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.
Ruairi, you’re absolutely correct in addressing the influence of the parents on the election, however, I believe that the parents are merely serving roles that would be present in any typical democratic election. For example, you cite the scriptedness of the debate and Luo Lei’s bribery of his classmates, however both of these actions are easily replicated through politicians usage of speech writers, publicists, and various donated funds (Pacs, Superpacs, etc.). You also contend that these outcomes wouldn’t have occurred in a situation where the participants were wholly unfamiliar with democracy, however, I still believe that individuals would commit the necessary actions to win, and often presenting a ‘scripted’ image representing a platform and utilizing money are the most efficient way to win a political race.
I actually thought that the relationship between the parents and children was very demonstrative of the dynamics in democracy. Yes, the kids were not autonomous in all of their decision making, but neither are presidential candidates. Ultimately, each political official is informed by other party members – most of whom are a lot less public than that of a president but still play an active part in what happens legislatively. Furthermore, the parents are byproducts of how they have been raised and if they do impose these preconceptions onto the children’s actions, it is because they too have been told how democracy should look like. There are also many instances where the children work as individuals. Cheng Cheng influences the class to interrupt Xu Xiaofei’s election on his own and without his parent’s influence. So I think there is legitimacy to questioning the authenticity of how the kids were acting, but there are still other instances where the children are working internally which demonstrate this “democracy in action.”