Two Democracy
I discovered that there are two kinds of democracy in the world; the first kind is like the United States. He always thinks that the American model is the best and should be promoted as a template, and does not formulate relative methods according to the other side's national conditions, history, and surrounding conditions. A direct rote implementation of American democracy would not work for many countries. Even after the reform of many countries, the social situation has worsened, and the quality of life for the people continues to decline. This irresponsibility and political correctness have led many countries to learn from the American model. But just like with clothes, some people like suits, some people like casual wear, some people like sportswear. It can't be said that wearing a suit is better than wearing casual clothes, only that the style of dressing is different. Being a democracy values freedom and encourages and embraces diversity. Why is it so strict in disseminating democracy, and must it be implemented according to the American model? I can't fathom this inconsistent behavior. If you support freedom and pluralism, why promote democracy in this way? This qualifies the purpose of democracy as getting things done rather than fundamentally changing institutions and people's rights. If not, why build a free, open and pluralistic image worldwide? There are signs that America's efforts to promote democracy are inconsistent and unjustified.
The second type of democracy is softer, advocating the quality of life of the people and whether it conforms to the national conditions. Don't copy; be reasonable and learn to integrate advanced democratic systems before implementing them in other countries. Such a democracy would be more moderate and pragmatic rather than coercive. What matters is how to make the people at the bottom rich, able to eat, have a stable job and income, and have the ability to maintain social stability. Instead of simply giving people limited rights, holding elections and voting can claim democracy. Living in a democracy is so good; why are there so many homeless and unemployed people in these traditional democracies? As an old Chinese saying goes, teaching a man how to fish is better than giving him a fish. Fundraising is a perfect and kind act, but welfare alone does not help them find a job or provide a position. Then this burden will get bigger and bigger and significantly burden the country, mainly because it has not solved the fundamental problem and still feels good about itself. What an irony and self-deception!
Which of these two types of democracy do you prefer? It's the natural, down-to-earth people of the future solving real problems and getting out of poverty. The overall feeling is very human, with both similarities and differences. Or is it a democracy that only shouts slogans and imposes them on others?
No comments:
Post a Comment