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.

One of the most powerful scenes in the documentary is when Cheng Cheng walks around the classroom after his performance in the talent show, shaking his supposed supporter’s hands and repeating “This is good karma!” Immediately after, he leads the students in expressive slogans and chants highlighting Luo Lei’s authoritarian regime and his tyrannical methods. Especially in contrast to one of the last scenes, when the votes are being tallied to an unequivocal Lei victory and a practically and emotionally defeated Cheng mutters “If Luo Lei wins, he’ll torment you to death,” these two scenes demonstrate the difficulties for an opposition movement coming into a democratic process. Initially, in the excitement of a viable possibility for change, Cheng Cheng is able to mobilize voters and fire up the ‘crowds’ to an extent that the incumbent is seconds away from stepping out of the election process. However, Lei has the resources (an overly enthusiastic father) to slowly, as the campaigning process drags on, win back favor through material gifts that overshadow the prior 2 years of tyranny. He is able to capitalize on some character flaws in the opposition, separating and taking the enthusiasm out of the opposition movement. At this point, voters will support who they know, who they both fear and love – Luo Lei. Can this be considered democracy? Probably not. It is yet another example of democratic hope undermined by the erosion of necessary democratic processes and an equal playing field that is so often seen in the transition on the spectrum from authoritarianism to democracy.