|
Defending rights more important than
voting
By Ivan Ho 何明修
Sunday, May 23, 2010, Page 8
Can a group of people used to taking orders be their own masters? If freedom
suddenly falls in your lap, would order collapse overnight and result in
anarchy?
The 2007 documentary by Chinese director Chen Weijun (陳為軍), Please Vote for Me
(請投我一票), portrayed how a class of elementary-school students in Wuhan, Hubei
Province, chose their class leader in “democratic” elections. Just as their
parents are deprived of their political freedom, students have no voting rights
as class leaders are appointed by their teachers. The film was a political
experiment allowing us to observe democracy in practice.
On the surface, the film is a disappointment for those who support China’s
democratization. The intense competition between the three candidates led to
vote buying, slander and even intimidation and threats. Through the director’s
camera, the Taiwanese audience could see many problems that are familiar from
our own grassroots elections where violence and money distort our free choice.
Ironically, although the students were granted the right to vote, they elected
the candidate who was originally appointed by the teacher. Since they reached
the same goal by different means, why put in so much effort to play this
democratic game?
Maybe we should see this film in a broader perspective. The new authoritarianism
movement in China in the 1980s and New Leftism today both stress that democratic
reform is not the key to Chinese development. Rather, it is strong government
leadership along with the ability to continue to push for economic development
and social equality.
Obviously, this view could easily become a defense for those in power. Aren’t
claims of “different national conditions” or “insufficient public preparation”
and other absurd reasons often used to resist calls for democratization? The
film creates a sharp contrast between how orderly the students behave when they
raise the national flag, do physical exercise, line up, shout slogans, and how
the strong bully the weak, or the majority bully the minority, as soon as it
comes to free elections.
If we take a closer look, however, we see that democracy cannot be
simplistically described as just voting. The teacher who arranged the election
did not explain the game’s rules. As a result, the students thought being class
leader meant being a ruler who can order classmates about according to their own
wishes. More importantly, when the candidates stirred up the crowd to make
trouble or clearly practiced vote buying, the teacher simply sat back and didn’t
interfere.
When the candidate that had bullied more than 20 classmates was elected, how
should we view the result? Was it a helpless decision of the disadvantaged who
were forced to exchange their freedom for safety?
As the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: “The English people
believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during
election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the
people is enslaved; it is nothing.”
His comment can also be applied to the democratic farce in Chen’s documentary.
If elementary school students do not have the right of freedom from the
playground bullies or the interference of powerful parents and if the authority
of class leaders cannot be restrained, their votes are only meaningful in a
nominal sense. The same reasoning applies to the wider Chinese society.
The right to vote brings little change unless all disadvantaged groups can be
free from the oppression of powerful individuals and government representatives.
This is why diverse rights protection groups are key to China’s democratization.
Ivan Ho is an associate professor of sociology at National
Taiwan University.
|
