you-can-tell-that-its-an-aspen-tree-because-of-2666368.png
:P
If you can’t see the difference in the outcomes between the governance in EU and China, I really don’t know what else to tell you. I guess that’s what happens when your world view can be summed up using memes.
Memes aside, your reasoning seems cyclic indeed. If you wanted to prove your point, you should explain how this is achieved in China, and compare that to EU.
Not sure what you’re claiming to be cyclical in my argument. I’ve explained that there is a fundamental difference in structure and accountability of the Chinese government and EU bureaucracy.
To expand on that, the structure of CPC is inherently bottom up, while EU is top down. CPC is also composed of regular working class people, and has huge membership. Conversely, EU bureaucracy is composed of capitalists with practically no working class representation. Finally, Chinese elections are a selection process based on demonstrated competence with people showing ability at lower levels competing for positions at higher level. This is not the case with EU where no demonstrated competence is required.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
Not saying whether it is good or bad, but I think it can definitely not be called a democracy when to enter ther decision process you have to
Democracy is fundamentally about having a government that works in the interest of the public. In China, the decision making process is based directly on public surveys of what people want to see happening going forward.
Voting for what you perceive to be the biggest problems and what you want improved makes sense. Voting on how to solve these problems does not. Conflating these things is one of the fundamental problems in western implementation of democracy.
People know what their problems are and what they want improved. However, they’re generally not qualified to figure out solutions.
For example, I think my city has a big problem with traffic. However, I’m not a city planner, and I have no expertise in solving this problem. I don’t know whether it’s better to add more buses, build more subway lines, add LRT, or perhaps a combination of these options. Without having knowledge of the domain subject, I can’t meaningfully vote on what the solution to this problem would be. Yet, this is precisely what I’m expected to do when politicians float one solution or another.
I think the ideal system would be to vote on the problems, then have expert committees work on potential solutions. The committees would compile lists of pros and cons for each, then you’d have a second vote on what solution the majority prefers, and then to make it binding.
China doesn’t have a vote on what the solutions would be, but at least the solution is decided by experts and there is long term commitment to implementing it.
< selection process based on demonstrated competence
All I see here is a potential for a benevolent dictatorship and a malevolent dictatorship. Benevolent dictatorships are cool. Until they turn malevolent. That’s the big problem.
In liberal democracies you have a choice. There’s been plenty of random movements and parties that exploded in size, like that five star movement in Italy, or the Greens in Germany, or whatever. Just like there’s been random politicians that came out of nowhere, no capitalist background, like the Finnish PM, Sanna Marin, or whatever.
I’m not touching the US’s essentially two party system (due to “first past the point” voting) with a ten foot pole here. Or the UK. Or the Anglosphere in general.
< regular working class people
The CCP has plenty of working class "foot soldiers”, just like western democracies’ parties do too in their ranks, I see no difference.
If you actually get around to reading the links I provided, they clearly explain that Chinese system is not a dictatorship in any way or form. You’re speaking out of sheer ignorance here.
You have a choice of candidates put up by the ruling class which is the capitalist class. Entire books have been written on the subject. Countless studies have been conducted on the subject as well that show that liberal democracies operate as oligarchies in practice. Here is what a recent study analyzing decades of US policy found:
The systems in Europe aren’t all that different from US in practice. Every one of these systems is created by the rich and for the rich.
I don’t know what CCP is, but the Communist Party of China has working class people operating at all levels of the party. You don’t see the difference because you have an incredibly superficial understanding of how the system works in China. Maybe spend some time educating yourself instead of arguing about a topic you’re not versed in?