“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.
Introduction to Comparative Politics: Nationalism, Ideology, and State Power
Professor Shervin Malekzadeh
Baddiehubtimes is a platform that offers an exclusive collection of curated content, including photos, videos, and articles tailored to individuals interested in lifestyle, beauty, and social trends. baddiehub
Baddiehubtimes is a platform that offers an exclusive collection of curated content, including photos, videos, and articles tailored to individuals interested in lifestyle, beauty, and social trends. baddiehub
Thank you for the interesting content. helpful
I hope this blog is very popular. Perfect. I will come back again.
Your claim that this is not a “true” democracy is correct, but I think we need to be pragmatic when using the term. If we’re being completely truthful with ourselves, we have to accept the fact that democracy will always have its flaws. As a result of social forces, some people will never run for office, and others will always have greater authority than others. However, the ideal of democracy should not be a faultless one. Given the circumstances (each person had one vote, there was vigorous campaigning, etc.), I believe we can safely refer to this as a democracy. We, for the most part, regard the United States to be a democracy because its political system is very comparable to this (with the exception that underhanded deals are maintained behind closed doors). Before we part ways, let me say that I agree with you that your Machiavellian insights are accurate, especially when applied to actual politicians. Keep in mind, though, that these are just youngsters we’re talking about; in comparison to, example, the prospect of being killed (which is the situation in which Machiavelli wrote The Prince), the amount of “fear” here is quite low.
While I agree with your assertion that this is not a “true” democracy to some degree, I feel that we have to be pragmatic with the term. If we are honest with ourselves, we need to acknowledge that there will never be a perfectly democratic system. Some individuals will always have more power than others, and some individuals will never run for election due to societal pressures. However, the term democracy shouldn’t have to meet the requirement of perfection. Given the context (one person, one vote occurred, a competitive campaign, etc) I would have to call the process a democracy. This is quite similar to what is seen in the U.S. (aside from the fact that shady dealings are kept for the back room rather than in front of the electorate) and we (for the most part) consider the U.S. to be a democracy. As an end note, I consider your Machiavellian observations to be spot on, especially if we were looking at real politicians. However, it is important to remember that these are kids we are talking about, and the level of “fear” is rather small compared to say, the threat of being killed (which was the context in which Machiavelli wrote The Prince).