Academic Policy Planning Committee Agenda: Fill & Download for Free

For many outsiders, this question is based on two false notions which I need to rectify firstKerala never had long term communist party rule unlike Bengal or Tripura. They could rule maximum 5 years and power alternates at end of every term of the government. So out of 61 years of modern Kerala history, Left front has ruled only 22 years (not more than 5 years in a stretch)Communist party or Congress party never able to rule alone in Kerala, barring 2 years for Undivided Communist Party when they formed the first government in 1957 which collapsed in its 2nd year. Ever since that, Kerala was always ruled by alliances, notably two alliances- United Democratic Front led by Congress and Left Democratic front led by CPM. In both fronts, there are left parties as well as non leftist parties. So all alliance rules Kerala based on a consensual agenda within the Alliance, not purely individual party decisions.These two points have a key role, as the question itself assume, there exist a Communist Government. Sorry, there is no Communist government in Kerala, rather Left Government, be it in past or today. And again, Communism in Kerala is not pure Communism. They are more like Social Democrats.Don't Call The CPM In Kerala Communists, Call Them Social DemocratsNow pros and consBasically there is little difference between UDF or LDF when comes to governance. As I said, since its coalition politics, no single party can implement its ideological agenda completely into governance, rather has to compromise a lot for coalition partners. UDF has lot of Leftist parties, hence Congress couldn’t implement absolute Neo-Capitalist model (Manmohan Singh concept of Liberalization/Privatization/Globalization policy) as well as LDF do have several centrist parties, thereby can’t implement pure Communist agendas.And both UDF and LDF are socialists to the core. Infact Congress party in Kerala (KPCC) has almost all its leaders who are hardcore socialists that they used fight against many policies which Congress unveiled since 1990s. So as Communists are much in sync with Chinese model, thereby have huge relationships and partnerships with several rich businessmen, thereby can’t oppose many capitalist policies. In short, all political parties in both alliances almost have similar ideologies and governance concept barring few minute differences.I am focusing only Pros and Cons of various Left Governments in Kerala from 1957 to present.ProsUndivided Communist Party unveiled Land Reforms concept in 1957, which was an absolute dynamic shift from traditional land holdings pattern. Overnight Kerala changed its image from feudalistic society to much more inclusive society with every landless citizen now got right to own certain minimum amount of land. Peasants who toiled for generations like a bonded labour in the land, suddenly became owners of few plots of the same land. The Landlord concept (Jenmi System or Zamindari system as called in North) disappeared. Though Congress party was opposed to it which actually brought communists down in 1959, they too were forced to accept this concept at later stage. Land reforms was a mixed bag. On one hand it enabled every landless citizen to feel ownership and thus threw themselves out of traditional feudal yokes, but caused heavy land fragmentation that killed agriculture in a big waySocial Development interventions: I won’t say Left Government as such, rather it was a policy of Communist party to expand the concept of literacy and rational movement, which got support of both LDF and UDF governments. This led to patronizing of various progressive societies, notably Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (People’s Science Movement) to push for a scientific/rational revolution in Kerala.Total Literacy Campaign : In its first year, Communist Government embarked a massive literacy campaign. It focused heavily on taking Travancore/Cochin Model of education system to Malabar (which was part of British India and heavily lagged) and aggressively expanding public schools in Travancore-Cochin side aimed for mass enrollments. On other side KSSP and similar Left organization under patronage of communist parties and Left governments (read CPI which was part of UDF in 1970s) pushed for scientific movement. This heavily pushed for social literacy, massive public sanitation program, healthcare awareness programs, scientific rational building programs etc.Typical Village library in a remote village of Malappattam in Kannur. A good number of such libraries are developed by Communists or Leftist groups, due to which one can see Leftist iconography in such libraries.Granthashala Movement: There was a Library movement during Monarchy days in Travancore, which got a Pan Kerala face in 1954. The first Communist Government aggressively supported Kerala Granthashala Sanghom (Public Library Society) which pushed for an aggressive expansion of libraries across the state under state patronage (without state funding). During Monarchy days, libraries were mostly in cities and college areas, meant for elites. KGS under Left patronage (don’t read as government) changed the narratives for a concept of Pothu Granthashala concept (People’s Library) by which number of libraries rapidly expanded from 1780 to 4280 libraries across the state. In 1975, UNESCO’s prestigious Krupskaya Prize made KGS as a special mentioning. In 1987, LDF Government enacted Library Act, by which all libraries now became under Government patronage and funding mechanism. Under the Left govt Patronage from 1987 to 1991, number of Public libraries grew more than 6000, ie almost 6 libraries per village, nearly 25,000 reading rooms across Kerala, more than 20,000 literary clubs, making Kerala having highest number of libraries in the country. This played a key role in achieving literacy as well as enlarging political awareness. Even today, one hall mark of Kerala is seeing a Public library or reading room, even in most remotest village. And being a pro-Left legacy, its natural to see photos of Che Guevara and Gandhiji side to side decorating the walls. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/40083/10/10_chapter3.pdfPublic Sanitation Campaign : While Travancore/Cochin Kingdoms historically formulated policies to push sanitation as one of its key agendas for development, Left Govt took from there in much more aggressive manner in a time, when it wasn’t much prioritized nationwide. The First Government in 1957 entered into a partnership with WHO for a sponsored scheme as part of a pilot project for rural sanitation that promulgated a single leach pit-type latrine with a squatting slab and the water seal bowl placed directly over the pit. The success of this scheme, resulted in subsequent governments to push for it. In 1988 under EK Nayanar government (LDF), Kerala government partnered with Dutch Government for a state wide latrine redevelopment scheme. By the time of exit of Nayanar govt in 1991, Kerala already reached 75% of its target plans of massive modern sanitation methods. This explains one major reason why Kerala was ahead of modern day Swach Bharat Abhayan programs. https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/Kurup-1996-Community.pdfQuality Healthcare: Since the times of Monarchy, the governments focused in creating a community healthcare concept. And both LDF and UDF govts aggressively focused on developing Government Healthcare system. So definitely a good number of 3 tier hospital system (PHC, Taluk and General Hospital) got massively expanded since the times of first government. Communist Chief Minister- Achuta Menon (He was from CPI and that time part of UDF, not LDF) had a vision of quality tertiary hospitals in Kerala and focused in establishing Free India’s first Government owned Tertiary Cancer Center in Trivandrum. So as Kerala’s second Medical college in Kozhikode in 1957. Apart from Government level, Communist party focused on concept of Cooperative Medical facilities and established a series of healthcare institutions across Kerala (some coop hospitals are established by Congress) and these coop institutions got government support in a big way.The irony when Communists across India was opposing Computerization in late 1980s while in Kerala, they laid foundation to India’s first Tech ParkEstablishment of India’s first Technology Park (Technopark) in Trivandrum which was a vision of E.K Nayanar in 1991Community Policing- Janamaithri Concept: LDF can be best credited in launching India’s first Community Policing concept in 2009 during last LDF government. It was part of a major structural change to make Police to shed its anti-people people and make them friendly. This initiative got a national wide attention when featured in popular National show- Satyameva Jayathe. The scheme also brought several laurels to Kerala Police.Pushing PSUs to better profits margins: Left Always believe sustainability of PSUs which normally goes in loss during UDF term. Whenever Left govt comes to power, we could see most of loss making PSUs suddenly turning themself into profitable ventures.From Rs 131.6 crore net loss, Kerala's PSUs post Rs 106.91 crore net profit in 2 yearsA video presentation of Smart /digital classrooms of KeralaNadakkavu Govt Girls High School- Kozhikode is regarded as the best Model school in Kerala for its upgradation to International school levels which is now planned to extend to 100 major urban schools across KeralaUpgradation of Public Education sector : Left government always pushes for Public education, particular upgradation of Government schools, which normally doesn’t take priority for UDF governments. In every term when Left comes, they upgrades public education in a high priority. This time, Left Govt called the exercise as Puthuvidyabhasa Yajnam (The Holy Sacrifices of Public Education) by which the state set an ambitious target of converting 45,000 classrooms into Smart classrooms with all modern digital technologies like Digital boards, LED Screens, audio visual rooms, digital learning with higher school students using Notepads instead of notebooks etc. Already 20,000 clasrooms are in process of converting into Digital facilities and some are airconditioned with wifi facility. The focus is to create more schools at par with international schools that can attract middle class and upper middle class into Government schools. The result was seen when today (01/06/2018) Kerala recorded more than 3 Lakh new admissions to Government Schools for this academic year.20,000 classrooms in Kerala schools set to go hi-tech by Januaryhttp://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/2017/nov/28/sarkara-government-upper-primary-school-at-chirayinkeezh-opens-fully-air-conditioned-smart-classroom-1713217.htmlStrives in Electricity sector: Left government since EK Nayanar times, focused on building up installed capacity in the state and extending electricity connections to every home. This policy has got a continuation during UDF times since 1990s and by 2017, Kerala became fully electrified state with 99.2% of total homes having access to electricity.Kerala becomes first state to provide electricity to every home: Pinarayi VijayanSocial Justice: Left Government aggressively focused on social justice by accepting the concept rights of Transgenders and LBQT community. Though its a policy of UDF Govt initiated in 2014, Left Govt adopted it as part of their political manifesto and continued the UDF policy during their tenure. As part of this policy, Kerala opened India’s first Free Sex Change Surgery clinic in 2016, first Transgender school in India, Special skills training institute to upgrade the employable skills of TGs as well as employment of TGs in Kochi Metro. A Similar program is underway for prisoners in Kerala Jails who turned Jails into a money spinning industry. Again, this was a policy concept made by UDF govt, limited to ready to eat Food products like packed Chapattis etc. LDF Govt since 2016 took to much unbelievable concepts including starting of Beauty palours, Casual dining restaurants, Fashion Boutiques etc and planning to expand to new concepts like running Petrol pumps, developing furniture industry etc.9 Times Kerala Pioneered With Its Transgender Policies & Showed The World How It’s DoneState prisons reap profits as inmates script a success storyCurrent government has fasten the completion works of much delayed GAIL Pipeline, re-initiated 4 Lane works of National Highways and put works of decentralized waste management plans on stronger levels.Please don’t assume me as a Promoter of LDF. Just put the key points as above. Now lets come to the biggest disadvantages of LDF governance.ConsLeft Governments are never free from large amount of criticisms. Infact, its a fact, Left Govt in Kerala normally attracts large amount of Anti Incumbency factors from start of its governance itself due to attitude of many leaders. Due to this reason, rarely Left Government used to get Bye-elections within the state favorable for them (except in very few occasions) and the huge anti-incumbency factors always ensure, they are turned down during election season.Some of the major cons areAttitude problem: Most of the left leaders, particularly since 70s, maintained a very harsh outlook. While they get along with public well, they were never seen as pleasing personality or someone humble to the core. Barring Achutha Menon, EK Nayanar, no Communist Chief Minister ever bore a pleasing outlook to the public during their tenure. When I say pleasing, what I meant is humility and grounded level. For example, the most celebrated Communist CM EMS always known for his harsh speeches against his rivals and writes against them in most harsh way. VS Achuthandan who ruled Kerala from 2006–2011 always had a Stalinist image, be his body language or communication style. However he was extremely popular among people due to his aggressive stand on moral values and rights even against Party leadership. Currently Pinarayi Vijayan is also too much harsh and rarely exhibits humility or even a simple smile. On contrary much of UDF leaders are extremely grounded and public friendly. Its harder to find a single image of Karunakaran without smiles, AK Antony without folded hands and Oommen Chandy without crowds. These are one reason that make communist leaders looks too much harsh attitude unlike Congress leaders. Even though EK Nayanar was much better than normal CPM leaders, still he was known for his humorous satires and mocking rivals openly.Party Cell rule: The biggest complaint against Left leadership is that, whenever they come to power, almost all sectors of Government slowly becomes Party cells. Bureaucrats showing loyalty to the party gets preferential treatment and individual Party committees and its leaders gets an upper hand in various government offices. Whenever Left comes to power, its associated / affilated government unions takes over the key positions in government offices and thus several reports of less support those who are opposed to Party or non partisans. In many cases, government services do get delayed or even refused to those whom local party leaders considers as enemies (not those essential services by the way)Politicisation of Kerala police shows CPM doesn’t learn from its mistakesPolicing Issues: The most heard criticism against Left government is that whenever they comes to power, Police forces becomes totally partisan to Left leadership. Police often becomes an agent of Communist party rather public good. In last two years, current Left govt under Pinarayi Vijayan has faced extreme brickbats due to inefficiency of Policing. In majority cases, police forces either became partisian to ruling Left or have seriously lost morale, thus involved in various wrongdoings that has seriously affected the image of Kerala Police. Though Left governments has introduced several innovative concepts like Janamaithri schemes etc, its often reported lower end police officials who are affiliated to party gets more high handiness and they get involved with various wrong doings that damages the overall image. Equally party do openly get involved into various police actions, investigations which definitely harms their image in a big way. And Police often plays a role of spectators whenever CPM is involved in a crime, especially in Kannur Killings where they come only to arrest the criminals after they committed the crime, rather preventing the crime. Moreover often its reported, Police aids CPM by arresting dummy criminals as named by the party who are ready to sacrifice for them, instead of real criminals when comes to political murders of Kannur.Grave lapses, apathy by Kerala police but why has there been zero accountability?Kerala now has a new dread on the streets, an abusive police force that hapless citizens always fear - FirstpostPoor Social Protests: In Kerala, the key reason why Communists are respected whenever they are in opposition, is only because of their active or probably extraordinary level of intervention into various public issues and protests against government. CPM has numerous affilates and they all get involved actively against wrongdoings. For example, SFI actively protests, if fees of government institutions are hiked, if any private management reprimands students for wrong reasons or Government machinery lapses in education. Same way DYFI would be protesting against any social wrongs or corruption issues of the government. But when Left government comes to power, all these organizations go into deep hibernation, even in cases not directly against government. For example in much recent Trivandrum Law Academy protests, SFI almost stood as a spectators when their own fellow coalition partner’s student wing- AISF (CPI’s unit) completely took over the protests in a big way. Same way, DYFI will rarely open its mouth, even against the most worst form of nepotism or public wrongs in society when Left rules. This sort of double standards of these affiliates organizations, is one key issue, as CPM as a ruler absolutely ask all its affiliates to be silent, even if they don’t support the government on it.A report that came in a leading newspaper how children of CPM Leaders got privileged to be associated with various corporate companies.Support to crony capitalists : CPM often face criticisms for supporting and seeking patronage of few businessmen. Infact, its much similar to how BJP gets associated with some like Adani at national stage. CPM’s official ideology is always pro-poor, yet its too opposite to see them getting associated intensively with large Malayalee business magnates. Some of the their leader’s children with average educational qualifications and little professional experience ended up as Vice presidents and senior officials of companies owned by these business groups. This double standards always gets a serious attack over CPM Leadership as it works heavily to create nepotism. Left also got seriously attacked in recent years for supporting many Neo rich businessmen and their violation of environmental laws. Infact many do criticize heavily, CPM is actually taking all laundry bags of such neo rich for no reason, which indirectly highlights on nepotism issues.Nepotism Charges: CPM and most of left parties do keep a very high standards on record and in public domain. Naturally public do expect a lot from them. So when they behave like Congress politicians, it gets much deeper brickbats. Its normal anywhere in India, ruling party do give chances to their favourite men as well as within family members, a chance of being part of provisional government services or temporary employment in Government owned corporations or bodies. However this matter when CPM does always gets huge brickbats as they often talk and present reports on purity of political services. Naturally such behaviour doesn’t get accepted. Nepotism is one key charge often levied against many CPM ministers and did happen this time, when some of them appointed their newphews or son in laws in temporary Govt jobs. A minister who regarded as Number 2 in current government lost his ministerial berth only for appointing his son-in-law as manager of a government company. Media often takes extra interest in exposing the double standards of CPM as they often talk about purity and corruption free politics. Rarely CPM/Left gets involved in any serious scandals that involve money. But often get involved in nepotism charges, which is indeed too negative for them.The ongoing strike by former CPM workers against Left Government who decided to take their land for National Highway development. Its a typical example, how CPM with iron fist deals its own workers instead of a consensus.Iron Fist attitude: While in opposition, Left often talks about consensual politics, whereas in power they try to do implement changes with Iron Fist. Some of the worst police atrocities or forcible actions against protestors were recorded during Left rule. The recent issue of forcible Land acquisitions for National Highway is one such example, how Left rarely respect its own ideals while in opposition. This serves one prefect reason why Left gets voted out once in every 5 years.There could be many more pros and cons. I feel, these are most key according to me.Its true, both Left and Right (in Kerala concept, Right means UDF or Congress) are never angels…Nor devils too. Both has their pros and cons. While UDF is more Corruption oriented (with focus on economic development), LDF is more Arrogant Oriented (with focus on social development).The people of Kerala uses elections as a Pendulum to run from Corruption to Arrogance and then back and forth so.

Does the CCP view democracy as a concept that is positive and beneficial? Outside countries like Switzerland, where everybody votes on everything, the CCP is probably the world’s leading democracy because it has the closest alignment between what people want and what the government delivers.No matter which way you look at Chinese democracy, it’s beating the Western models hands down. To save time by let’s look at Joseph Wang’s answer to How do we convince a Chinese communist advocate that judicial independence is important?So lets go back to 1990.You: Democracy and judicial independence are great thingsCCP: We agree. It’s just that we have different definitions of democracy and judicial independenceYou: But your definitions are wrongCCP: Why?You: Because your government is obviously broken. Just look at how wonderful things are in the US and EU, and how much things suck in China. Obviously our definitions are better.Today:You: Democracy and judicial independence are great thingsCCP: We agree. It’s just that we have different definitions of democracy and judicial independence. Any by the way, we been spending the last thirty years copying bits and pieces of your system, that we think can work.You: But your definitions are wrongCCP: Why?You: Because your government is obviously broken. Just look at how wonderful things are in the US and EU, and how much things suck in China, and errr……Let’s compare America’s current version of democracy to China’s constitutionally, electively, popularly, procedurally, legislatively, operationally, substantively, collectively and financially.Constitutionally, China’s constitution cites the concept of ‘rights’ twenty-five times, ‘democracy’ thirty-three times and ‘freedom’ twelve times and stipulates, America omitted the d-word from all its Constitutional documents.Electively, The Constitution refers to the National People’s Congress’ role a hundred times and stipulates, “The National People’s Congress and the local people’s congresses..are responsible to the people and subject to their supervision. All administrative, judicial and procuratorial organs of the State are created by the people’s congresses to which they are responsible and by which they are supervised”. Directly elected village representatives vote for township members, who vote for county representatives, who vote for provincial representatives who vote to send candidates to the National People’s Congress, which votes for the Central Committee’s two hundred members are the party's highest organ of authority when Congress is not in session. They also vote to elect the seven members of China’s highest executive group, the Politburo Standing Committee: the president, premier and cabinet. The president cannot even choose his own prime minister, hire or fire officials or assign or suspend members of Congress. In the U.S., by contrast, wealthy, unelected people propose and fund candidates for election and an unelected Electoral College chooses the chief executive.Popularly, the Chinese, who bear many scars from past governance errors and it was when Mao ignored his own advice, “If we don’t investigate public opinion we have no right to voice our own opinion. Public opinion is our guideline for action,” that China suffered. Today, the government spends prolifically on surveys and a thousand independent polling firms seek insights, as author Jeff J. Brown wrote me, “My Beijing neighborhood committee and town hall are constantly putting up announcements, inviting groups of people–renters, homeowners, over seventies, women under forty, those with or without medical insurance, retirees–to answer surveys. The CPC is the world’s biggest pollster for a reason: China’s democratic ‘dictatorship of the people’ is highly engaged at the day-to-day, citizen-on-the-street level. I know, because I live in a middle class Chinese community and I question them all the time. I find their government much more responsive and democratic than the dog-and-pony shows back home, and I mean that seriously”. Princeton’s Gilens and Page, on the other hand, examining the causes of Americans’ fifty-two percent participation, found that ‘the preferences of the average American appear to have a near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy’.Legislatively, President Obama’s healthcare initiative relied on his popularity and promises while China’s initiatives rely on math. Two-thirds of Chinese trust data more than personal experience–compared to only half of us globally–and technical experts remain the most trusted members of their society. As Robin Daverman explains, “China is a giant trial portfolio with millions of trials going on everywhere. Today, innovations in everything from healthcare to poverty reduction, education, energy, trade and transportation are being trialled in different communities. Every one of China’s 662 cities is experimenting: Shanghai with free trade zones, Guizhou with poverty reduction, twenty-three cities with education reforms, Northeastern provinces with SOE reform: pilot schools, pilot cities, pilot hospitals, pilot markets, pilot everything. Mayors and governors, the Primary Investigators, share their ‘lab results’ at the Central Party School and publish them in ‘scientific journals,’ the State-owned newspapers. Major policies undergo ‘clinical trials,’ beginning in small towns that generate and analyze test data. If the stats look good, they’ll add test sites and do long-term follow-ups. They test and tweak for 10-30 years then ask the 3,000-member People’s Congress to review the data and authorize national trials in three major provinces. If a national trial is successful the State Council [China’s Brains Trust] polishes the plan and takes it back to the 3,000 Congresspeople for a final vote. It’s very transparent and, if you have good data and I don’t, your bill gets passed and mine doesn’t. People’s Congress votes are nearly unanimous because the legislation is backed by reams of data”. Legislation is entirely data-driven and the data and its sources are publicly disclosed prior to the vote. American legislation, by contrast, is written by unelected bureaucrats and professional lobbyists and often passed without a single Congressperson’s having read it.Procedurally, in Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's words, policy setting ‘emphasizes solutions to major problems, either relevant to the grand strategy of the country's socio-economic development or of deep concern to the public’ and, although the process is neither fully scientific nor totally democratic, calling it ‘authoritarian’ (a Western concept) misses the point. If the government says, ‘to reduce pollution this year, please don’t turn your heaters on until November 22,’ ninety percent of Chinese will shiver because they trust the government’s data. If President Xi claims that global warming is a hoax he will be regarded as autocratic, not democratic. If he wants a new climate policy and persuades five cabinet colleagues to support it, he can push it into the trials pipeline but, without solid trial data, he can’t propose legislation. The Party sees itself as a follower of scientific methodology and looks at its American counterparts the way scientists look at people walking into their lab off the street. Their scientific, data-driven democracy has steadily narrowed the gap between public expectations and government capacity and Chinese support for government policies stands at 96 percent, higher than Switzerland’s or Singapore’s and far loftier than our twenty percent.Operationally, as The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman said, “If we could just be China for one day we could actually authorize the right decisions”. Instead, American presidents resemble the medieval monarchs upon whom their office was modeled, as Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, observed, “We elect a king for four years and give him absolute power within certain limits which, after all, he can interpret for himself”. Our presidents hire and fire all senior officials, secretly ban fifty-thousand citizens from flying, order people kidnapped, tortured, imprisoned and assassinated and take the country to war. No Chinese leader, even Mao at his peak, could do any of those things. Instead, China’s State Council analyzes data and prepares policy suggestions. They suggest tradeoffs and runs policy simulations of optimum outcomes, publish their findings in journals and present them at conferences. They support what Zhang Weiwei calls ‘a neutral government shaping national consensus’ and pass their recommendations to the Politburo, twenty-five officials with a thousand years of collective political experience who pass the refined document to the Steering Committee: seven independently elected Cabinet members with equal votes. The Steering Committee polishes the legislation so that ninety percent of the 3,200 national congresspeople will support it.Substantively, China has won her battle for survival and is now militarily and economically impregnable, so authoritarian giants like Mao and Deng are no longer needed. Today, an awful lot of consultation goes into making law in China. Researchers, experts, media, academics, stakeholders and obstreperous citizens set the agenda and draw up Five Year Plans beginning after the mid-term of the previous 5 year plan. The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) carries out mid-term assessment and requirement research using questionnaires and grass roots forums and sends a report to National People's Congress, which organizes scholars and specialists to evaluate the list and prioritize the budget. Politburo members guide planning teams who visit areas across the country, listening to local elites’ opinions to form proposals of the areas they are in charge of. The final proposal for next 5 Year Plan is discussed and officially published at the Central Committee’s next Plenary Session. After the official proposal is published, State Council solicits suggestions from all areas and all social levels (workers, farmers, businessmen, entrepreneurs, specialists, etc.) and written submissions from government organizations at all levels and appoints a Financial and Economic Committee to do the preliminary analysis and budgeting. Since 2000, China has allowed foreigners to conduct surveys and publish apolitical results without submitting their questionnaires and Harvard’s Tony Saich, who’s been polling there for over a decade reports, in Governing China, that ninety-six per cent of Chinese are satisfied with their national government and, according to Edelman’s 2016 Report, almost ninety percent of Chinese trust it. World Values Surveys found that eighty-three percent say China is run for their benefit rather than for the benefit of special groups–compared to thirty-eight percent of Americans.Collectively, Chinese peasants have always practiced direct democracy because every dynasty, for the sake of its own survival, is forced to investigate disturbances and to discipline responsible officials. The nation, Mozi said, does not belong to the emperor: the emperor is merely the country’s manager and, when he manages badly, he must apologize. For millennia China’s emperors have written Letters of Public Apology when things go amiss–a democratic device unknown in the West. Despite support for Beijing’s policies, there is still widespread dissatisfaction with local government because, when communes were being shut down during the Reform and Opening, thousands of local officials stole land and equipment. Last year the government reported 150,000 ‘mass incidents’ stemming from local officials’ unfairness, dishonesty or incompetence. Because police are unarmed, rowdy public demonstrations are safe, cheap, exciting and effective. People paint signs, alert NGOs and social media, round up friends and neighbors, parade in the street banging drums, shouting slogans, live-stream the event to millions on social media and, within hours, after a call from Beijing, a shaken official speeds to the site, bows deeply, apologizes profusely, kisses babies, pets dogs, explains he had no idea that such things were going on and promises that, starting today, things will improve. And, gradually, they do.Financially, ninety-five percent of poor Chinese own their homes and land. In its 2017 study, Global Inequality Dynamics, America’s National Bureau of Economic Research reported that, though the bottom half of Chinese saw their share of national income fall from twenty-seven percent to fifteen percent after 1980, Americans’ share collapsed to twelve percent. While China’s top one percent captured thirteen percent of all personal income, America’s grabbed twenty percent. Since those figures were compiled, China has eliminated urban poverty and, the World Bank says, “We can reasonably expect the virtual elimination of extreme poverty in [rural] China by 2022”. Every Chinese–including the poor–has doubled her income every ten years for the past 40 years–an extraordinary improvement in income mobility and the inverse of Americans’ experience, says Stanford’s Raj Chetty, where “rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class”. Another measure of financial democracy is decentralization–local governments’ share of spending. Economist Pierre Landry says, “One would expect the PRC to be one of the most centralized countries. Instead, China's observed level of decentralization is consistent with the behavior of a federal democracy. A 2004 International Monetary Fund (IMF) study found that, in 1972-2000, this figure averaged 25 percent for liberal democracies and 18 percent for non-democracies. But, for China, the average figure was 54 percent for 1958-2002 and, by 2014, it had risen to a staggering 85 percent”.Today, clearly, things suck less in China than in the US. More Chinese own their homes, for example:People are safer, more financially secure, better educated and more trusting of each other their government in China, and a trusting environment contributes to a higher quality of life:Chinese people see that the situation of poor folk is improving, too–and equitability is a big factor in quality of life, too:They all look forward to rising real wages–which double every ten years–and that puts everyone in a good mood:And their kids can look forward to making more than they do, which makes every parent happy:So it’s not only the CCP that views democracy as a concept that is positive and beneficial–it’s everybody. Or 96% of them, anyway.

As with many things, China has reinvented democracy and, surprise!, democracy with Chinese characteristics means that everyone gets what they want from their government. In other words, Chinese democracy works much, much better than Western democracy. Let’s compare China’s democracy to America’s and break it down:Constitutionally, The Constitution of China stipulates, “The State organs of the People’s Republic of China apply the principle of democratic centralism. The National People’s Congress and the local people’s congresses at various levels are constituted through democratic elections. They are responsible to the people and subject to their supervision. All administrative, judicial and procuratorial organs of the State are created by the people’s congresses to which they are responsible and by which they are supervised”. America’s founders carefully omitted the word ‘democracy’ from all Constitutional documents because they all hated democracy. For at least paying lip service to democracy, we must award a point to China.Electively, China’s bigger, more transparent elections were designed and are supervised by The Carter Center which continues to expand the franchise at the behest of Premier Wen Jiabao who told them in 2012, “The experience of many villages shows farmers can succeed in directly electing village committees. If people can manage a village well they can manage a township and a county. We must encourage people to experiment boldly and test democracy in practice”. Today, 3,200 democratically elected Congressional representatives must vote, almost unanimously, to approve all senior appointments and all legislation. In the U.S., wealthy, unelected people propose and fund candidates for election. An unelected Electoral College chooses the chief executive. China 2–USA 0.Popularly, the Chinese, who still bear scars of recent governance mistakes, will tell you that it was when Mao, Deng and the Qing Emperor ignored experts that they got the country into trouble. Today, Chinese democracy resembles Proctor and Gamble more than Pericles. There are more than a thousand polling firms in China and its government spends prolifically on surveys, as author Jeff J. Brown says, “My Beijing neighborhood committee and town hall are constantly putting up announcements, inviting groups of people–renters, homeowners, over seventies, women under forty, those with or without medical insurance, retirees–to answer surveys. The CPC is the world’s biggest pollster for a reason: China’s democratic ‘dictatorship of the people’ is highly engaged at the day-to-day, citizen-on-the-street level. I know, because I live in a middle class Chinese community and I question them all the time. I find their government much more responsive and democratic than the dog-and-pony shows back home, and I mean that seriously”. Even the imperious Mao would remind colleagues, “If we don’t investigate public opinion we have no right to voice our own opinion. Public opinion is our guideline for action,” which is why Five Year Plans are the results of intensive polling. Citizens’ sixty-two percent voter participation suggests that they think their votes count. Princeton’s Gilens and Page, on the other hand, examining the causes of Americans’ fifty-two percent voter participation, found ‘the preferences of the average American appear to have a near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy’. China 3–USA 0.Procedurally, The Chinese engineers, economists, statisticians and sociologists who develop policies practice democracy among themselves and the top seven decision makers–appointed independently of each other and with a collective 200 years governing experience–require at least six votes to send legislation to Congress. If President Xi claimed that global warming is a hoax he would be regarded as autocratic, not democratic. If he wants a new climate policy and persuades five colleagues to support it, he can push it into the trials pipeline but, without trial data, he can’t propose legislation and the popularly elected, unpaid Congress has proven willing to delay leaders’ pet projects for decades. Data-driven democracy has steadily narrowed the gap between public expectations and government capacity, which is why Chinese support for government policies stands at 96 percent, higher than evenSwitzerland’s or Singapore’s and far higher than our twenty percent. China 4–USA 0.Operationally, American presidents resemble the medieval monarchs upon whom their office was modeled, as Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, observed, “We elect a king for four years and give him absolute power within certain limits which, after all, he can interpret for himself”. Our Presidents hire and fire all senior officials, secretly ban fifty thousand citizens from flying, order people kidnapped, tortured, imprisoned and assassinated and take the country to war. No Chinese leader, not even Mao at his peak, could do any of those things. Chna’s president cannot even choose his Prime Minister (automatically his strongest rival for the presidency), can only make decisions with 6–1 or 7–0 support from colleagues and can’t hire or fire officials, elect, assign or suspend members of Congress. President Obama’s healthcare initiative relied on his popularity and promises whereas, as Stanford VC Robin Daverman explains, China’s initiatives rely on math: “China is a giant trial portfolio with millions of trials going on everywhere. Today, innovations in everything from healthcare to poverty reduction, education, energy, trade and transportation are being trialled in different communities. Every one of China’s 662 cities is experimenting: Shanghai with free trade zones, Guizhou with poverty reduction, twenty-three cities with education reforms, Northeastern provinces with SOE reform: pilot schools, pilot cities, pilot hospitals, pilot markets, pilot everything. Mayors and governors, the Primary Investigators, share their ‘lab results’ at the Central Party School and publish them in ‘scientific journals,’ the State-owned newspapers. Major policies undergo ‘clinical trials,’ beginning in small towns that generate and analyze test data. If the stats look good, they’ll add test sites and do long-term follow-ups. They test and tweak for 10-30 years then ask the 3,000-member People’s Congress to review the data and authorize national trials in three major provinces. If a national trial is successful the State Council [China’s Brains Trust] polishes the plan and takes it back to the 3,000 Congresspeople for a final vote. It’s very transparent and, if you have good data and I don’t, your bill gets passed and mine doesn’t. People’s Congress votes are nearly unanimous because the legislation is backed by reams of data. This allows China to accomplish a great deal in a short time: your winning solution will be quickly propagated throughout the country, you’ll be a front page hero and you’ll be invited to high-level meetings in Beijing and promoted. As you can imagine, the competition to find solutions is intense”. That’s what real democracy looks like and, operationally, data-driven legislation wins hands down. China 5–USA 0.Substantively, China has won her battle for survival and is now militarily and economically impregnable, so authoritarian giants like Mao and Deng are no longer needed. Today, researchers, experts, media, academics, stakeholders and obstreperous citizens set the agenda. Since 2000, China has allowed foreigners to conduct surveys and publish apolitical results without submitting their questionnaires and Harvard’s Tony Saich, who’s been polling there for over a decade reports, in Governing China, that ninety-six per cent of Chinese are satisfied with their national government and, according to Edelman’s 2016 Report, almost ninety percent of Chinese trust it. World Values Surveys found that eighty-three percent say China is run for their benefit rather than for the benefit of special groups–compared to thirty-eight percent of Americans. China 6–USA 0.Militarily. China’s soldiers, sailors and airmen vote democratically to elect their non-commissioned officers–the only military on earth to do so. NCOs (non-commissioned officers like sergeants and corporals) are the guys who will personally lead them when the bullets start flying and bombs start exploding–one reason the Red Army has always been famous for its morale. American soldiers, sailors and airmen have no votes about anything. China 7–USA 0.Financially. Discussions about financial democracy are heavily censored in America but not in China, which is why ninety-five percent of poor Chinese own their homes and land:and the Chinese people also own the commanding heights of their economy: banks, insurers and utilities. Inequality is being effectively addressed and improving rapidly. In its 2017 study, Global Inequality Dynamics, America’s National Bureau of Economic Research reports that, though the bottom half of Chinese saw their share of national income fall from twenty-seven percent to fifteen percent after 1980, Americans’ share collapsed from twenty percent to twelve percent. Simultaneously, China’s top one percent captured thirteen percent of all personal income, but America’s elite grabbed twenty percent. Since those figures were compiled, China has eliminated urban poverty and, the World Bank adds, “We can reasonably expect the virtual elimination of extreme poverty in [rural] China by 2022”. Every Chinese–not just the poor–has doubled her income every ten years for the past 40 years, an extraordinary improvement in income mobility and the inverse of our experience. In the U.S., says Stanford’s Raj Chetty, “rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class”. China 8–USA 0.As a real democracy, China beats the USA 8–0.