Transcription
As a moderator, first raiser. Taiwan, it's an absolute joke. I mean, I went to Taiwan for the first time in 1993. This is something I do know something about. I've been back to Taiwan once a year for the last 20 years. Okay? I lecture at Taiwan University. Okay?
Now, in 1993 when I first went to Taiwan, I loved the place. It was so beautiful, so gentle, so Chinese. You know, in mainland China, where I came from, we destroyed so much of our own culture because of the stupid revolutions. I love the place. The last 10 years the place has been a disaster since they started electing their presidents. Disaster. Okay. Taipei has not changed for 10 years. Infrastructure is is is in terrible disrepair. Total underinvestment in health and education. Okay. Everything middle income has been dropping for for 10 years straight. Middle class people have nothing to look forward to.
Let me give you one one number to show. Taiwan has 23 million people total population. A full 1.3 million are now living and working on the mainland. 1.3 million. Okay. What's the number? That's 78% of the population. If you take away the old people and the young people, 15% of adults of Taiwan are living and working on the mainland. Now, all those people, almost all of them are highly educated people with college degrees. So if you take away the taxi drivers, the dishwashers and the maids, half of the educated elites have moved to the mainland. If you take away those who moved to North America and Europe, the educated elites are left on the island or are either politicians or Mray. Ming are guys like us talking on television. Okay? There's no one else left. No wonder the the entire high-tech miracle is over in Taiwan. Have you heard of I mean when I was growing up when I was going in business t you know Taiwan semiconductor corporate those were the dream companies all gone. Never heard of another Taiwanese company anymore. And you're not going to hear another one for the next 20 years. I guarantee you under this political system ain't going to happen. Okay? So so um I rest my case.
In China, we have a regime that exists on campuses called the seven nos, chibu. Uh, seven things you're not supposed to talk about. And I'm sorry to say, Dr. Fner, that almost everything you've spoken about uh would be in encompassed by those chibu. I'm not even sure that the founding fathers would get much of a hearing. Uh >> I I that's not enforcer. I teach democratic theory. I just did it last night at Shining Wai University. I mean, >> yeah, sorry. >> I was just I was I was going to I was going to say h Dr. Lee Eric uh has been is one of the most articulate and certainly sophisticated uh defenders uh of the political system as it exists in China. Um you're quoted as saying in an article you wrote for Foreign Affairs magazine which I just read. Uh you you talked about a postdemocratic future. Uh and I'm wondering if you could elaborate on what you mean by that.
>> Well, thank you. Um, I'm not a defender of anything and I'm not an advocate of anything. I I'm I'm just a student of political systems. So, I like to analyze things instead of sort of advocate something or defend something. But I think it's useful. Uh, let me suggest that we first define what we're talking about. So, so I think we should have a definition of democracy that we could work off of. And let me suggest something for consideration. I think democracy in today's world at least means universal suffrage. One person, one vote, plus periodical multi-party elections, party compete to get into power, plus possibly referendums because that that's a fair description of democracy, how democracy is defined today. If if you don't have these things, I don't I think people won't won't won't call call you a democracy. Okay.
So let me say that I think that that model of governance is in deep trouble and its future is dismal. It's it's in the worst crisis in probably 100 years and li I think it's useful first to take a historical perspective. Democracy as we know it, as we just defined it, um I think takes its lineage from representative institutions that began in England 4 500 years ago or two 300 years ago defined depending on how you interpret history. Yeah. And it evolved to today. So if you accept that, I think most political scientists would accept that then democracy as we know it is an accident. That model of governance we just described, universal suffrage, multi-party elections, referendums, is an accident because those who pioneered and built representative institutions, including the founding fathers of the United States, those who designed it were extraordinarily hostile to political power of the people. They would have hated universal suffrage. In fact, they opposed it with everything they got. Number one, and they hated the idea of political parties. >> That was a fact in America in France and Germany outlawed political parties until recently like a 100 years ago or something. And and of course I think it was Madison finally reluctantly formed a political party. He hated the idea he had to do it. Okay. So they hated they hated universal suffrage and they hated political parties and referendum. My god, they turn over their their graves. So, so I think democracy is no as I'm not making any judgment on it. It I'm just saying in in factually it it's an accident of historical development. It wasn't was not intended that way. Number one.
Number two, democracy as we know it is a contradiction. Okay? And that contradiction of course every American high school student is taught that contradiction. Uh democracy of course uh took its roots in the liberal outlook for life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. All men are created equal. Now these concepts are inherently contradictory to each other. For instance, the most basic one of course is liberty and equality. They are fundamentally a contradiction. Um we just we talked about li rule of law for instance. Everyone is treated equal before the law. Of course, that's about liberty. You're free. But is it are you free if is it fair or is it equal? If I have more money, I hire a better lawyer and you're poor, you don't have access to a better lawyer, and I win the case. How do you resolve that conflict? or or or do you want to level the playing field and have a welfare state and nobody could hire their own private lawyer? Obamacare for for the law. Okay.
Um this just just a couple of examples. Okay. Freedom of speech, liberty, I can say anything I want. But does that mean that if I have money, I can buy all the advertising on television, all the commercials on television to support one policy or one candidate? The Supreme Court of the United States just said you could. For decades, they said you could not. But last week they just said yes you could. And of course a lot of people in America think it's a horrible idea. It it's it's completely against the idea of equality. But then of course the concept of liberty will say that it's my money. Why can't I spend it this way I see fit to express my speech? So these concepts are fundamentally opposed to each other. And these are irreconcilable differences. Irreconciliable. And and so so is it possible? Is it possible? Don't hold me to it. It's somehow. Is it possible the success of the west of the modern west in the last 200 years was achieved not because of democracy but despite of it? Just is it possible that we're at a point where these conflicts are truly irreconcilable? Before for a long time those conflicts might have been paid or covered up or been able to the the group the the system grew out of it because of for instance in in the case of Great Britain of course colonization externalize a lot of the conflicts prisoners too nasty send them to Australia right import resources or is it poss so so is is that possible that we're at a point if you go to America they can't resolve the question of the role of government. It's an irreconcilable conflict. There's you can argue and kill each other and you still won't agree on it. The role of government and they will be debating that for the next 30 years. I guaranteed. Okay.
So, so democracy is a contradiction. Third, democracy as we know it has become highly dysfunctional. If you examine all the developed entire developed world from America to Europe, highly dysfunctional, partisan, they can't agree on on anything. It turns out, it's very very funny. When I was going to school, the political scientists of my time were telling me one of the great attributes of democracy is it's flexible, self-correction, FDR, self-corrected, save capitalism, blah blah blah. But it turns out today's democracy is highly rigid. It cannot change. Um so so uh what's his name? Uh Faris Aaria the political scientist in America uh said last year at some point when he was frustrated maybe maybe he didn't mean it but he said you know America really should adopt a parliamentary system. This presidential system sucked. It couldn't work. We need a parliamentary system. But is that possible? Of course it's not possible. Every political scientist worth his stripes will tell you that today it's virtually impossible to amend the US Constitution. Not possible. Impossible barriers to cross. So, so, so even within different types of democratic models, you cannot move from one to the other. You can't make Britain a presidential system. Not possible. So, you or vice versa. So, even within different types of democratic models, it's it's so rigid as to not be able to make that change. Okay.
Uh I mean I mean I was it's an imperfect comparison I take it. But I was talking about the 18th party congress in in China, right? The highest ruling body that the standing committee of the of the of the communist party bureau uh used to have nine members for nine 10 years. They had nine members. It turned out to be a bad idea. Everybody knew inefficient powers diffused. And then at the 18th party congress they took it down to seven like that. Can you imagine taking the US Senate from 100 to 88? Is that possible? Not possible. Even if you need to do it, not possible. Okay. So, so and and and and and then we're we're in a situation where where the political scientist Dr. Olsen in his great book called Rise and Rise and Fall of Nations. Incredible book talked about the concept of distributive coalitions. So, democracy is advanced to a certain degree where distributive coalitions are choking it to death. They can't agree on anything. and they're just looking after themselves where Frank Frank Fukuyama called it vetocracy. So not democracy but vetocracy. So so nothing can get done. Okay.
So so you have all these issues. I mean last week Princeton University great two really good professor I I just read the whole thing from beginning to the end. It's actually a book. I read it on the plane this morning. I got up too early and end of coffee. um uh uh uh professor Gillans and Professor Paige from Princeton University. It's it's incredible. It's called testing theories of American politics, elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Uh it's a really really good study. At first, I thought this is some liberal crap. Okay? And I read it. It was it was I was so surprised by how scholarly it was conducted. They researched this is I think the first work of this kind. They researched American uh public policy since 1971 or 80. Yeah. 1971 to 2000 something and they did a full range study and they they segregated the American public from income level 90th percentile, 95th percentile and fifth percentile and turned out based on public opinion surveys the 90th percentile or above held totally opposite views of public policies as opposed to the 50th percentile. And in almost 99% of the public policies that got enacted in those 30 or 40 years, guess who won? The 95th percentile. So, so this study actually in their summary basically says America is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy. It is in fact an oligarchy. That that that the the views of the average citizens are in fact irrelevant for decade after decade. And it's a really good study. you should really start I mean this is the first time I've seen a lot of data okay so so it's in tr it's in trouble in the developed world okay and I think dem democracy is in deep even deeper trouble in the developing world after the cold war freedom house had this number I I read it all the time the number of countries that adopted electoral democracy the the one we defined has skyrocketed you from 47 to like 140 or something everybody bought it okay and let's take a survey of these hundred or so countries, okay? From from Northeast to Africa to Southeast Asia, everybody's still corrupt as hell. Everybody's those who are fighting civil wars are fighting worse civil wars. Those are ci those who are poor got poorer. Now, there are a couple of examples, the couple of exceptions. Okay, a heck of a lot more failure stories than success stories. A few cases that been being being built as success stories. Korea is one and I don't know enough about Korea so I don't want to comment on it. I mean I think you got a lot of challenges too but the other was I think it was absolute joke.
The moderator first raised it. Taiwan, it's an absolute joke. I mean I went to Taiwan for the first time in 1993. This is something I do know something about. I've been back to Taiwan once a year for the last 20 years. Okay. I lecture at Taiwan University. Okay. Now in 1993 when I first went to Taiwan I loved the place. It was so beautiful. So gentle, so Chinese. You know, in mainland China where I came from, we destroyed so much of our own culture because of the stupid revolutions. I love the place. The last 10 years, the place has been a disaster since they started electing their presidents. Disaster. Okay. Taipei has not changed for 10 years. Infrastructure is is is in terrible disrepair. Total underinvestment in health and education. Okay. Everything mi middle income has been dropping for for 10 years straight. Middle class people have nothing to look forward to. Let me give you one one number to show. Taiwan has 23 million people total population. A full 1.3 million are now living and working on the mainland. 1.3 million. Okay. What's the number? That's 78% of the population. If you take away the old people and the young people, 15% of adults of Taiwan are living and working on the mainland. Now all those people almost all of them are highly educated people with college degrees. So if you take away the taxi drivers, the dishwashers and the maids, half of the educated elites have moved to the mainland. If you take away those who moved to North America and Europe, the educated elites are left on the island or are either politicians or means guys like us talking on television. Okay, there's no one else left. That No wonder the the entire high-tech miracle is over in Taiwan. Have you heard of I mean when I was growing up when I was going in business taiwan semiconductor corporate those were the dream companies all gone. Never heard of another Taiwanese company anymore. And you're not going to hear another one for the next 20 years. I guarantee you under this political system ain't going to happen. Okay. So So um I rest my case.
>> That's such a demolition job on Taiwan. almost feel like I should leap to his defense, but I hope there's some Taiwanese in the audience who'll do that for me. Uh, by the way, one can breathe the air over there, which is something to be said. Um, let me uh uh where do we go from here? Uh, yeah. Um, uh, Professor Bel Daniel, um, you were going to correct me uh on the chibu uh, the seven nos and describe democracy as it is practiced on uh, on campuses in China.
Oh, well I mean you know that these you know um orders if if that's what we want to call them there when they filter down to the university they they tend not to be um enforced in in any serious way. I mean I've been teaching in in China for 10 years and I teach political theory including you know very sensitive material. Just last night I I gave a seminar on well wasn't seminar it's addressing undergraduates on John Stewart Mill's idea of representative government. No the only constraint I've ever faced in 10 years teaching in China was I was told not to teach Marxism because my interpretation might differ from the official uh interpretation. Other than that of course when it comes to publication in in English they don't care. you know in Chinese um then there there is censorship um and but again if you put it on the internet as you probably know I mean every publisher has a kind of party guy who has to sign off and take responsibility and often some of them are more cautious than others so you can move from one publisher to another but on the internet it's much more free there's there's hardly anybody there uh in enforcing it at least compared to uh the uh the public uh what's published in in hard copy so to speak So I just mean that you know um I I know I know it's it's not uh you know it's not something that is taken um seriously even by those of us who teach uh in a very sensitive areas
>> and yet and yet if one takes just one of the components of of uh a democracy uh as it was laid out for us transparency you have examples now in China of people who are being put in jail for advocating a very moderate form of transparency and and what what did he want? He wanted basically government officials to declare their assets. A rather reasonable request one has one would have to say.
>> I'll let Eric comment on that.
>> I think it's a trick to get into a specific case. I don't I've never met Shu. I haven't read his case report. Um you could put up a propaganda case. I mean I don't have I don't know enough. Uh I think he broke the law. There is a subversion anti-ubversion law.
>> uh that you cannot organize. Let me come back to another interesting concept I'd like to touch on um about liberty again. This is an idea I really like. Freedom. And of course, Isaiah Berling said that there are two kinds of freedoms. Negative freedom and positive freedom. And negative liberty is the freedom from something that I could do what I want. Don't interfere. Positive freedom is freedom to do something to effect to organize political party to to give speech to to publish. Okay? And I would argue that most people care about negative freedom. Those few who are really passionate about reforming society and making society in their own in the idealist utopia, they want positive freedom. They want the freedom to form political party and do these things. So, so I think yes in China uh positive freedom is greatly curtailed. But negative freedom, the freedom to do what you want while you're not not in the public square but in your own space, I think it's greater than the United States. Let me give you a few examples. In America, you cannot even open a restaurant without building a ramp for wheelchairs. ADA, it's an enormous invasion of negative freedom. Okay. So, so I would argue in to some extent in some respect, I mean, I'm not making a total case here. In some respect, you could argue that in China actually negative freedom, the range of negative freedom the individual could enjoy is wider than many western democracies. Now, in positive freedom, it's much much more strict, much narrower.
>> The Let me let me come back on a couple specifics. First of all, I suspect you and I are both members of the same men's club in San Francisco. And, uh, yeah. Uh, but the Tea Party, for example, uh, being denied the right to organize itself at the local level, etc., because of Internal Revenue Service uh regulations in the United States. Uh some of these restrictions of of political organization that bother me uh probably wouldn't bother you. But at the same time, I would support I I did support uh the Supreme Court's decision in terms of removing uh restrictions on how much people can can give because right now if you want to write for Huffington Post and I want to write for the Heritage Foundation Foundry, we have our own outlets. We aren't being uh constrained on one side by Charles and David Ko or on another side by by uh by liberals from buying up all the TV commercials. uh there. So, you know, some some of your allegations, I guess, are just a little bit over the top when you're criticizing uh where we are and where we're uh where we're trying to go. I I don't make the case that democracy in the United States is perfect. But I will say that it's there's a great deal more participation in both negative and positive freedom, I think, in the United States than there is in the PRC. I mean um I I told you I would come off as a moderate on this panel. The um in terms of uh you know this negative and positive liberty. I mean I I think that you know to preserve the meritocratic aspect we need to come clean and say that there needs to be limits on the freedom of association to form political parties. But beyond that I think it's it's you know China as you know has become much more complex and with different interest groups and so on and there's going to be a need for I think much more openness in terms of freedom of association and and freedom to form NGOs. I mean it's moving in that direction but I think it's bound to to to become more open in that respect but we need to come clean and say except for the freedom to form political parties but the rest I don't think we need to justify you know I mean at least that's my view. Um the yeah so so in other words I I think there's there's a good case to be made for a more open society as China develops but and this is where the founding fathers including John Stewart Mill who was against political parties but they they didn't make it so explicit that if you're against political parties you need to just you know enshrine it in the constitution this limit on forming political parties and make the penalties clear you know and and I think that would be a much much better way of proceeding than than a kind of somewhat arbitrary way of drawing the lines and you know and imprisoning people for this or that. We don't really know how things are decided and it seems kind of arbitrary. Yeah.
>> In fact in France and Germany a lot of European uh democracy they they did outlaw political parties for a very very long time.
>> If I could just come back on one of your points Eric the um the point about uh big government in America stifling companies stifling innovation all the sort of the red tape. Uh it so happens um that I spent an hour with Premier Lee Ka Chang last week. Um and he spent much of that time talking about his mission which was to dismantle uh approval systems and structures in China to allow businesses to flourish. And his main argument or one of his main arguments was that the approval system that you have in place now uh encourages corruption and rent seeking behavior. And indeed that's one of the big planks uh of the communist party and the reforms that are being spearheaded uh by by by by President Xiinping. Um on the issue of corruption, you say there's corruption as bad as hell in all sorts of places around the world. Um isn't this now one of the defining characteristics of the Chinese political system?
>> Corruption is a big problem uh for Chinese system at the moment. Um and and I think it's but and I think it traces back in history for a very very long time has unique historical and cultural roots and and there's probably no easy solution to it. You could try to contain it. Uh but but you can never eliminate it. I don't think um but but I I do want to make one point that I think to to link corruption the level of corruption to the nature of political system I think it's just a really weak case.
>> But you you did that earlier in your >> Yeah. I I I gave that I mean if you look at all the data uh transparency international for instance that's the one I used I don't really I mean I don't actually buy the data but that's the data everybody accepts so I use it okay uh I mean you know China's rank what is it 70 something okay it's been moving up moving up from 80 something to 70 something uh India the greatest democracy is 95 and dropping okay Italy is at 68 or thing China is now tied with Greece which is electoral democracy and in fact if you look at all the countries that ranked below China the 100 countries also that ranked below China more than half of them are electoral democracies so so so if elections didn't didn't fix corruption for those countries you know what is there a case that so so I don't think corruption level corruption is inherently linked to the political system number one number two in fact after the cold war corruption came to the forefront as a global governance issue. So a lot of people saying corruption is a problem corruption problem. So all these global organization UN whatever world bank issue those handbooks about how to fix corruption and and the panacea is all the same you know heavy elections have parties have free press independent judiciary okay and then all these countries adopted them and one example I like to use because somebody did make a big study uh professor McIntyre of univers national university of Australia studied Indonesia so in the case of Indonesia suhat you have suhat horribly corrupt Okay. And then you got rid of Suhhat, they they did everything those handbook told them to do. Multi-party elections, lots of parties, elections, independent judges, independent press. And then in professor McIntyre word, Indonesia went from one suhat to thousands of little suhattos. And corruption got worse by all data counts. All data counts. Not a single study will show you today Indonesia's corruption is better than Suhhat's time. Not one. Okay. So, and they they made an independent judiciary and then what? Guess what happened? All the judges got corrupt and there's nobody to check them because they're independent. Okay. So, so it's really a I so so I I want to I want I think we ought to be a little more critical, have a little use our own brain a little bit instead of just read, you know, the New York Times or something or CNN, whatever they tell you. I mean, you got to think a little bit more. a little more and look at the data a little bit more closely. Uh I think I mean I'm not I mean again I'm not making a case here. I'm just I'm analyzing. If you can show me data and show me facts that point to a different direction, I'll switch. I mean I'm I'm I'm a student here. I'm not a politician now. So
>> you may have a point when it comes to the New York Times. I'm just um we have 15 minutes left. Um so uh let's throw it open to the floor. Yeah, please.
>> Thank you. Leak Easley Ewa University and the Assan Institute. Um Dr. Lee, you're always productively provocative, but someone has to call you out on your Taiwan democracy remarks. I mean, I don't think the problems that you identify in Taiwan society are the result of Taiwan's democracy. How in ever imperfect. It has much more to do with uh Taiwan losing its comparative advantage vising China and the pressure uh that a rising China puts uh Taiwan's democracy under uh and and someone's got to call you out on that. Um to Dr. Fulner. Um, I wonder if you could say some words about democracy promotion and particularly on cyber because the first point you mentioned about individual space can be increased by the internet but by internet controls that individual space may be actually uh becoming less and less over time. And to professor Bell, uh, always fascinating. But, um, when you talk about meritocracy, are you selecting on the dependent variable? By by studying China, uh, and a period in history after 30 years of the most impressive economic development in human history, are you not attributing uh, some of China's success to some particular things in China's system which uh, may not have external validity uh, outside of China? Thank you very much.
>> Dr. Fo, would you like to respond?
>> You're absolutely right in terms of transparency. Uh the internet uh accessibility uh eran again going back to the Turkish case with the local elections a month ago uh 3 days before the election uh banned access to Facebook uh Twitter etc. Yes, I mean it can be uh denied but at the same time the fact that it is out there and that there is accessibility to it by large numbers of people in uh democratic and in non-democratic systems is to me a great advance from when I was first involved in the political arena 4550 years ago and uh uh viva more more diverse views on all these different subjects however they they arise. Uh I I come back from the the era looking around I don't see anybody else with more gray hair or less hair than I have. But when the sha of Iran basically came down because of the technology of that era which was cet tapes being smuggled back into Iran u primarily from Paris and other European capitals u talking about what a different system would be like in Iran. So, it's very exciting for me to be a a proponent of more transparency and of of more democratic systems in this era when when there are so many more ways that it can reach out to real people.
>> Well, um on this question of um of of China and political meritocracy and let let me just frame it in this way. I mean, how distinctive is it to China and here I mean I think the political culture matters. you know that China has a long history of political meritocracy. I mean in some sense the last 30 years is a kind of you know re-establishment of the kind of imperial system where leaders were chosen by means of examinations and then performance at lower levels of government. I mean in some sense it's it's kind of drawing on on that on that history and there's a long history of debates among political thinkers in China about what we can call political metocracy. what what are the rights abilities that matter for leaders? What are the right virtues? How can we measure them? And how can we institutionalize a system that chooses leaders with those superior virtues? So the whole idea of pluggy, it resonates in China because of this prior political culture. But in a different context, I I wouldn't be so keen actually on on criticizing democracy. And maybe here I'm a bit different than Eric. I mean, I think if if the alternative to one person, one vote is military dictatorship or authoritarian populism, I mean, I'd be cheering for one person, one vote. And if if a if a country doesn't have a long history of political meritocracy, I'd be very careful about criticizing democracy. I mean, in the case of Egypt, I actually think, you know, the Muslim Brotherhood is bad, but not that bad, much better than what happened since they were overthrown. I mean I would actually you know support democracy in that context because it doesn't have a a long history of plegritoxy and and the alternative to democracy is is much worse. But in the case of China the there is this history of piggle culture there is this this pleal culture that of meritocracy and and it makes sense to try and and reestablish it in a way which is more suitable to modern conditions. So I don't think it's just the last 30 years um that that explains why political meritocracy has has been relatively you know successful notwithstanding the tons of flaws in China.
>> More questions from the floor stand in silence. Um uh let me
>> Eric yeah
>> let me sort of quickly respond to your point. I I I want to clarify something. I certainly did not mean to state or prove a causality a causal relation between democracy and Taiwan's troubles. Okay. Uh I'm I'm merely that's impossible to prove anyways. Somebody needs to really conduct a study. I haven't. I'm I'm merely stating a correlational fact that they've had these elections and and Taiwan has a lot of troubles. Now I take your point. A lot of people have left Taiwan and went to mainland because of economic opportunities. Um but also there are large number of Taiwanese who have left the island because they thought that the political environment is so poisoned in their view lots in droves. I don't know I'm I'm not saying they're in the majority but but yes also there are many many who moved to mainland because the economic opportunities but I mean I guess that you know that's sort of my point. I mean democracy is not even attractive enough to keep their own people from moving to a tyrannical system or authoritarian regime for money. I mean how strong of a system is that? Okay. uh you know I have I have to tell you the openness of Taiwan society indeed the ability of Taiwan people to go and live and work in China and trade with with China is a function of the de democracy that we had uh we've seen evolving there over the last over the last 20 years or so um you know but put that any other do we have any any other questions from the floor but uh
>> so I think um one thing is one thing that we may bring into the conversation is the original concept of republicanism. not not the Republican party but per per se not not that I have anything against it that but um that it is partly a you know meritocracy in the sense that it's it's incredible focus on on on the the excellence of of a citizen what it takes the virtue of a citizen that that takes precedent and in fact the the idea that the only way you actually prove worthiness of becoming a true citizen uh worthy of engaging in public discourse is that you have your own e economic means to support yourself so that you don't then corrupt turn the political public arena into uh uh an where you you seek economic opportunity for yourself which is then the corruption of of the two realm. So, you know, that used to be the original in in a sense that that's almost a meritocratic system in in a sense. And if you look at the at least the original Athenian system of it, it's it was all about the liberal arts and stuff that we now learn as the epitome of what what it means to be an intellectual these days. So in a sense it's a combination of meritocracy based upon this uh conception of human excellence uh which is based upon what we now call uh intellectual excellence. Now I think that used to be what we used to it's a combination of dem you know the original conception of democracy and the original conception of republicanism that that is something that is very very different now u in in terms of the democracy that is practiced the one the only thing that I could sort of detect that's left of that is is the Senate in the US in the sense that it's the millionaire's club people don't have to worry about their economic wellbeing the people who come to the Senate, right? So, they are supposed to be then completely free of concerns about their own economic well-being to engage in the truly public thing. The only problem there then is that do they they come there with freedom from economic want, but then do they have the intellectual content necessary to really fully engage in in what is what what is really good for for the public realm. I think the the problem these days when we talk about democracy is that none of the democracies that we're talking about is is in any of these pure forms. That's why some people when we talk about reforming the democratic system are really talking about the the original form of republicanism, right? Which is maybe maybe the French system. I don't I don't know there there are different versions of it. But I think in in whatever system we're looking for, there has to be a an element of meritocracy. There has to be an element of freedom from economic want and there there has to be an element of something that has to do with people who are then free from economic want to be engaged in something that is called a public sphere right it can't just be escape into um private interest I mean I think that's the fundamental contradiction from the original republicanism with with liberal individualism right it's Those two are it's it's another contradiction actually. If you look at it, escape into privacy is something that the original Athenians thought was was really the worst worst form of form of behavior because if you have the the means, then you're supposed to be engaged in in the public realm. I think that's the sense that's the kind of spirit that we're all searching for. And I think the idea is that whichever country that has a been able to preserve that the best and somehow connect that to the political elite is the one that's the best system and I think that's the sense in which I think for instance the American university system still it's not just you know creativity and MIT and and techn technological security but I think the kind of discourses that they engage in liberal education that they engage British system too in in talking about the importance of the of the public realm that that they constantly drum into you. I mean that's something that that I think is is really important and that what I that's what I think is really interesting about the Chinese tradition or the Confucian tradition because it's also the same in the sense that it's that sense of the public or if you're the elite you're supposed to be serving the public interest des regardless of your private interest that is being drumed into you. And it's it's a matter of each system finding a way to produce elites that will completely devote themselves to that public realm while providing with them them with the sufficient economic base. Right? And that's that's the hardest trick for for any country to to to do. And that's the part that that I think we're now be every country is beginning to have face some very serious troubles with right so I don't know if any system right at this particular juncture has has that that uh yet but if that were to be the model I would like to ask you know what so Eric do you think China is the one that really does come closest to to to producing that that publicspirited servant that will really serve the public interest the best uh for the long you know for the foreseeable future that do you think China has the system that is able to reproduce it Ed do you think United States really actually has that system given all the money politics that is that is that it's being quote unquote corrupted with Daniel in the middle you choose. Okay. Also,
>> I think China systems evolving, so it's it's hard to say um whether they're producing virtuous or whether they're structurally producing virtuous leaders. At the very least, they're producing capable ones. Uh the website won't go down. Um so, um I think that's very I I think it's on a on a on a reasonably good trajectory. I think overall I mean because the the the the the the official selection process is highly competitive so you really got to deliver. It's very difficult to takes 30 years to move all the way to the top. Uh of course there are a few bad apples and then they're corrupt ones. Uh but when when you do get it to the top you are at least competent. Uh and they need to work on corruption to make sure that that that's that's clean cleaned up to a reasonable extent. uh then I think it it will be it will be a reasonable system in terms of meritocratic selection um
>> in the United States. Um I I appreciate the the subtlety of your argument particularly Chay Bong that it's fine for me to pull out a copy of the Constitution and revert to that. The fact is we have come a long way uh away from from the ideal and citing John Stewart Mill versus where we actually are whether it's in China or whether it's in the United States uh is is a very different uh situation that we find ourselves in. One of my primary concerns is not not so much uh money and politics. it's uh vested interests more broadly uh understood that result in a a government ratchet every time a new program comes into existence. no matter uh how many independent think tanks or government agencies come along and uh can describe the fact that x billion dollars is being spent on 17 different uh pre kindergarten education experiments all to no avail because by the time the children are in third grade the the advantages that they had have all disappeared because it all goes back to intact family. there's no way you're going to get rid of those because they all have their built-in constituents in terms of the the internal political structure. So, in that way, I guess the notion of finding an elite somewhere who can come along and change those kinds of things is uh I guess superficially appealing. But uh gosh, I I hope that in our system, at least in the United States, uh we can come up with people with the political courage and the the knowledge to look objectively and say, "Hey, this is a better way to do it. This one's not as good." And and how do we then take care of of of all the citizens at different levels? Not perfect, but uh we we don't live in a perfect world, I guess. I mean I agree with with my friend Chabbong that whether it's a democracy or Chinese type you know democratic meritocracy system the task is how to select political elites there's always no matter what kind of site any large modern society is going to have elites and the question is how could we select ones which have ability and virtue I mean in the Chinese case I agree with Eric that ability is less of a problem uh than than virtue virtue here meaning that the leaders are committed to the common good not so much to their private interest. But I think there's ways to change it um without challenging the whole system. You know, for example, one way, one problem now in the selection process is that too much depends on the views of superiors. And it's very easy for superiors to have biased views of the moral character of the people they're selecting. There's lots of social science studies that show that peers have a much better idea of the moral character of people. So I I think if the selection process could place more emphasis on on on peer selection rather than depending so much on superiors it would be a huge improvement in terms of improving the uh virtue of the political leaders in China. Again in a democracy once you have one person one vote it's you can't change it because people just become you know attached to it regardless of the arguments for and against it. There's deep psychological reasons in Taiwan too. I mean, I've been to Taiwan also many times and and people are aware of the flaws of the system, but I don't nobody in Taiwan hardly argues for replacing one person, one vote. You know, it's it's it's it's something deeply psychological that once you you're in a voting booth and you you have this sense of empowerment, I can choose my leaders. You just can't change it no matter, you know, how how how bad the system is. So, we have to build on that system in a place that already implements it. Um, and in the case uh of the US, you know, I mean, I think the the founding fathers, I mean, I agree that were much more concerned with merit or they were at least as much concerned with merit as with, you know, democratic consent. But the many of the meritocratic aspects of the political system, you know, have been downgraded over the years. The whole language of merit is no longer appropriate. There's a good book called merit, you know, I don't know if you saw, you know, and he argues it's a uh it's a professor of history at Cornell. I don't remember his name that the the whole language of merit you know is no longer there but it used to be so prominent in the US again there's this tendency towards populism and one person one vote once things are implemented and I think it's a more of a challenge in a democratic system to think of ways of selecting um leaders with ability and virtue uh than it than it is perhaps in in a Chinese style political system. But I I think there are ways I mean Nicholas Reagan you know who he has this think tank which in California they're doing very fascinating projects for injecting more meritocracy in the system especially in California where there's these huge excesses of populism and and you can do that in some ways without uh challenging one person one vote.
>> Thank you. We're out of time I'm afraid. This promised to be a lively panel. You didn't disappoint. Thanks for being a great panel and a great audience. Thank you. Okay. Fore speech. Fore! Foreign! Foreign! Fore speech. Fore! Foreign! Foreign! Fore! Foreign! Foreign!