Well, yes, pretty much. It's an observed pattern among authoritarian states that actual facts are frequently in opposition to the authority, therefore, actual facts must be eliminated.
It's a silver lining in disguise, really. Such countries tend to collapse relatively quickly because it turns out facts are important for running a country - look at the USSR's fake food supply. Relatively quickly could still be a decade, though.
China has been the exception that authoritarian states collapse quickly. It's what the western powers were banking on would happen after they had success with USSR. It didn't pan out the way they thought. Not even close.
China is much more dispersed (because of it's size and some localisation/liberalisation) and they seem to understand at some level that reality exists and can't just be wished away.
It's an open question if they'll retain that with Xi now President for life.
Authoritarianism works... as long as leaders are effective.
The reason democracy historically wins out in the long run is not because it always picks better leaders, but because it picks fewer really bad ones. And checks/balances those it does.
For all his faults as a leader, Xi has also come down hard on actual corruption and malfeasance.
> China has been the exception that authoritarian states collapse quickly.
China has been centralized / autocratic for centuries (if not millennia), and the current system is probably not that different than the Emperor's throne.
And what's stopping the American people from voting smart people with engineering degrees to power instead of lying loud mouth conmen?
Maybe because modern American mainstream culture has people worshiping the "clever" conman who got rich quick by gaming the system and scamming others, as opposed to hard working nerd who put in the long time and effort for an honest enrichment.
Democratic societies get the leaders they deserve as they are a mirror of the people themselves.
> And what's stopping the American people from voting smart people with engineering degrees to power instead of lying loud mouth conmen?
The fact that people vote at all.
Running for office is a risky endeavour: you have to take time off from your job to actually run, with a decent chance of not winning. How many employers would be willing to give you a leave of absence to do this? Further, if you happen to lose your seat you are now unemployed: who is going to hire someone who has not been in the field for x years?
Law is probably one field where one can hop in and out easily, so it's why we have so many lawyers go into politics: the practice of the field doesn't change too quickly, so one can always join a firm. Similarly if you are a "businessman" you can give yourself time off from your own business (let someone else manage/CEO) since you're the boss.
Whereas in an engineering or technical field, you basically have to end your career in it. Or you perhaps stop being a day-to-day participant and go into a more generic 'management' role where it is easier to hop around companies in case you need to enter/leave politics depending on how many votes go your way.
Whereas in the CCP, (AIUI) you basically go into the 'management track' and get appointed to various positions with-in the party. You never "leave" your career as you move up the party leadership chain.
> Law is probably one field where one can hop in and out easily, so it's why we have so many lawyers go into politics
Only in USA, the rest of the world doesn't see lawyers flock to politics. It seems more like there is some corruption that makes lawyers mingle so much with politicians and they scratch each others backs, otherwise why would it be so much more lawyers in politics in USA than any other country?
People hate lawyers, they wouldn't vote on them if they didn't have to, but when the parties mostly show you lawyers to vote for then people don't have much of a choice. In the rest of the world were they do have that choice lawyers doesn't get voted in that much.
> Only in USA, the rest of the world doesn't see lawyers flock to politics.
Some data that suggests otherwise:
> On the question of what to study, there’s also a clear answer: nearly a third of both the officials and MEPs hold a law degree at undergraduate or postgraduate level. Non-science subjects such as business, humanities, political science and humanities are all prominent in the data with just 5 percent of MEPs and 2 percent of officials having a medical or health sciences qualification (Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is one of the few exceptions, having trained as a medical doctor and taken a master’s degree in public health.)
>Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is one of the few exceptions, having trained as a medical doctor and taken a master’s degree in public health
That's the worst example one could pick. Ursula comes from a family of influential EU politicians and has been groomed since childhood to take high ranking jobs in politics. It's doesn't matter what her education is when she's the EU equivalent of CCP royalty. That woman hasn't worked a job a day in her life, but spent all her life being a career politician and a regulatory arm of lobbyists and activist.
> Ursula comes from a family of influential EU politicians and has been groomed since childhood to take high ranking jobs in politics.
Do we say such things if a dentist encourages their child to become a dentist? Or an MD towards being an MD? An accountant to account? A programmer to a programmer?
> That woman hasn't worked a job a day in her life […]
Being a politician (or in the government bureaucracy) is a job. It is a career. There is domain of knowledge in governance that one must learn to be effective just like there is in any other human endeavour.
>Do we say such things if a dentist encourages their child to become a dentist? Or an MD towards being an MD? An accountant to account? A programmer to a programmer?
Depends if meritocracy was involved, which in her case it wasn't, or if your parents use their connections to get/buy you in power.
You're mixing up encouragement with cronyism, which I find in bad faith.
>Being a politician (or in the government bureaucracy) is a job. It is a career. There is domain of knowledge in governance that one must learn to be effective just like there is in any other human endeavour.
The point was that China's leaders have advanced degrees not related to politics, not whether being a politician is a job or not.
As a U.S. citizen, I tend to think of our system of government as only loosely democratic. There are many, many dials and knobs that prevent voters from having too much impact on policy. The Electoral college means losers of the popular vote have been president several times. The Senate is quite unrepresentative, Wyoming (pop. 587k) and California (pop. 39,431k) have the same number of votes. The House is gerrymandered quite heavily, the two-party system has an immense amount of control over which candidates (and policies) are viable, and our campaign finance system ensures both parties pander to donors.
Honest question: Why should I trust an index on democracy made by "The Economist Group", a London based private entity owned by the Agnelli Family, Rothschild, Cadbury and Schroder, groups with a history of union busting and other anti labor, anti democratic actions?
You don't have to and shouldn't—not without further evidence. Nevertheless, that group has taken the effort and it seems considerable work went into preparing it—that the analysis is done yearly showing trends over time, etc.
The fact that the figures are on the table so to speak they can now be tested by other researchers.
I'd not seen this analysis before and found it fascinating (I spent an inordinate amount of time studying the figures).
> Democratic societies get the leaders they deserve as they are a mirror of the people themselves.
Don't confuse things being soiled by capitalism as democracy somehow is the bad part. There are plenty of examples of democracies that haven't succumbed to capitalism as badly as the US has.
Which are those? Other than Nordic EU countries, most other capitalist countries on the planet are doing worse than the US when you look at stuff like youth unemployment, housing affordability or birth rates, all things that show economic outlook.
Capitalism is bad sure, but so far it's the least bad system we ever had and the US is one of the least bad implementations. Capitalism got a lot of countries out of extreme poverty.
Look at South Korea if you want to see true dystopian capitalism.
I should have been more specific but I thought it obvious. I was referring to China nowadays, specifically the time since Mao Zedong's death in 1976 and Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms which he
instigated shorthly thereafter.
I suggest you read this link about Chinese leaders/leadership, especially the section headed Change from Charismatic Revolutionaries to Technocrats especially paragraph/bullet points four and five:
It's a silver lining in disguise, really. Such countries tend to collapse relatively quickly because it turns out facts are important for running a country - look at the USSR's fake food supply. Relatively quickly could still be a decade, though.