My main issue with the film Please Vote for Me, rests in the fact that while the film is set up to be a portrayal of what happens when you give children a chance at democracy and whether or not we can draw parallels to adults in democratic government, the children’s actions within this democratic framework are heavily influenced by their parents. Throughout the film there are countless instances of the parents of our three candidates influencing both their thoughts and their actions. For example, the debate between Luo Lei and Cheng Cheng was so rehearsed with the parents that the viewer essentially could have told you what each candidate was going to say before the debate began, including Luo Lei setting Cheng Cheng up to be a liar, and Cheng Cheng’s use of the term “dictator” to define his opponent. There’s also the issue of Luo Lei attempting to buy his classmates’ votes by bringing them on the train ride and giving out prizes at the end of his final speech—both of which show the influence of his parents more than himself. So, in my opinion, the arguments, tactics, and rhetoric we saw in the film were not an accurate depiction of what would happen if we handed democracy to a group that was unfamiliar with it, since there was unquantifiable influence from parents.

However, I still believe that we can gain some insights about democracy from the film. Things like the intimidation/bullying of Xiaofei, bribery by Luo Lei, and deceit, manipulation, and caustic rhetoric by Cheng Cheng all seem to fit our contemporary expectations of democracy. This is because the parents, whose preconceptions about democracy are influencing their children, see these traits as being characteristic of democracy and necessary in order to win. So, it’s not that this classroom is “democracy in action” so much as it is adult preconceptions about democracy being projected onto these children.

Analyzing the portrayal of democracy in “Please Vote For Me” can be done with respect to either democracy in theory or in practice. As far as the former, on the surface, the third graders’ classroom’s version of democracy follows Dahl’s criteria: the election of officials, the right to vote, the right to run for office, the right to express themselves for all. However, the students are unable to fully achieve democracy due to a lack of appreciation for all the details of the democratic process, or democracy in practice. Specifically, as Schimitter and Karl argue, fairly conducted elections are crucial to democracy, and while there was indeed competition between the three students, bribery plays a role in giving the votes to Luo Lei. Neither were elected officials being held accountable for their actions: the students do not utilize their right to confront Luo Lei’s authoritarian manner. Also, Schmitter and Karl emphasize deliberation between the people as important to the democratic process, and the film doesn’t emphasize the students taking part in this (aside from interactions directly with the nominees who tried to sway them). The lack of these conversations could potentially be due to an apathy on the part of the students, a lack of caring that effectively destroys democracy as it removes the role of the citizens. Perhaps too however, the expectation of these students to practice democracy in their classroom is too great. In their setting, the students face two extremes with respect to social order: discipline outside the classroom and disorder within it. As far as the liberal democracy argument, the students must achieve order in the classroom (not the chaos of bullying one minute and everyone crying the next) before they can establish democracy. And ultimately, without knowing the terms associated with government (ie. vote, dictator, manager), they lack the insight about politics in general.

In the documentary “Please Vote for Me,” we observe how even with participation from “citizens,” democracy is still extremely susceptible to failure. The elections in this classroom have no real consequences, resulting in the kids engaging in acts of bribery, ridicule, and other hostile behavior, seen almost constantly throughout the film. Xioafei, for example, is the target of horrible insults before she even is allowed to perform her flute solo, serving as a clear example of how democracy can easily decline into a battle to undermine and discredit one’s opponent.

While most watching this would instantly recognized how flawed their class election is, what is shown in “Please Vote for Me” is eerily similar to American democracy. Candidates for a plethora of elected positions constantly resort to attempting to politically ruin their opponent by foul play and other dishonest means, resulting in a system that is brutal and ugly. This nearly defeats the purpose of democracy as an entirety, as candidates’ methods in seeking election invalidate the sophisticated and elegant system that democracy is designed to enable. At the end, the students vote for Luo Lei, the obvious worst choice for class monitor as he is authoritarian and often resorts to physical violence against his fellow students, further emphasizing how even with participation in a democratic election, oftentimes bribes and falsehoods result in an unfit candidate rising to power.

The elementary school elections in Please Vote For Me are an example of the type of winner-take-all democracy described by Juan Linz in “The Perils of Presidentialism.” Linz describes how presidential democracy results in a “zero-sum game, with all the potential for conflict such games portend” (123). Because the three children have nothing to gain from the success of their competitors (ie. no coalitions will be formed, there are no other positions to fill other than class monitor), the election process invites foul play such as Cheng Cheng asking a classmate to yell insults during Xiofei’s speech. It’s interesting and somewhat surprising that the type of democracy used in a Chinese classroom closely mirrors (at least in this sense) American presidentialism.

Even the children’s parents, who grew up with a more traditional Chinese education that probably did not glorify democracy, became very invested in and excited about the elections. At the risk of projecting my own pro-Democratic, Western viewpoint, this shows the infectious nature of democracy. The role of the parents indicates that being able to elect a representative, even in as small a case as class monitor, is inherently appealing across societies and cultures.

Please Vote for Me shows the perils of unguided, unregulated, and unsupported democracy. To begin with, there was obviously a large potential for confusion and failure given the elementary school classroom setting. The teacher provides the class with the simple and seemingly fair task of electing a classroom leader from a choice of three classmates, but does not do enough to manage the ensuing potential for conflict. The election process turns into a chaotic battle for who can undermine his or her opponent the most, rather than a measurement of classroom leadership principles. To use Toqueville, it is seems that the democracy experiment does not work because the values and morals of democracy have not yet been internalized by society’s members, therefore not allowing for a full-functioning democratic system. The teacher’s attempt to hold elections, and install a democratic system was bound to fail. Dahl might argue, according to his many principles, that the methods of participation were undemocratic. For example, Xioafei is shouted down by her classmates before even getting a chance to perform. Not all candidates had the same opportunity to participate and speak to their constituents, and some faced more challenging obstacles than others. Finally, Luo Lei wins by essentially bribing his constituents. As adult voters might be swayed by bribery with money, this elementary school classroom is easily swayed by the appeal of the holiday cards, and elects the most authoritarian candidate. Multiple stages of the election process were undermined by unfair and immoral tactics, therefore collapsing the foundations of an already weak and unsupported system of democracy.

Lerner’s piece The Grocer and the Chief offers a glimpse of the modernization of the non western world. What distinguishes this story from the same modernization of the west is that traditional values are were more present during the modernizing transition in the east than they were in the west. Here in the beginning of Lerner’s piece the Chief or head of the, then pre-modernized, village of Balgat is said to hold most close to him steadfast personal/moral values of “obedience, courage, and loyalty” and disperse them to his constituents. In the west, traditional moral values such as those aforementioned had already started to be contested, starting with the more radical parts of the enlightenment, the revolutions of America and France and then culminating, albeit after much of the modernizing had already occurred, with the first world war. Lerner being of the west comes in with an attitude that denounces the significance of the old world core values that the unmodernized village exhibits and operates by. By doing this he does not notice what the village is leaving behind in its modernization. While the village is evolving, every aspect of its evolution isn’t necessarily positive. By using the yardstick of the Western timeline Lerner reduces the Modernization of Baglat into the simplest terms of binary which decreases the amount and level of insight and analysis that can be undergone relating to the phenomenon.

Professor Daniel Lerner, in The Grocer and the Chief, assumes what many Americans also assume, which is that modernity is the pursuit of a material improvement from traditional or subsistence lifestyles. Lerner’s assumptions are obvious in his characterization of the Chief as a self-sufficient and martial man, and his preoccupation with the Grocer as a caricature of “modern” culture and forward-thinking. The Chief values individual valor and his own position of power within his village, which Lerner conflates with holding on to tradition. The Grocer’s awareness of cinema and coffeehouses, on the other hand, seems to Lerner to signify a desire for a life marked by modern technology.  One of Lerner’s key assumptions is that these men are unwilling to change and that while collective society may force alterations in daily life and the economy, individuals remain the same, conveniently representing distinct ideals of personhood.

Lerner concludes his piece stating that the Grocer has won out in an imaginary contest between tradition and material modernization.  However, he neglects the important fact that the Chief has notably modernized himself.  As Balgat is incorporated into Ankara, the Chief incorporates himself and his family into the changed society.  Yes, the Muhtar keeps a small grove of trees, but he allows his sons, whom he once saw as heirs he must make ready for war, to open moderately successful westernized businesses.  The Chief, over four years, gives up his farmland and his most integral values of makes a successful man.  In this way, I believe that Lerner makes the same mistake as Tosun did in judging based on appearances.  Lerner does not consider the effects of modernization on the individuals who adapt to their current situation and the interplay between individuals and material change within a modernizing society.

In “The Grocer and the Chief,” Lerner assumes that development and modernity in Balgat are dependent on the abandonment of certain traditional Turkish values. Referencing how the village used to be, Lerner mentions, “To reveal a desire for money is —Allah defend us!—an impiety.” It seems that, according to Lerner, when villagers start to care about money—when they buy bus tickets, clothing, food, etc.— is when progress occurs. Additionally, Lerner remarks, “Obviously, this was to be on the house, following the paradoxical Turksih custom of giving gratis to those who can best afford to pay.”  Here, Lerner appears to be making fun of Turkish tradition, assuming that with modernity comes the acceptance of inherently Western values. Lerner fails to consider that even though their society has changed, villagers in Balgat may still place higher importance on tradition and showing respect than the Western value of doing anything you can to make a buck.

Similarly, Lerner shares that demand for “modern” clothing increased as “more and more men went into the labor market of Ankara, first discarding their shalvars (the billowing bloomers of traditional garb in which Western cartoon always still portray the (sultan in a harem scene).” Again, Lerner tastelessly associates modernity and development with the abandonment of tradition, assuming that the villagers would rather wear U.S. Army surplus-style clothes rather than their traditional shalvars now that they are “modern.”  While Lerner does present a clear and interesting depiction of how the village has changed in just a few years, I think his tendency to make fun of everything that doesn’t align with Western culture undermines any meaningful claims he may have made about the reasons behind “advancement” in Balgat.

Reading the parable, The Grocer and the Chief, I kept asking myself why the Chief and the Grocer pose so much difficulty for Tosun. Tosun, a young scholar from Ankara, was searching for a Balgat that represented the “deadening past rather than the brave quite new world.” (47) At first glance it seemed as if he succeeded at finding this dreamy desolate place of his imagination. He states, “I have seen quite a lot of villages in the barren mountainous East, but never such a colorless, shapeless dump. This was the reason I chose the village. It could have been half an hour to Ankara by car if it had a road, yet it is about two hours to the capital by car without almost any road and is just forgotten, forsake, right under our noses.” (48) In his respondents, Tosun strived to find people who paralleled the same desolate atmosphere he perceived in Balgart; however, two of his interviewees–the Chief and the Grocer–vehemently rejected these caricatures. This highlights Gaventa’s Power and Powerlessness, and the ways in which people combat or submit to hegemonic ideas of what it means to be a resident of a certain location, socioeconomic class, race; etc. These two figures embody the extremes of a spectrum: a a full rejection of tradition and the full acceptance of it. Tosun describes the chief as having “some sort of useless, mystic wisdom” (48)–a “vibrant sound box through which the traditional Turkish virtues may resonantly echo. The chief embodies an acceptance of his surrounding as he believes God ahs given him all that he needs. In this way, the Chief embodies a paradox that Tosun was not suspecting because the Chief is content with and prideful of what Tosun sees as a desolate, gray and dust-filled area. In contrast, the Grocer rejects the traditions that the Chief hold so dear. In its place, the Grocer “lives in a different world–an expansive world, populated more actively with imaginings and fantasies, hungerings for whatever is different and unfamiliar.” (49) In this way, Tosun embodies an interesting juxtaposition of living in an area that is not “modernized” and yet hopeful of a modern period. Because Tosun is searching for people who are representative of this forsaken, forgotten reality but instead finds someone who is wanting to create a village that no longer just “stays in their holes.” (49) This relationship causes a friction that is hard for Tosun to digest.

I’d also like to highlight that it is easy to assume that this story depicts a city’s evolution away from God and religion, but I would like to push back on that idea. Without a doubt, the transition, causes new values of capitalism and autonomous success to supersede that of the smaller villages’ connection to one another but this does not destabilize their faith in God. When talking about the the Grocer, one man stated, “Ah, he was the cleverest of us all. We did not know it then, but he saw better than all what lay in the path ahead. We have none like him among us now. He was a prophet.” (56) This sentimentality evokes Christian scriptural reference as prophets became the hated but eventually admired guides f Israel’s existence. Even with the introduction of bus services and radio stations, the centuries old language of religion can not be taken away from these people. The way in which they understand the world is still through a lens of religion and God. Therefore, the sacred and the profane are not as separated as we might assume. Instead, these two spheres of reality are very much intertwined with one another’s existence. Although the “Grocer was dead” … “the Chief–the last Muhtar of Balgat”–had reincarnated the Grocer in the flesh of his sons.” (56) In this way, the sacred created the profane but that the profane also created the sacred.

The preconceived notions of using Westernization as a synonym for progression completely skews Lerner’s “The Grocer and the Chief”. He sees a movement towards entering into modernity as a positive thing for the village; it’s a victory that should be dedicated to the fat old Grocer. What Lerner chooses to ignore was Tosun’s accounts of the villagers being undoubtedly against living outside of Balgat. The new town is no longer Balgat. To me, the modernized version of Balgat lost the essence of tradition that the old villagers respected. Farming used to be the honored profession and money was never spoken about because it violated religious beliefs. By staying in the new city of Balgat, the villagers and Chief broke their promises to never leave their beloved village. Lerner’s article is not the successful tale of an ancient civilization seeking prosperity, but is about brainwashed citizens that lost essential values that shaped their entire lives.

The Chief is the embodiment of tradition throughout the whole article. Sadly, he is also one of the characters that also strays from steadfast truths that were proclaimed early in the article. For example, the Chief wanted his sons to “fight as bravely as we fought and [will] know how to die as my generation did.” It is one of his goals in life that was never accomplished. Now, his kin is soft and completely immersed in western culture. His sons has sought allegiance to the West and in my opinion, abandoned their father. They are more concerned with capitalism than with continuing family customs. With the death of the Chief, the death of old Balgat is soon to come. He is the last figure alive that still has some traditional values. With the bus came the end of tradition.