irreverence

Western leaders and the western media in general busy themselves calling for a democratic People's Republic of China. Whether they do so for political reasons or PR reasons or otherwise I don't know, but to see democracy as a solution for all of China's problems is a horribly simplistic view.

China's population in itself presents challenges independent of its political system. Equally startling as its sheer size, what presents a greater problem is the large division between various social classes. The urbanized population, which controls almost the entire economy, represents only about a third of China's total population. People here have access to education and healthcare. For the other two thirds who live in the countryside, they have benefitted little from China's economic reforms of the past two decades. Life expectancy is twenty or thirty years lower, the vast majority of the them are illiterate, and only the luckier ones have running water.

This social situation in itself presents a challenge for democracy to succeed. Because of the vast difference in lifestyles between the urbanized population and those who live in the countryside, no system can satisfy both these two segregations. Furthermore, with less than half of the country's population literate, do people even know enough to make an informed decision that best suits their own interests?

And that is another point. China's economic boom, while having raised the average standard of living, has been nothing but trouble for those less fortunate. When the country is devoting all of its efforts to economic expansion, those who are left by the wayside are left to suffer. Crop fields which generate an income for those who own them are being plowed up to make way for freeways, and those laid off from newly-privatized businesses in the streamlining process are forced into work as cabbies, maids, or even prostitution.

Needless to say, these things would not happen under a democratic system. At the same time, though, had China been run by a democratic system, such economic reforms would not have happened either. The ultimate question: "has it been worth it?" is incredibly challenging to answer.

While the fight for a democratic China inevitably brings reminders of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, the truth is that the shape of China has changed. While a few people still haven't given up the fight, the vast majority of the population that has benefitted from economic reforms is happy to accept the status quo. People in China now are far more concerned with building their own wealth than advocating democracy. In this state, these 1.3 billion people contribute to what I believe is the single most important reason why China is able to develop steadily: for the first time since the mid-Qing dynasty, China has enjoyed a period of relative stability and freedom from war, revolution, civil unrest and political turmoil. Should China steadily develop at this rate for another few decades and reach a level of stability, it will naturally facilitate itself for democracy. Until then, let's just wait it out for good things to happen and not set it off its intended course.

I think I was first exposed to The Simpsons when I was in the fourth grade. At that time, when everyone else in my class had watched it, I had taken it upon myself to be pretentious and resist what I felt, at that time, was pointless fluff. While my friends were watching it, I was watching the nigthly news and using that as an excuse to feel more mature and generally superior when compared to my counterparts, who were filling themselves up with what was inappropriate and obscene.

I had never expected myself looking back, but in retrospect I realize that, at the time, I was incapable of appreciating The Simpsons beyond a very simple level. While most of the other cartoons I watched could not be appreciated beyond such a level (consisting of really nothing more than a basic plot, with no profound theme underneath), it took me years to fully apprecate The Simpsons for all that it is worth.

Beyond the plot are the various jokes that let it qualify as a sitcom and let it appeal to a wider audience. Admist those jokes are more subtle jabs at society; Kent Brockman's attitude towards his own news, or Ned Flanders' devotion to his religion (which is a commentary on society's overall relationship with morality). On top of that is the development of various characters, of which I would argue has more depth than any other TV show at the moment. There is subtle irony; the fact that the school's principal lives with his mother, for example. Over many episodes, we become intimately familiar with all characters in the Simpson family, as well as Mr. Burns, all of whom are used to illustrate stereotypes in society and to explore various themes.

The most profound is what also makes The Simpsons unique: while animated and silly in general, it explores themes that are so deep within ourselves and so universal to human nature that each episode has significant value as a commentary on the human condition. At this level, all characters in the show are unified; Homer, Marge, Lisa, Bart, Grandpa, Mr. Burns, and even Apu and Moe (as well as everyone else), despite the different social stereotypes they represent, now become the same person. Recurring themes include our need to feel accomplished, to feel appreciated by those we love, our fear of loneliness, and, our inner capacity for both good and evil. While other sitcoms usually deal with awkward social situations and love in general, The Simpsons goes so much deeper.

Nowadays, when the news seems nothing but sensationalist and slanted and just has to find something to report on when there's nothing to, watching The Simpsons seems like a far better use of one's time.

Democracy is fundamentally about catering to the masses. Hence, what is lost in a democratic society is the same as what is lost in popular music. That is, the need to appeal to a large audience influences your product more than the need to contain substance.

The coming Canadian election (as well as every election a member of Generation Y would have lived through) is all about appealing to the masses, and not "about values" as Stephen Harper insists it is. If it actually was, we'd probably have less of a problem. But a democratic society does not really permit that, because most of us aren't even sure what values are important to us.

People who receive the nomination for a political party for a certain riding often get it not because of any suitability for the role but rather because they managed to play the PR game particularly well in the weeks and months leading up to the election. Monia Mazigh ran as the NDP candidate in 2004 after the Maher Arar affair in my home riding of Ottawa South. This time, Allan Cutler is taking the Conservative nomination after having suddenly become a model of righteousness for whistleblowing the sponsorship scandal. This doesn't help the Liberals in Ottawa South, whose candidate David McGuinty is now unpopular because his brother Dalton didn't keep half his election promises after becoming Premier of Ontario. Remember when high school elections for student council were blatantly a popularity contest? This election is really the same, just not blatantly so.

Watching four political parties battle it out for a top spot is like watching for corporations market competing products. Each party flaunts its strengths while trying to make the public forget about its weaknesses. In the end, the Conservative Party attempting to convince the public that they are accountable and won't pull off another sponsorship scandal has the same credibility as Madonna directing attention to her breasts during a concert; it's about trying to force the public to remember the one thing you have (that the public has almost forgotten) when you've become otherwise irrelevant.

The fundamental problem is that any sort of product that appeals to the masses inevitably ends up this way. This goes for music, fiction, movies, art, and now politics. When the masses are unable or unwilling to increase their level of intelligence to have you appeal to them, the only solution to win sales or votes is to lower your intelligence to cater towards them. As much as we think these parties are trying to win our votes, the converse is actually true: we're getting played like harps! Oh well, look on the bright side. Since it'll probably be another minority government, whatever happens won't have a lasting effect. We'll probably just have another circus in a year's time as soon as another no confidence motion gets passed.