While many of us probably disapproved of the candidates’ actions in Please Vote for Me, I think it safe to say that Machiavelli would condone the children’s behavior. Machiavelli is perhaps best known for his belief that “the ends justify the means,” condoning the use of morally questionable–and even outright immoral–methods to capture and/or maintain political success, and each of the three candidates exemplifies this ideal to some degree during their campaigns. Xiaofei exemplifies this when she briefly teams up with Cheng Cheng and asks other students to identify Luo Lei’ faults. In general, however, Xiaofei’s methods are not especially Machiavellian, most likely, I would argue, because she is not as invested in the campaign as Luo Lei and Cheng Cheng are. Luo Lei’s campaign adheres more to this Machiavellian ideal, particularly when buys the support of his classmates; the most obvious example of this is when he takes his class to ride on the monorail, but he also distributes gifts to the class right before voting begins! Luo Lei exhibits Machiavellian behavior more so in his actions as class monitor; he “beats” his classmates to keep them in line because, as he says, “If I am not strict, you kids will never obey me!” Though Luo Lei strongly exemplifies Machiavellian ideals as class monitor, I would argue that Cheng Cheng’s campaign methods are arguably the most Machiavellian, and this is evidenced by his manipulation of both his classmates and his opponents; he attempts to–and often succeeds at–getting his classmates to criticize his opponents, he tries to turn his opponents more against each other, and it is clear that he is willing to do pretty much whatever it takes to win.
As for whether the election depicted in this movie is democratic, I would argue that it isn’t, though it does bear some striking similarities to the practices of American democracy– which is considered perhaps one of the strongest democracies in the world; as in America, the students (the People) were given candidates to choose from, these candidates campaigned–by questionable methods similar to those used by American politicians today–and participated in debates, and the class finally voted freely. However, the primary reason that this election was nondemocratic was the fact that, as others have mentioned in there blogs, the students were not voting for a candidate to represent them, but were voting for a candidate who would ultimately enforce the unwavering authority of the teacher.
While the election is presented in a way that frames the selection of the monitor as democratic, I agree with your assessment that the overall system is undemocratic given the ultimate authority and rules dictated by the teacher. There is essentially very little check or balance placed on the monitor given that the monitor can be replaced by the students, but is ultimately still subject to the rules outlined by the teacher. It is like the students elected the head general of the dictator’s secret police. In reference to Erin’s remarks, I’m not sure how the addition of other position would ultimately make the system more democratic. While maybe more students could feel as if their voices were being heard it would ultimately be up to the discretion of the teacher as to whether any information or suggestions provided by these added positions would be heard. Ultimately the classroom would just masquerade as a democracy, but would not truly hold any ultimate democratic ideals given that the teacher would always have the final say on any decision regardless of who was elected to the hall monitor position by the other students.
You say this election was nondemocratic because the classroom monitor ultimately enforces (and adheres to) the authority of the teacher. While I agree this provides the classroom monitor with less power than a president in a democracy, both the president and the classroom monitor are subjected to a series of check & balances. If the classroom monitor had complete power and did not have to yield to the teacher in any way, that would be a dictatorship, not a democracy.
While I agree this election was not 100% democratic, I don’t think the removal of the teacher’s authority would permit a political environment that was democratic. Rather, I think the classroom should have appointed additional students to work in the “government” of the classroom; perhaps Luo Lei should have run with a “vice president” of some sort, or a second election should be held later to appoint a “judge” or anything that would allow the voice of more student to be heard. But throughout the year in all of our studies, and in every democracy we have not studied, has one existed that has been perfect? Absolutely not. So how much does the presence of the teacher as the ultimate authority & the lack of other students’ voices render this classroom undemocratic?
While I am also doubtful as to the existence of a perfect democracy, I agree with Atzin in that I do not think that additional positions would make this “system” more democratic. This is because the system within this class is inherently nondemocratic–as other people have mentioned, it can even be labeled as authoritarian; the class is not run and the class monitor is not elected with the intention of catering to the wants of the students, but with the intention of enforcing the teacher’s authority. I also do not think that the class monitor can necessarily be compared to a president for this reason. Though I do find interesting the similarity you draw between the two in terms of the “checks and balances” imposed on them–the teacher as a check on the monitor’s power and the other branches of government on that of the President–I do not think that the power of the class monitor can be fairly compared to that of the President, again because the class monitor is elected with the understanding that he or she will be an enforcer of the higher authority’s rules, whereas the President is elected with the understanding that he/she should (theoretically) be a representative of the American people’s wants and govern according to these wants.
I agree with you that while Luo Lei is Machiavellian in asserting his authority when he has gained it, Cheng Cheng is most ruthless in acquiring authority. This lack of scruples on the part of Cheng Cheng’s campaign seems like part of the reason he loses – the other children do not trust him after he seems to bully his rivals. His loss suggests the limits to Machiavellian thinking in the context of elections. The thinking in “The Prince” factors in an ability to punish – it’s what backs up the fear. In a third-grade election, with secret ballots and limited opportunities to cause voters bodily harm, most children are voting without concern for their own safety, and so can vote for the person they like more rather than the person they fear. When Cheng Cheng asks the cameraman to re-ask a voter about her proposed vote for Cheng Cheng, it reveals his understanding of the limits of his tactics.