Posted: when democracy is in effect when Miss the autocratic harm _weatherman

Xueyong recently, Mr. Zheng yongnian Singapore scholars in the China Youth Daily "reform" of deep social stability had been instituted in the interview said Deng Xiaoping: China to the next century (see now is a part of this century) the medium-term to achieve democracy. Mr. CHENG at the Deng Xiaoping this move out, nature is very meaningful. However, he then, it has some surprising doubted: "Chinese people say that democracy is a good thing. This somewhat arbitrary. Good democracy is a good thing, a bad democracy than anything bad. We look at democracy, not just a better democratic Europe, Africa, Latin America, Asia and some countries of democratic, more like a bad democracy. No one can guarantee that China democratization is quality of democracy, not the poor quality of democracy. "I certainly agree that China will not be able to develop" a bad democracy ". In fact, from buying a car, aircraft, to select a friend, spouse, system, bad things are bad, who don't want to pick a good? it was no great significance. However, it must extend out the "bad democracy than anything bad," we need to consider. In General, the non-democratic and democratic society, can always see the world's most prosperous countries adopted democratic systems, the resulting "democracy is a good thing," concludes, is not something arbitrary. This is to be like. To bad that there are very few people seem to have been made. So Mr. Zheng yongnian saying "bad democracy than anything bad" is a letdown. It is able to withstand criticism? we may wish to look at. World's richest countries are democracies. This has nothing to say. The world's poorest countries, Ethiopia, Liberia, Zimbabwe, etc., which are democratic countries have even in Burundi, the democratic system also belong to the poorest, but with a look at its history will know that this kind of poverty is not a democracy, but it is precisely because there is no democracy, has been the result of the civil war. Chinese people like to say is India. India's poor, it seems that democracy doesn't work. However, India's poverty, democracy as a result of, or the caste system as the representative of the local traditional? today with a democratic system of improvements, the weakening of the old traditions, is not being well India? does India for a non-democratic regimes would be better than now? look at the world's top header name of failed States: Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and which "bad democracy" countries can be compared with those countries worse? take a look at the history and today's world, there are many democratic countries and poor performance. However, on occasion, "more than anything else, bad" absolutely not "bad democracy", but rather to the bad more non-democratic. Is Nero that tyrant, Hitler's concentration camps, is Japan's Nanjing massacre. Idolatry democracy is naive, but go to the other extreme are immature. By virtue of our common sense observation history, democracy does bring many disasters. However, this kind of disaster, compared to the totalitarian system by the manufacturing of disaster is only partly right. In China, talk about "bad democracy", is incredible. When will China have a "bad democracy" of the nearly 200 years China's Imposts, from the opium war, Taiping, the warlords, the great leap forward, the "cultural revolution", which is the cause of democracy? "democracy is a good thing" is a great truth. Perhaps we should add another sentence, Frank: democracy has failed. However, there is a democratic system fails the cost ratio is a non-democratic regimes; the cost should be small, after all. That is, when democracy is in effect, they can't catch some tyrant, authoritarian. (Author of United States Boston Suffolk University, Assistant Professor)