Some democracies are in trouble because of the new virus, and recently India is in a deep crisis, which has triggered the Chinese Communist Party’s media and internet pinkos to affirm and praise the authoritarian regime, and to mock and denigrate the democratic system, and some official comments of the Chinese Communist Party even exceed the bottom line of humanity. The official microblog of the Chinese Communist Party’s Political and Legal Committee put pictures of Indian people cremating their loved ones together with pictures of Chinese space rockets being ignited and launched to show the power of the authoritarian regime and the inability of the democratic system to solve the plight of the epidemic.
If one compares China and Taiwan, it is perfectly clear that democratic Taiwan has a higher performance in epidemic prevention in the same cultural and traditional context, and there is no humanitarian disaster and secondary catastrophe as in mainland China due to the high-handed political approach. The current disastrous status quo in India is directly caused by virus mutation, which can be regarded as a natural disaster like flooding, which is the powerlessness of human beings. If the source of India’s epidemic is to be traced, it is the Chinese system that “produced” the virus and spread it globally. The superiority of India’s democracy is that the mutated virus could not have been concealed by the government because the media was free and independent.
One-party dictatorship is a virus in ideology. Once the communist ideology encroaches on the muscle of a nation, normal cells are mutated by viral cells and become mentally dependent on the authoritarian regime. The authoritarian regime can be said to be systematically poisoning, concealing and spreading the new crown epidemic. Dr. Li Wenliang’s “whistle blowing” was an “accident”, so he was detained and warned, while Zhang Zhan, an independent media investigator, was given a heavy sentence.
Then there is institutional proliferation. The authorities blocked the movement of cities within the country while international flights flew normally, allowing the virus to spread around the world. Neither traced and controlled at the source, nor effectively controlled at the place where the source of transmission originated, only an authoritarian regime in the world could be so irresponsible to the world.
The authoritarian rule, on the one hand, was extremely efficient: it was able to seize the seafood market, which could be the source of transmission, overnight, destroying all the products and even destroying the owners’ books along with them, while on the other hand, ignoring the risk of widespread infection of the public, it continued to allow the Baibuting community to have held a banquet for ten thousand families on January 18, the traditional Chinese Lunar New Year, at a time when military units began to send internal letters to prevent the spread of the unknown virus.
When the epidemic was raging, the authorities did not have the power to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, but dared to break through the moral bottom line of human decency. After some family members were infected with the epidemic, their children were not rescued, and the confinement of households led to a severe lack of living materials, and the secondary humane disaster was covered up on a large scale.
For 100 years, Chinese people have embodied equality and freedom in the family, and the basic unity of knowledge and action, but in the state system, many people believe that the party-state can make the country strong by underwriting politics and economy, so individual rights and interests can be sacrificed. Behind statism is actually egoism, as these patriots share in the dividends of such a system, and those who do not share in the benefits are permanently brainwashed by the propaganda machine.
No one doubts the judgment that a vaccine developed through science is the antidote to the new coronavirus, so why was the first vaccine to meet WHO standards developed by a democratic country and not by an authoritarian one? Because a democratic constitutional state governed by the rule of law guarantees the functioning of the capitalist economy and the rights of its citizens to all freedoms, while non-authoritarian states rely on a combination of soft and hard power to develop the antidote to the virus.
More importantly, democratic countries did not respond to the epidemic crisis by violating human rights and maintaining stability in a high-handed manner, which resulted in humanitarian disasters and secondary disasters that were widely seen in cities and villages such as Wuhan, China, and in Europe and the United States, where demonstrations and protests against governmental orders to control the epidemic were occasionally seen. In the case of epidemics, such protests are not legal, but citizens still have the constitutional right to demonstrate.
Political Privilege in Chinese Hospital Services
Even at the height of the epidemic, the health care system in Los Angeles, California, was orderly, with large numbers of infected people under home observation, self-regulated quarantine zones, daily phone calls from doctors to ask questions, and serious patients sent to hospitals. Only four people I knew in the US were infected, two of whom were under home observation and recovered, and two of whom drove themselves to the hospital and were placed in care, and the system ensured that patients were treated equally. In China, the first priority is given to senior Communist Party cadres, then to bureaucrats and hospital connections, and finally, perhaps to ordinary people. This is because the CCP system has made hospitals both a profit-making industry and a politically privileged service institution.
The authoritarian party-state system, with the party on top of the state and the party above the constitution, runs counter to the democratic and republican spirit initially promised by the CCP. Therefore, the CCP’s party media and pinkos are now dedicated to propagating that democracy is not suitable for China, that only one-party dictatorship can maintain China’s stability and so-called rise, and that one-sided interpretations of the epidemic are used to attack the constitutional democratic system and ignore political common sense. Dictatorship is the poison machine, while democracy and science are the effective antidote.
Recent Comments