Foundation for Democratic Advancement: Limited Chinese Prespectives on Democracy and Society

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Limited Chinese Prespectives on Democracy and Society

In this video only two Chinese perspectives are displayed. One perspective supports an authoritarian regime for the apparent social stability and thereby economic gain, and the other perspective does not question the authority of government:

0 comments:

Post a Comment

2011/2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Results

1. France 91.75% (A+)
2. Venezuela 85% (A+)
3. Bolivia 78.75% (B+)
4. Norway 58.5% (D+)
5. New Zealand 54.75% (D)
6. Spain 42.25% (F)
7. Finland 40.75% (F)
8. Lebanon 37.5% (F)
9. Iraq 35.25% (F)
10. Denmark 35% (F)
10. Russia 35% (F)
12. Sweden 34.5% (F)
13. Argentina 32.5% (F)
14. United States 30% (F)
15. Canada 25.75% (F)
16. Azerbaijan 25% (F)
17. Afghanistan 23.75% (F)
18. Mexico 22.5% (F)
19. Tunisia (under Ben Ali) 10% (F)
20. Democratic Republic of Congo 3.75% (F)
21. Cameroon 2.5% (F)
22. Yemen (under Saleh) 1.25% (F)
23. Bahrain 0% (F)
23. Egypt (under Mubarak) 0% (F)
23. Iran 0% (F)
23. Jordan 0% (F)
23. Libya (under Gaddafi) 0% (F)
23. Saudi Arabia 0% (F)
23. Syria (under Bashar al-Assad) 0% (F)

FDA Electoral Audit Results

2010 Calgary Mayoral Audit

1. Jon Lord 57/100 57% (D+)
2. Barb Higgins 53.8/100 53.8% (D)
3. Naheed Nenshi 51.8/100 51.8% (D)
4. Richard McIver 43.8/90 48.6% (F)
5. Joe Connelly 42.7/90 47.4% (F)
6. Dan Knight 46.8/100 46.8% (F)
7. Barry Erskine 38/90 42.2% (F)
8. Bonnie Devine 29/100 29% (F)

* The Calgary Mayoral Audit did not include an audit of the candidates' competencies and characteristics.

2010 Australia Vision Audit

1. Abbot 60% (C)
2. Gillard 50% (D)

2010 British Election Audit Ranking

1. Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat 67.8% (C+)
2. David Cameron, Conservative 65.8% (C+)
3. Gordon Brown, Labour 63.4% (C)

*The British Election Audit did not include an audit of candidates' competences and characteristics.

2010 Netherland's Immigration Policies Audit

1. Femke Halsema (GreenLeft) 75% (B)
2. Job Cohen (Dutch Labour Party) 70% (B)
3. Emile Roemer (Socialist Party) 70% (B)
4. Mark Rutte (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy) 50% (D)
5. Jan Peter Balkenende (Christian Democratic Appeal) 30% (F)
6. Geert Wilders (Party for Freedom) 20% (F)

2009 Afghan Presidential Election Audit Ranking

1. Hamid Karzai 23.9% (F)
2. Dr. Ghana 22.2% (F)
3. Dr. Abdullah 20% (F)

* The Afghanistan Presidential Audit did not include audit of candidates' competencies and characteristics.

2009 British Columbia Provincial Election Audit Ranking

1. BC Liberals 59.7% (D+)
2. BC NDP 59.6% (D+)
3. BC Green Party 55.9% (D+)

* The BC Provincial Election Audit did not include audit of candidates' competencies and characteristics.

2008 US Presidential Election Audit Ranking

1. Nader 80.6% (A)
2. McCain 60.6% (C)
3. Obama 55.6% (D+)
4. Barr 55% (D)
5. Baldwin 36.6% (F)

* The US Presidential Audit did not include an audit candidates' competencies and characteristics.

2008 Alberta Provincial Election Audit Ranking

1. Wildrose Alliance 63.5% (C)
2. AlbertaLiberals 63.2% (C)
3. Social Credit 49.3% (F)
4. PCAlberta 43.6% (F)
5. Separation Party 43.1% (F)
6. Alberta’s NDP 41.8% (F)
7. Communist Party 26.8% (F)
8. Alberta’s Greens 20% (F)
9. Alberta Party 17.1% (F)

* The FDA Alberta Provincial Audit only audited party's policies.

FDA Grade Scale

A+ Exceptional candidate and/or party (overall flawless and original policies and vision, impeccable incumbency record if applicable, exceptional competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 84.99% and less than 100.1%)

A Outstanding candidate and/or party (overall very high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 79.99% and less than 85%)

B+ Very good candidate and/or party (overall high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 74.99% and less than 80%)

B Acceptable candidate and/or party (meets overall satisfactory standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 69.99% and less than 75%)

C+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (few deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 64.99% and less than 70%)

C Unacceptable candidate and/or party (several deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 59.99% and less than 65%)

D+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (a lot of deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 54.99% and less than 60%)

D Unacceptable candidate and/or party (many deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 49.99% and less than 55%)

F Unacceptable candidate and/or party (numerous major deficiencies in most if not all of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade less than 50%)

FDA Questions

Is western democracy promotion a means to attain or retain power or an end-in-itself?

Does power and should power trump democracy, government of, by and for the people?

Should democracy be promoted internationally, or should it emerge naturally in countries through the will of peoples?

Should democracy or the withdrawal of democracy be used as a means by a foreign power(s) to control another country?

Should democracy be imposed on another country by foreign power(s) irrespective of the country's people? Should democracy be established and advanced in a country irrespective of other political systems more suited to the country, such as Afghanistan which is based on a tribal system, Iran which is based on a religious republic, or the United Arab Emirates which is based on a federal system of monarchies?

Should democracy be implanted and/or promoted in a country in which the people's values are inconsistent with democracy?

If democracy is being promoted by a foreign country as a means rather than an end, what is the consequence on world perception of democracy in the foreign country, and what is the consequence to democracy?

Foundation for Democratic Advancement

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Limited Chinese Prespectives on Democracy and Society

0 comments:

Post a Comment

2012 FDA Provincial Electoral Finance Audit Results

2011/2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Results

FDA Electoral Audit Results

FDA Grade Scale

FDA Questions

Select Video Links

Followers

Blog Archive

Search The Foundation for Democratic Advancement

FDA Links

Facebook Like Button

Foundation for Democratic Advancement