The documentary, “Please Vote For Me” presents an interesting perspective on a democratic experiment, and an in retrospect, my response to the film poses an equally interesting view on democracy in action, particularly to some of the more “unethical” realities of the democratic system. The election of class monitor for the Chinese students highlighted is, as it turns out, more intensely competitive than one might think. A product of this competition is the involvement of classmates and even parents in order to give certain candidates a leg up on the other students in the running. In the context of the class monitor election in the movie, this seems unethical, even a bit unfair, at times. However, when considered as a reflection of the reality of the implementation of the democratic system in a place like the United States, we take the outside efforts of interested parties (and those parties’ monetary power) as part and parcel of our governmental system.

An additional reality of democracy that this film exposes is the power of the incumbent: Luo Lei is denounced as overly strict and harsh in his last two years as a class monitor, but he wins the election regardless as a result of his ruthless campaign methods and the inertia that he capitalizes on as a candidate of the status quo.

The series of interviews highlighted in this passage are extremely revealing of the hierarchy of power intrinsic to the Middle Eastern society of Balgat. The different roles represented by the relationship between the interviewer and interviewees reminds me of Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” narrative: while the members of the village exist in their society, obedient to their laws, the outsider in this scenario has power because he is not a member of their society. At the same time, however, because the outsider exists within the physical confines of the village, his power is limited by the same laws that affect the villagers. It is by this token that the Chief makes the original interviewer, Tosun, nervous, while Tosun makes the grocer nervous at the same time.

Ultimately, change occurs in this isolated village, suggesting an upheaval in this power dynamic to a certain extent. In no small part, as Lerner points out, was this due to the ideas of the Grocer, which provides questions as to where the motivation for change came from, and how such a power dynamic is altered by the ideas of outsiders and its inhabitants.

In Orwell’s account of his experience as a police officer of the British empire in Burma, he uses the experience of shooting a rogue elephant terrorizing the village to highlight the often strange power dynamic between himself, the Burmese people, and the British empire. It is this last pillar of the power dynamic, the English system that has crafted the environment in which both he and the Burmese people reside, that is not explicitly discussed as a participant in Orwell’s account, but nonetheless holds the true power in Orwell’s story. Orwell mentions that “For at that time I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better.” (1) While he is in Burma, Orwell is beholden to the British state just as much as the Burmese villagers he presides over, and it is this forced assumption of the role of ruler that pushes Orwell to shoot the elephant in order to not lose face in front of his “subjects.” Orwell himself would rather not be in the position of power that he is in, but his own autonomy is taken away by the empire he represents, just as the empire has taken away the autonomy of the Burmese people. The relationship between Orwell and the villagers is not at all the power dynamic that it seems to be; instead, Orwell is a subject of his empire too.

The last sentence of your post hits the nail on the head: so much of our schooling is focused solely on immediate (primarily economic) advancement, rather than the long-term development of students as scholars and people. I believe this also relates perfectly to Gatto’s point about the Prussian roots of our education system and the creation of a manageable populace.

Of note is historian Ellwood Cubberly’s comments about Horace Mann, who Gatto mentions as one of the early champions of this system of public education: “No one did more than he to establish in the minds of the American people the conception that education should be universal, non-sectarian, free, and that its aims should be social efficiency, civic virtue, and character, rather than mere learning or the advancement of education ends.” On the surface, these goals seem admirable, but the actual implementation of these ideas has contributed to the superficial, controlling schooling that we know today has led to the degradation of our public education system.