My Photo
Follow UselessTree on Twitter

Zhongwen

Nedstat



  • eXTReMe Tracker
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 07/2005

« Busyness: It Doesn't Work | Main | Romney, Bain, and Sunzi »

July 11, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cdc869e20176165a704c970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Confucian Constitution for China: Where's the Popular Sovereignty?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

How could one even begin to take seriously a proposal that includes the following:

"The leader of the House of the Nation should be a direct descendant of Confucius; other members would be selected from descendants of great sages and rulers, along with representatives of China’s major religions."

The whole thing is so silly it almost reads like a parody.

What do you think are the prospects that China will adopt a "Western multi-party democracy" in the next decade or two?

Please stop fooling Chinese. We don't need your propaganda. I hate all who try to follow the evil CCP. You are trying to say in favor of CCP. I hate you and all those who support you.

Superb article as usual, Mr Crane (though, as usual, I agree with some parts and disagree with others)! I have a fairly lengthy response, here:

http://existentialmusingsofmatt.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-of-popular-sovereignty.html

I would greatly appreciate your further thoughts!

- Matt

minor typo above, "...people's >interesst< are best expressed"

Jiang's and Bell's proposal seems both arbitrary and downright bizarre. What is their justification that hereditary status ought to play a role in governing the country? That is anti-Confucian. It is anti-meritocratic. It is therefore anti-Chinese so I don't see how this is more Chinese than their version of western multi-party systems.

I do agree that the notion of democracy itself ought to be questioned as a normative ideal. It hasn't and not debating it but simply assuming it ought to be the standard by which every country ought to achieve is not in itself very democratic.

Moreover, democracy needs to be questioned in the sense that the sense that is commonly employed by the west (multiparty, procedural and liberal, e.g.) is the only kind of "democracy" available. That's an overly narrow conception and may not even capture the basic intuitions of democracy accurately.

You might emphasize the ideal of a liberal constitutional democracy a little more instead of simple popular sovereignty.

In China, there is a certain desire to construct a distinct modernity, one that includes aspects of Chinese tradition. This is true for most places on earth.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Aidan's Way

  • :


    Understanding disability from a Taoist point of view

Globalpost