Category Archives: Uncategorized

Russia’s Disastrous Shock Therapy

Posted on by
Reply

Russians are stereotypicaly depressed, but the phenomenon that Masha Gessen documents on Dying Russians takes that to a whole new, and very morbid, level. At the heart of socialism is the idea that the purpose of the individual is to serve the greater whole, as opposed to capitalism, where self-interest motivates the individual. The regime change that took place in Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union might have changed the politics and economics of the country, but it happened so quickly that the culture had no time at all to adapt. Not only was this individualistic economic system suddenly thrust upon the Russian people, but also the volatility and inequality that came with it. One benefit of socialism is that the masses are all very economically equal. Movie stars aren’t driving Lamborghini’s past the destitute homeless in the Soviet Union, within worker communities, everyone is either suffering or prospering together, making it easier to share suffering. But the economic volatility of Shock Therapy allowed opportunistic Russians to get ahead and leave many behind, something that the Russian people were not ready to experience. Trying to take the Soviet Union and transform it into a new country with new values alienated many, especially older individuals who had their planned-out lives yanked out from under them and left to fend for themselves. Trying to make Russia something it was the very opposite of is exactly how we have ended up with Putin and his party now exerting near-authoritarian control of the country. Rather than let them evolve their country to accommodate capitalism and democracy, Shock Therapy proved to stoke resentment and nostalgia for times long past.

Back in My Day…

Posted on by
Reply

Balgat’s swift modernization is exactly what most people would point to when they think of “progress.” This leaves behind, however, the culture and traditions that, for The Chief, are essential to Balgati culture. Modernization offers the people of Balgat the clocks, retail stores, and elections all give the people of Balgat more access to more products, opportunities, and even ways to govern. But it doesn’t include the disclaimer that would read, “replaces distinct culture of small village and replaces with uniform culture of Ankara suburbs.” Modernization always wins the battle with stagnation. People are driven to shiny new things and measuring personal improvement by materially having more “stuff” one day than they did in the past. But because access to this stuff requires reforming culture to accommodate it, places like Balgat end up loosing their uniqueness. Should the chief so quietly surrender his Balgat to the onslaught of modernization though?  There are always people like the chief, who prize their traditions, he recognizes that his values are not going to be preserved in future generations, and quietly witnesses Balgat’s evolution. Many do not share this resignation, and when people of older generations are faced with the cultural implications of modernizing, there is often an effort to keep things the way they are. While it slows the pace of change, it is not entirely merit-less, as there should always be some effort to preserving the eccentricities of different cultures. Progress is excellent, and it oftentimes improves opportunities and quality of life, but it should always be approached cautiously so that what makes a town distinct is not entirely removed, but changed to fit in to the new world.

Little Democracy, Same Game

Posted on by
Reply

The Chinese classroom seen in Please Vote for Me perfectly encapsulates the many problems that the democratic process has. One would assume that a class election would be free of the many complexities found in an election for office in a large democracy, but instead, external influences and underhanded tactics immediately seize control and direct the vote. Cheng Cheng cunningly plants allies to slander Xiaofei before the race has even begun, and effectively gets the entire class to rebuke her without hearing a word she has to say. He also makes patronage an important part of his allure, promising positions in his future “administration” to those who would support him. But fittingly, Cheng Cheng’s Jacksonian politics eventually backfired, as even in his small classroom, he destroyed his own integrity. His lack of consistency, mostly due to contradictory promises that backfired and destroyed their value and his supporters, driving them away.  Fittingly, the deciding factor in the end was money. Luo Fei can woo his class with an expensive trip on the monorail, completely irrelevant to running a classroom but appealing nonetheless to an elementary school classroom. His parents, as well as the parents of Cheng Cheng and Xiaofei, all played an important roll as campaign advisors and sponsors. Luo Fei’s parents used him as a puppet, acting through him to further their own desire to see their son win the office. In the end, the fact that even a small, innocent democracy like the one found within this classroom is subject to manipulation shows the imperfections of this solution to governance.

Democracy in Please Vote for Me

Posted on by
3

In Please Vote for Me, what should have been (from an American viewpoint) a friendly and innocent vote for class monitor, became a vicious week of name-calling, bribery, and emotional stress. In short, the Grade 3 Class 1 of Evergreen Promarh School, became representative of all the worst characteristics of democracy.

Fascinatingly, much of the bad behavior demonstrated throughout the film is instigated by the parents of the children. From writing speeches to preparing bribes to forcing the children to stay in the running, the parents of the 3 candidates were just as, if not more, important characters in the documentary than their children. This discrepancy can probably by explained in a couple of different ways. Similar to Iran, when investigating the much higher voter participation in elections that in the US, the effort into this third grade class monitor election, is due to the lack of any other elections in the country. To the Chinese parents, this election, then, counts as a chance, a hope, for some small control of the government institutions. Even though the third grade class monitor election is virtually nothing in the grand scheme of politics, it is symbolic of the hope for larger change and influence. In this way, the only chance to parents have to participate in an election is to do so through their kids. On the other hand, the actions of the parents are distinctly done to put their children in a better position- a purely selfish (but understandable) maneuver . As was mentioned in the film, being class monitor could be the first step to having a political career all the way up to President, like that of (then) current President Hu Jintao. Finally, the actions of the parents can be attributed to the parenting culture in China. Many of the parent-child interactions, such as threat of beatings or forcing extra work after bedtime, were very different from Western images of parenting styles.

Ultimately, however, it is critical to note that none of the participants in the documentary had any idea of what democracy was, and why it was important. If examined through a Toquevillian perspective, it is clear that although the institutional design (individual votes, peaceful transition of power, etc) of the system linked with our Western perception of democracy, the lack of the social culture  lacks causality of true democracy. This lack of a social culture is exhibited by the parents and adults and through them the students. In this way, although the class monitor election was presented as a new democratic opportunity, in fact, it was just a bad facimile of true democracy, and a way to appease the Chinese people of a need to participate and matter in politics.

Please Vote For Me

Posted on by
Reply

The most notable aspect of this film is how each candidate acts outside the teacher’s structure. How they campaigned. Xu Xiaofei showed no efforts to campaign as she was most concerned with how she would perform in front of the class. Xu did not persuade anyone nor work outside of the class to convince anyone of her candidacy.  On the other hand, the methods of both Cheng Cheng and Lou Lei outside of the class structure reminded me of some of Machiavelli’s tips on how to be a prince. For instance, Cheng Cheng bribes his “mercenaries” with the promises of authority once he is elected. He then makes them insult Lou Lei and Xu Xiaofei. Just as Machiavelli argues, Cheng Cheng’s supposed allies did not help him because they believed in him but because of their own selfish interest. Cheng Cheng’s support is evident but not strong and that showed in the votes. Just as Machiavelli prescribes, Lou Lei earns the love and support of his classmates by gifting them and taking them on trips, he is generous. However, he is not too generous because he is notoriously strict and physical. Lou Lei understands the same importance of balancing needed violence and generosity that Machiavelli argues and consequentially wins by a large margin.

The dirty actions and Bribery by Cheng Cheng Lou Lei show some of the moral pitfalls that come with democratic elections. On the other hand, the fact that another election will be held a year later is a great example of the checks and balances that make democracy successful. Luo Lei’s victory does not mean that he can continue to be as violent as he has in the past. As he promised in his last speech, he can change and if he does not the the democratic process will serve as a check on his violence. The election caused a lot of misbehavior and dirty tricks amongst the class, however, it will change the role of class monitor forever.

Please Vote For Me

Posted on by
2

First off, I would like to say how strange it was that the group of men that were at the same restaurant as Lou Lei and his family were all not wearing shirts. Cheng Cheng didn’t seem to fond of his shirt either.

But I think that this example of democracy in action is telling of two things: one being that Machiavelli’s theories about the behaviors of an ideal prince seem to be the most effective in this democratic game, and the second being that the system of democracy may be more flawed than one may initially think. Cheng Cheng showed aspects of Machiavelli politics, but he did not fully manage the balance of assertion and trust. The students definitely thought that he was powerful, but they were not sure what to expect and or if they could trust him. Lou Lei on the other hand, established the trust and support of his fellow classmates through his bribes, but also demanded respect and obedience. For this reason, Lou Lei was more of a master of Machiavellian techniques, and this resulted in his victory. However, this democracy in action goes to show that the process is not always as fair and equal as it appears. Though in theory, all three candidates have an equal chance to win, the second that the two boys ganged up on Xiaofei, her chances of winning were diminished as she was made to appear unworthy and unqualified. The fact of the matter is she played the game in the most fair and respectable way, and defeat was the outcome.

 

Perfect Little Politicians

Posted on by
Reply

The documentary struck me as a commentary on both politics and culture. Starting with the culture, I was shocked by the interactions between the parents and children. Coincidentally, I watch a YouTuber from South Africa who has lived in China for several years, and his assertions (that due to the one child policy, children, especially urban children, are extremely spoiled) echoed in my mind. It was unbelievable to me the way Cheng Cheng literally pushed his mother out of the room, it blew my mind! This led me to think that these children made for the perfect stereotyped politicians—dirty and only in it for themselves. It was the contrast between Cheng Cheng and Luo Lei that spoke most to me (for some reason, I didn’t get much of a vibe from Xiaofei in a political sense). In my earlier Machiavellian phase I would have predicted Cheng Cheng to be the winner. After all, he did everything and anything to get elected (including dirty tactics). I was both surprised and relieved when he lost, but why he lost isn’t fully clear to me. I am also not sure our models of democracy fully apply at this scale, as those were derived from situations with millions of voters, not 30-something voters. However, my theory would be this: Cheng Cheng’s willingness to do anything to get elected was his downfall. To some extent, the appearance of virtue is important to get elected, and with such a small electorate so close to the candidates, it became obvious who was the virtuous candidate, and who was just saying whatever it would take to get elected.

Now, was this a democratic outcome? Although this election clearly was not on a level playing field, as Luo Lei was an incumbent with two years of experience, this does not make it undemocratic. The incumbent advantage is featured prominently in U.S. elections, yet we consider the U.S. to be a democracy (we may not all agree on this). Luo Lei was the reasonable choice, the Hillary Clinton of the class election. In this case, the class wanted continuity and law and order, so Lui Lei won in the democratic process. In the U.S. there was obviously a different outcome, but the theory still applies. Of course there were shady dealings going on behind the scenes, but this is featured in all elections to some extent, and it shouldn’t necessarily mean that the process is undemocratic. The premise of a democracy is that the people decide, and in this scenario, the people picked Lui Lei.

Getting Off to a Bad Start

Posted on by
Reply

Machiavelli woule surely agree with the structure of the class monitor elections. Destroy your opponents while ensuring your rise to the top. Personally, I thought that these elections showed how non-democratic societies often replicate the corrupt. broken democracies countries like America has, thinking that’s the best version of democracy there can be. If kids being taught the basics of democracy are told to tear down the other people running for office, to run for your own selfish desires, and to treat your constituents like pawns to be cajoled into voting for you, rather than people who should be listened to and treated with respect, I wouldn’t be surprised if a future Chinese democracy became as much a corporate sewer pit as American democracy has become. One could make the argument that these dirtier aspects of politics are inevitable. But if we are teaching children from the start to expect and reward these tactics, aren’t we simply creating a self fulfilling prophecy? It’s scenarios like this that make the “second best” option we have seem like the seediest.

Please vote for me

Posted on by
2

In this documentary, democracy is viewed as something that can be taken for granted. Under the authoritarian state that the kids live in, they are unable to voice their opinions. Due to his incumbency, Lluo Lei, a strict and unforgiving leader, maintains an authoritarian state that the citizens tolerate more than they would from anyone else. The power of incumbency was shocking. Despite the harsh rule, Luo Lei still remained the class monitor even though his power and position were not taken in the right perspective.  From reading the Prince and discussing Machievelli’s point of view on government, it is clear to see that Xiaofei failed as a leader. Xiaofei would rather be loved than feared and in Machiavelli’s eyes this was a fatal flaw.

Please Vote for Me

Posted on by
4

“Please Vote for me” is an interesting look into Chinese culture. I think one of the most interesting points in the movie were the initial scenes where they asked these students if they knew what voting was and they had no idea. Growing up in obviously a very different environment I do not think that I can remember a time where I didn’t know what “voting” was. Moving on, this obviously was not a truly democratic process because, the class did not choose the nominees but instead the teacher did. I think Machiavelli would have agreed with the way Luo Lei acted. Luo Lie was the incumbent and definitely feared by the class but not to the extent of hate Machiavelli would agree that this is the best way maintain power. So, the class had no choice to vote for him. Xiaofei failed in Machiavelli’s eyes because she was loved rather than feared. In order to successfully consolidate power one should be feared, but not as much as the class fears Cheng Cheng. Considering all of these factors it would be obvious to Machiavelli that Luo Lei retained his position.