Cai Jian should not miss the opportunity of democracy

 Affirmative teacher reference
reproduced Cai Jian: can not miss the opportunity
of democracy: the sword
Cai Cai Jian: China University of Political Science professor and former deputy director of the NPC Standing Committee secretary, part-time people of Peking University Law School Congress and the Executive Director of Council Research Center, Beijing Institute of Political Management Distinguished Professor at Columbia University, Harvard University and Yale University to give lectures. with a: and transformation - the process of legal construction of New China a good thing, but we recently noted, that is, an anti-democratic trend emerged, then democracy has been a misreading of what, in this misreading of what is behind it, we go to the Chinese Professor of Politics and Law University, Mr. Cai Dingjian, Hello.
Cai Jian: Hello.
anti-democratic trend appears for two reasons
Moderator: Recently it, I noticed that there are some articles on this some discussions of democracy, which it seems there is a direction, that is negative, for example, the relationship between democracy and China, etc., then in your opinion, why at this time, there will be such that an anti-democratic Thoughts?
Cai Jian: This talk about democracy, it should be said to be a common sense, but, um, why this, especially in recent years, most recently I have noticed that some media published several articles, to abandon democracy this loss. I think there is such a background, we know that democracy, from the history of modern China, from the May Fourth Movement has been established, democratic and scientific way of saving the country of China.
Moderator:.
Cai Jian : This is one that should be said is a common concept of the formation of Chinese society, a common philosophy, but also from the historical experience of China, out of a lesson learned the truth. So instead, China's economic development since the rapid development, this appears anti-democratic trend, it is difficult to understand.
Moderator: So you, you have also made special mention of a background, that is, rapid economic development after the emergence of a counter-trend, then it inside, and this is also relationship between a particular background?
Cai Jian: I think so for some reason, of course, for this reason are many. So China's development, is not this one, a sound democratic system, is what we mean is a authoritarian political situation, rapid economic development, then there are some people that China is not to create a new model, we do not need this, this more fully democratic system, we can rapidly developing economy, or we can in a Under the authoritarian politics of economic development.
Moderator: This is a.
Cai Jian: This is a, another one, we know that after China's rapid economic development has brought this community of this differentiation, Among them, some people do get rich, and rich beyond it, they think, we live in very good shape, why should the Democratic ah? he felt the need of democracy, I think this is one, there are some vested interests consideration. I think this is, two very important reasons. of course, does not rule out that some people in this economic development, China social differentiation, and differentiation after the poor and the rich out of this boundary, Some scholars, but also protect the vested interests stand to protect the rich point of view, to consider the issue.
anti-democratic theorists of democracy in the misreading and distortion of
Moderator: So I noticed that now everyone in the For example, the question this democracy, so sometimes, often take China in 1966 to 1976 the decade of the Cultural Revolution of the state, such as As an example of democracy. So that you see at the time, precisely because such a democracy, resulting in a society of a mess of a large.
Cai Jian: This is in China, this is often used to criticize democracy, that democracy is not good, not a good thing for this example, often take things for China during the Cultural Revolution, said, okay, you say democracy, the good, you see the Cultural Revolution, great democracy, what brought Results. Of course some people will take this, the German Hitler thing, you see not, this Hitler came to power, nor is it, it does not prove that democracy is a good thing.
Moderator: is democracy may be selected a despotic a regime.
Cai Jian: Yes, because Hitler came to power, he is also up through democratic elections, the German Social Democratic Party that this is Hitler, he came to power through the election and, in some of Hitler's advance including such a misunderstanding and one-sided understanding. Of course, if we say that the time is it, how can we fully and correctly understand democracy, democracy of our criticism, often make the mistake that he has a lot of one-sided democracy , the wrong understanding, on the other hand is that democracy is not one perfect system, we must make it clear that these two points. democracy is not a perfect system, he is not to solve all problems, democracy is a malpractice, which a flaw, that is, that is, we say that democracy may bring the tyranny of the majority, will bring the tyranny of the majority. what I just said, this, for example, Hitler, is not it, that came to power, this also possible, because Hitler came to power was supported by a number of workers in the employment of workers under the economic crisis to resolve the problem, by most people, the support of the workers.
democracy, how to avoid the Guy: So in fact, as you just said this, the tyranny of the majority, it seems that in the first democratic general we may all return to the ancient Greece, then I know there was one called It is not that this is somewhat similar to the tyranny of the majority.
Cai sword: in, but also to discuss the issue of democracy in our time, it will often take an example, that ancient Greece, Socrates, he is a sages, philosophers, because he advocated a number of new ideas, met some of the city was a small number of stubborn opposition forces, he passed a democratic approach, then direct democracy in ancient Greece is the way to sentenced him to death, so this is a typical example of democracy, he will sometimes do stupid things, do bad things, it does, from this history, we may find some examples to illustrate the Democratic majority might bring Tyranny, I have cited these examples are some of those critical of some of the points of democracy. But then, I said, the two aspects, first, democracy did in the past tyranny of the majority of people do have problems In the absence of a legal guarantee, not the social protection of human rights, democracy may lead to the tyranny of the majority, this is what we say democratic deficit. But then, in the history of democratic development, human beings know that the democratic system, and he's excellent sex is great, far outweigh his shortcomings, so people have to the pursuit of democracy, then in the pursuit of the process, it has continued to address the shortcomings of democracy, of which there are some institutional settings, the majority continue to address Tyranny problem.
Moderator: What kind of design for example?
Cai Jian: I give, you can cite some historical facts to illustrate. then the tyranny of the majority, that is, I just said, such as that Hitler, Germany Hitler came to power, the people feel, alert to democracy may appear tyranny of the majority, then after the war, Hitler in Germany, after the victory over Hitler Germany, a very important democratic, a legal system, legal system, is the establishment of a Constitutional Review in Germany, then the establishment of the Constitution of the German Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court is a very important function, that is it, by a small number of specialized judges to adjudicate the law passed by Parliament, is not a violation Constitution.
Moderator: to even the most adopted.
Cai Jian: Yes, even the laws passed by the majority of people that I just said, for example, in the Hitler era, he can use the review, so, in theory, that is, the legal system to restrain democracy, to limit the tyranny of democracy, and use it to review the law, is not that constitutional protection of human rights which, the basic principles of limited state power, this is a important system settings, used to combat the tyranny of the majority, this is a system.
there is a system for it, for example, that we know, the war, the establishment of the United Nations, the establishment of the United Nations, which has two objectives One is the maintenance of world peace, another important goal is to protect human rights. the protection of human rights, the establishment of a system, we know that the United Nations, the The problem is to protect human rights, protection of human rights is what this means? that the rights is to go beyond national boundaries, then a country, a sovereign country, in the past that theory, he could Treatment of his people, a government can Treatment of his people, then the United Nations Charter, he needs to go beyond national borders, the international community can intervene in a sovereign country, if you do not respect basic human rights, then we can also interfere.
so is it, if you are a country the tyranny of the majority there is even a form of democracy through intervention in the small number of people to some basic rights, is not allowed. This is so that the implementation of a series of human rights protection system, requires the State, sovereignty, countries have also set up a corresponding system of human rights protection, to counter some of this brutal, barbaric laws, it is this unconstitutional law, and some governments that this, too right. So you see these systems, there This is very important to some other system, not one by one to which I cited.
democracy is not a simple system, judicial review, the legal system, to counter the tyranny of the majority, then it, the rule of law in a way, a complete legal system, to some extent, also to counter the tyranny of the majority. Let me give an example, For example, in our past, if you rise to the principle of democracy, we tend to understand China, democracy is majority rule, which is also a wrong one-sided understanding, democracy is majority rule, well, then we in the past, Chinese history, often the rights of minorities gross interference in the majority, a majority agreed, setting off the Cultural Revolution, is not it, most people say, we were raid to a person's home can be copied, we have to fight him, people can be pulled to the street fighting of the.
that it is not consistent with true democratic principles. democratic principles, he is not a simple majority, that is, I just said, there is a very important principle is to protect human rights. human rights, fundamental rights, he is not consistent with the principle of majority voting, if you do according to this logic, according to this simple one-sided understanding of the principles of democracy, majority rules, then this the tyranny of democracy, that is, will always occur. you can be very simple, we used to say, I can give an example, we a village which, for example, we used to say, the people are rich, then we split the auspices of large
people: we vote about.
Cai Jian: We vote, we're it to divide, and that can not be the case. is not, we can not say, for example, let's hate the thief, we are to this thief arrested, paraded through the streets, hanging a sign, or we say, the thief, the thief is the Chinese people that the past, said his cut hand, you can do that? No, why? this, his hand-cut, and this is his right to life, the right to life, it is higher than the majority of this kind, likes and dislikes, and joy, anger, and so the basic rights of democracy to contend with. This is a very important principle But many of us the theory of democracy, scholars, and they do not understand democracy, one-sided understanding of democracy, simply democracy, interpreted as the majority, I say it is very large on a misunderstanding of democracy.
democracy and efficiency in the long term benefit and economic development
Moderator: I also noticed, there is an argument that the past three decades China has developed rapidly, especially where this infrastructure as China, for example, like a highway, may be our example in just a dozen years, China has become the world's highways. At the same time, and the initial stages of our development in India about the same, then the highway base, including base construction is of such a relatively slow one, a state. So I have heard many people say, that is the wrong, that India is too democratic.
Moderator: So often, you want to repair a road , if you have a meeting to vote, there must be a long, long one of a long process, the end result may be, there is no efficiency.
Cai Jian: You said this, I understand should be the so-called democracy and the economic the relationship between social development, is not ah? I think it is democracy and the relationship between economic and social development, this is also the debate on democracy is an international topic, a topic of long debate, but I think there is some basic consensus the international community, is democracy should be beneficial to economic and social development, rather than negative economic and social development, now there are some scholars criticized the so-called democracy Ye Hao, called some of this, politicians Ye Hao, they will tend to some special individual cases, to grant democracy, I think that in dealing with the issue of democracy, is also a one-sided, or say, he has a point, inaccurate, or it, the deeper meaning, he did not a deep understanding of democracy for the role of economic and social development, he is very superficial to understand, that in a number of countries, you see not, this democratic ah, like you just mentioned the case of India, he does very simple to see the surface phenomena, such as Thailand will give some, you see not, Thai this, then do a mess he do this, how to carry out economic, ah, I think this is the lack of the democratic system, the role of economic and social development, a deep a one-sided understanding of point of view. Why do you say?
Moderator: What do you understand that?
Cai Jian: First of all democratic role of economic and social development, it is not a direct, not like I issued a command This I take what measures the Government, the economy will go up, he is not, democratic role of economic and social development, is a potential, is a role of intervention.
Moderator: potential, the performance Where?
Cai sword: the potential is, he is a social environment architecture that many people agree with that, is it, international investment, large capital investment that people want to choose the investment environment, not will choose a system to protect the country not to invest, this, that is it, the democratic legal system is a system of capital, if it is the system environment, democracy and rule of law a good country, certainly will be a good investment because the investment here will are protected and will not be in danger. If it is a non-democratic country, if invested, people will be very worried about, is not it? because he can not see that the system is not stable.
Moderator: Yes, he's expected.
Cai Jian: He is not the expected side, he does not know when, and now the leaders, it may be safe, following the leadership change, he does not know, that this, this expect that the long-term investors to choose the environment, which is a basic role. we can see that the international community there, you just this, the real investment environment is good or bad, people are to assess this, is not ah? So this point then, they did not see it. another one does, democratic society, he was a very important role, he is more conducive to protection of property rights, as an economic, a social and economic development, property rights protection is very important. So what, a society without a democratic system to protect his property rights system, and can not be sufficient protection.
Cai Jian: This us, we can also see a lot of historical examples, is not? property rights for economic and social development, and this is what economists have shown, I do not want to say any more. another one is, the democratic system, I just said, you speak of this example, economic development, Specifically, we look at a city inside the city, for example, I have to say specifically, for example, we are not to have public participation, or what, we are relying on executive orders to determine which of our city, we have a small number of leaders and experts to decide, I can, I can build quickly.
I can build very quickly, our past experience and lessons of history, I think it was in precisely this place, we have always said democracy and efficiency, that my decision-making efficiency is high, but you know, in the absence of such a system following a democratic, decision-making efficiency is high you are, you can quickly do one thing, you can quickly determine a project, but Once the decision was a mistake, the damage and influence, it would not say, if you are a big policy, so his influence is not a few years. is not ah? instance, we leap, we have a wrong decision-making, brought us this economic and social impact, it is not years to recover. because this is a decision-making, is not ah? that this, if there is a democratic system of decision-making mechanism, he decision-making process may be slower, may be slow, because he has to be discussed repeatedly, but once the decision-making, relatively few have the kind of his wrong decisions
Moderator: He is everyone's a consensus.
Cai Jian: Yes ah, but also through the discussion, the various interests of this game, is not it, to form a consensus, you think, ah, we Chinese say the hell is going on, is the reason . is not ah? you all aspects of society involved in the discussions, there would surely be making fewer mistakes. Once the decision right then he was, although I am making slow, but his decades of development in a correct decision Now, he will progress. Of course, a wrong decision than would be faster to develop.
Moderator: So I just noticed you mentioned the two countries, that India and Thailand, said India , I understand many people may, he questioned the democracy is democracy will be slower, so that in Thailand, people are worried that may be, democracy will be chaos, then, including last year, in fact, is very obvious that the political situation in Thailand is very, very confusion, which may also bring a range of issues, including China Taiwan now we see, also, we also found that the first is, first, that the elections will result in a fragmentation of a society at the same time, that also affect economic development, then as the concerns that you feel does not make sense?
no democracy in India is even worse
Cai Jian: Democratic chaos in the interpretation of the question, I have to add that democracy will be slow problem, just as the example of India, India this example, I have not fully explain to you that just told us that the relationship between democracy or economic development, the relationship with the decision-making, from the long-term, up from the environment of large , we can not in the international comparison, we can not very simple, I said before, we can not simply come over, speed of a country's development, the pace of development, must be used with the country's economic and social history combination of culture conditions, and if we ignore this point, a simple ratio is meaningless. We Chinese always say conditions Well, we talked about India, we should also say that India's national conditions. Many of us are simply For example, you see India as engage in democracy, you see not, he developed not we fast, he does not we will soon develop, this is an example, I think this case can not be established. We must take the development of India and put that in India to compare the economic and social environment can not simply say that compared with China. India is what kind of country we know that in India, the country of its resources, with China to than it is for this resource , the poor, the Chinese tell the truth, the vast land of China. India's natural environment, conditions are very poor. the original Indian life, life is very short, are forty years old, is not.
Cai Jian: India people have been the tropical ah, this, just that he was the Indian Ocean, natural environment, so the various conditions and India's environment, natural environment, are poor. particularly in India, it is a very complex ethnic, religious complex history to its legacy of social hierarchy, very deep, very, affect the social development of the system of this inequality. So, with his domestic The ethnic conflicts, and often there will be some turmoil, is not, ah, Kashmir, is not ah. So a country like India, to his independence, developed to this extent, I think this is very not easy . So they are better than India has with him, we can very similar with India, a country than Pakistan. you can see, India's democratic system, the advantages of their development. You see in Pakistan, you see that the kinds of economic development indicators, it is to India and China than in, this economic development, in the end who is good and who's bad, some people may have different views, but more than you and Pakistan is not ah?
Moderator : Yes, very clear.
Cai Jian: clear, more importantly, India in the bar in 1947, about the 1947 independence, India's economic and social development has been very stable and smooth. India had little of the man-made natural disasters, man-made disasters. India, the country, from say this is very great. We Conversely, if there is no democracy in India, India must be a disaster. We can see many such similar countries, including the South-East Asia, South Asia, of course, not to mention the West.
democracy is conducive to social stability in the system
Moderator: Just now you mentioned that, if India does not practice democracy, will be how to.
Cai Jian: That is a disaster, I can say is worse than Pakistan, a country. So we tend to ignore this, we must put a country on certain social and historical conditions down the comparison, This is a scientific comparison. then I, we say to this, you just say that democracy could bring chaos to the problem. This I think this is democracy in the discussion, often encounter a problem can not be avoided, we must answer this question, only that there is convincing, to otherwise, who is not happy, turmoil, unrest it first, of course, economic and social development will have a profound destructive, we are talking about when democracy will bring chaos I think it is, with some one-sided, surface phenomena, point of view, the discussion of the democracy and stability in this society, I think we overlooked a basic point of view, I think this is fully proved by the history of human society's , that is, democratic country, is stable. This we did not argue.
right, into the democratic country, his community is stable, we can see that, for example, the Western countries, the Nordic countries, it was intolerable. this kind maintain long-term stability of those non-democratic country, is unstable. Of course we know from history, but also see the era of the last feudal autocracy in some countries, right, are history was the killing of human society, the history of the coup, conspiracy history, runs through. It is not the kind of human society to get rid of this stability, this is not the kind of predictability, in particular, bring disaster to the people the kind of unrest , that created such a democratic system
Cai sword: the democratic system fundamentally, is the solution to social unrest and create a system of this kind. as a society, a lot of war, conspiracy, are caused because of the transfer of state power The democratic system is fundamentally up to solve, the smooth transfer of state power, the question of peace, which is a basic value of democracy, which I think, we will not argue.
unrest in modern democratic countries is caused by the legacy of authoritarian
Moderator: But why, like Thailand.
Cai Jian: So, we make it clear, we say, in the end bring about a democratic system is chaotic, or say, by a number of countries, from non-democratic authoritarian government, the transition to democracy has brought chaos, and this disorder is democracy itself, or due to non-democratic system in the past the kind of turmoil, we tend to confuse the fact that, had a lot of countries, In non-democratic, authoritarian politics, he is unrest, coup kept, conspiracy to murder is not, then the transition to democracy now, of course, he himself also with such a kind, the unrest in this society that process. < br> It is difficult to avoid, so, um, we see many, many examples cited, is that from an authoritarian regime, or from an authoritarian system, the kind of transition to democracy unrest, to put this said to be democratic system disorder caused by disturbances. So the development of democratic institutions in the research process, we must distinguish between the two concepts is the democratic system itself, or the unrest called transition to democracy. I think you are talking, this example, there are other views of the commentators talk about anti-democratic example, are from non-democratic transition to democracy caused by such disturbances. then this is an objective situation in which a country, by the autocratic, authoritarian political transition to democracy, will have instability, it is inevitable. you think, ah, a society is to rely on an authoritarian past, an autocratic rule, autocratic rule, he is mainly engaged in violence to maintain this rule. of course, the people said This rule is not good, we would like to transition to democracy. Well, this time it will have to destroy the autocratic authority of the kind of violence. to establish a democratic authority.
Cai Jian: In this transitional period, is to have A problem of timing conditions, environmental conditions, if the timing is not good enough, this transition is likely to cause an unstable state. you think, ah, undermined the authority of an old and a new authority is not established.
Moderator: the middle is certainly confusing.
Cai Jian: Yes, certainly the middle of chaos, but we can see that from the human society in terms of the history of democratic development, the early transition to democracy, more or less through violence, including as UK the kind of democratic improvement for hundreds of years, eventually or through one of the guillotined the king, into a democratic system, not to mention that many other countries, such as France, after a lot of violence, and finally to the transition to democracy in transition, so this we see that the transition to democracy in transition, in the early days, the more the transition transformation, the more violence, along with a lot of violence, but we can now see, human civilization, human progress This transformation of violence, more and more reduced. We certainly can see that some countries such as Thailand, do not you see it for decades, or in the unrest, he was in transition, continue to unrest.
But we do not have that many countries are countries in transition through security. including our many Asian countries. Of course, relatively early in some countries, and Japan, we would not have said, it has not through violence to transformation. South Korea , South Korea, should I say, this transition can be considered good. the kind of tyranny in their past, the case of military dictatorship, that violence is a constant, we know that in the seventies.
Cai Jian: Go eighties, the violent conflict in Korea, have continued, but in this, the democratization of South Korea after you see this transition is not, in its ten years, you see this, I think it is the more successful transition. And this in Southeast Asian countries, including the transformation of Taiwan's democracy, it did not use violent means to transformation, although we felt a bit chaotic. But you know, it is past, that is, by the military, violent struggle to complete the process, Today, we can through a peaceful transition.
we can see, including the Philippines, ah, ah Malaysia, especially in Indonesia, this is more complex country, the economic foundation is not good. And, um, official corruption is very serious, in the 1997 financial crisis, can escape through a peaceful transition toward the election of leaders that can be such a transition, although there are some conflicts in this transition, there are some contradictions. you see there, we see the peace process. So this, I think this is a peaceful transition in transition, are increasingly shown to be feasible, but more and more. so we can not to a small number of countries, some random, chaotic phase, to prove that. < br> If we want to, if we do not this democratic system, our past, whether in China or abroad, or the West, are filled by violence of such a society. We transition to democracy, some society, need to pay a certain price. so why human society, even if there is such turmoil, and even the process there will be some violence, or to the pursuit of democracy? is because once the transition to a democratic future, then this society will be more stable, safe and stable. Just as we have to fly the plane this is a quick means of transport, may be the time the plane took off, is not, ah, sometimes an accident is at this stage, the aircraft taking off and landing. But because that value is far much higher than this risk, so people still want to fly us to choose, there may be dangerous, but so we study the transition to democracy, we not to argue or not to democracy, we do not need to argue that we should Do not fly problem, we should argue, how can we reduce this instability in the transition to democracy
Cai Jian: So to study the transition to democracy and conditions for some time.
Moderator: This is what we should do The.
Cai Jian: Yes, this is the issue we should discuss, not to be discussed, democracy is good, you do not. I think the discussion of such issues is a very common sense, a very stupid question. so much of human society this, so much experience proves, the values of democracy, of course, much higher than non-democratic system, authoritarian system, which is not debate. We can not put some in some of the chaos of democratic transition phase to prove, democratic values, to criticize the values of democracy. I think this is very stupid, very ignorant of view.
the level of democratic participation has nothing to do with the quality of the
Moderator: I think you just hit the analogy very very great. In China, we sometimes ...