The film presents us an alarming view of “democracy”. Perhaps Machiavelli would be a fan of Luo Lei, in that he is able to reach a middle ground between being feared and being loved.  Though it is clear that he has beat up his classmates, it seems that he is able to appease them through the gifts his father suggests, such as those from the autumn festival or the trip to the monorail. Despite my readiness to dislike the incumbent, I can see how he holds a certain degree of virtue, at least in the way Machiavelli describes it. In the beginning of the film, he says that he wants people to vote for who they want. This film shows democracy in a loose sense. The classroom community is too small to mirror the way the masses consider political candidates. However, one thing is abundantly clear through Cheng Cheng and Luo Lei’s actions: the playing field is not fair. Xiaofei’s efforts are undercut from the beginning of the talent show, when her classmates scream insults at her. The unfairness of the election process is relevant in examining many democracies around the world. It seems that the main challenge to democracy presented in the film is that the children don’t really know what a democracy is, as we are shown at the outset of the film. Once they are given the power to choose for themselves, it makes sense that they would revert back to the incumbent, back to what has always been. For these reasons, they accept him despite his authoritarian form of ruling the classroom.

Fareed Zakaria and other scholars have made the point to distinguish the different gradations of freedom. Zakaria makes the distinction between a liberal and an illiberal democracy, making the point that democracy is about the process for choosing leaders, while liberalism refers to a state in which individual rights are “paramount”. The issue with democracy and politics, as we have discussed, is dealing with difference. When societies are fragmented in terms of their beliefs and backgrounds, how does a state uphold the norms of liberal democracy? Throughout history, the logical form of dealing with difference has been to have the most representation for the majority. Though the United States was weary of this manifestation of democracy from the outset (ie. the creation of the immutable Bill of Rights), it seems that nowadays the trend towards populism has created “too direct a connection between popular passions and public policy”, as Zakaria states. This trend can be seen all around the world, especially when looking at the rise of populists in the United States (Donald Trump) and in European countries like France and Germany. I think that we are going to notice this trend for years to come and see many governments be led by populist, authoritarian leaders such as Trump and Putin. Zakaria’s assertion that these leaders keep a balance between liberalism and illiberalism that keeps people satisfied is a concerning prospect. However, I’m not yet convinced that this sort of balancing game is sustainable. In part this comes from a gut feeling and an innate belief in liberal democracy, however in another way this doubt stems from 20th century history. Most of the rule under military juntas and authoritarian regimes was undone in one way or another. Some people, as in the case of Germany, actually preferred to be ruled by such powers for cultural and economic reasons (ie. an ethos of collective freedom and the devastating effects of inflation and the stock market crash). However, these beliefs were ultimately checked by the forces of liberal democracy. In this case, it was World War II, but in other cases it comes back to an understanding of basic human rights. The “No” vote in Chile was our version of “Yes We Can”, as writer Ariel Dorfman put it.  Perhaps this is too much of an optimistic view, but I do not believe that populism is the end of history as we know it. I think we are going to see periodic shifts from bondage to freedom (and all that comes in between). Hopefully, the consideration of liberal values will come sooner rather than later.

Lerner’s account is reminiscent of Gessen’s piece in the way it complicates the idea of Positivism and the scientific quality of political science. While I do believe that empirical data is necessary for a complete picture of an issue, it seems the Lerner’s type of journalism—in its hyper-specificity and qualitative nature— allows us an understanding of Balgat that empirical data lacks. Ultimately, political science comes down to the interaction of human beings and the way in which their decisions affect the larger scheme of their society. Lerner’s metaphorization of the grocer and the chief allows us to characterize some of the opposing attitudes that existed in Balgat before modernization. This is especially highlighted in the way these men interpreted movies. For the chief they acted as a “moral prophylactic”, whereas for the grocer they were “an avenue to the wider world of his dreams”.  This passage illustrates the shortcomings of the “modern myth”, as modernity does not necessarily lead to a unity of opinion. It seems, in fact, that modernity (or the possibility of it) creates a stage for more dissent. The grocer was the agent of modernity and was ultimately criticized because of it. Journalistic pieces like Lerner’s allow us to understand the plight of specific people that lived through modernization. It remind us that behind the facts and figures, the people of Balgat are beings with moral worth that are individually affected by the political and social forces around them. This piece makes the reader feel something. Despite the fact that this piece is highly opinionated, it seems that the insight it provides outweighs the the author’s personal stakes.

Masha Gessen’s piece, “The Dying Russians” illustrates the ways in which a mix of both qualitative and quantitative data can provide us a more complete picture of the problem. We tend to give our blind faith to numbers. Statistics such as the 30% of deaths from heart disease are harrowing, but it doesn’t explain the causation. Gessen explores the different, more physiological explanations for this statistic, but ultimately makes the point that numbers cannot tell us the full story, as comparative approaches with other countries’ death statistics simply do not add up. In this scenario, Ian Shapiro’s concept of problem-oriented research is well highlighted. Ultimately, it is the cultural, institution, and historical instruments of explanation that allow us to grasp a sense of why the Russians are dying at such alarming rates. Gessen mentions that one woman says that “the difference between current poverty and poverty in the postwar era is that ‘now there are rich folks'”. These personal accounts are paradoxically specific and representative of the Russian experience and the lack of hope that has resulted due to their tragic historical plight. In a way, it seems that we can approach a “truth”, but this “truth” does not lie beyond the grasp of social science. Social science is about attempting to harmonize the qualitative and the quantitative. Gessen’s piece attempts to explain a puzzle and offers us an elegant and poetic explanation. It is not clear to me that such an explanation is objectively less verifiable or valid than a traditional scientific one. Her piece attempts to encompass a population-wide sentiment that not even the Russians can fully understand. Any effort to confront a question of this magnitude with such care is helpful and leads us in the right direction.

In Orwell’s account, it seems that the Burmese have the power. As we have read  previously, it is the powerful that have the most to lose. Once Orwell takes on the role of superiority, he “wears a mask and his face grows to fit it”. When face and mask are one in the same, the powerful are nothing if the don’t live up to the persona that is feared by the populace. Orwell shot the elephant “solely to avoid looking a fool”, even adding that he was secretly against those who oppressed the Burmese. This situation highlights the humanity in politics and the ways in which people make difficult decisions to save face and to avoid the vulnerability of embarrassment. In Orwell’s story, it is the Burmese who are characterized like villains because of their interest in killing the elephant. More importantly, this story illustrates the power of the masses. Despite the political status quo, one can see that human behavior is fragile and manipulable, regardless of one’s standing in society. Though the imperialists and Orwell have the power of violence, it is ultimately the drive to instill the image of the imperialists readiness to inflict pain or assert power over others that triumphs in this piece. Ultimately, Orwell is regretful and empty.

I really like your take on the issue. I also find it difficult to say that the system should be replaced because I cannot think of another way to structure schooling. However, I do see ways in which schools could begin to prioritize or at least value creativity. In this way, one could begin to see value in schooling as a way to build on creativity. It seems that an approach like this one would satisfy the author and allow diverse paths to success. It seems that the largest flaw in education is that success equates to discipline and memorization skills. Ultimately, those who are successful are not dependent on these skills alone.