The introduction frames the following translation as focusing on
> various “failures of democracy” that, if left unchecked, could lead to the weakening of the Chinese political system. Not only does his analysis argue the importance of having more senior officials rather than the rank-and-file party cadres select competent officials, but also serves as an implicit suggestion of the superiority of the Chinese system in contrast to western democratic systems.
I believe that is a misinterpretation caused by misunderstanding "failures of democracy" as referring to "failures of Western democracy". However, as an academic affiliated with the Central Party School, Wang Dongjing can safely be assumed to be using official terminology, in which China is defined as a democratic country. So all references to "democracy" in the article should be understood to refer to the system of leadership selection implemented in China. In particular, the "failures of democracy" he talks about are specifically "failures of leadership selection in China".
That is also very noticeable when he talks about the difference between "majority of the minority and the majority of the majority". In his example of minority selection, all 20 superior officials are corrupt, blocking the young official's promotion for not doing them a favor. Then later he says that "in our society, the good guys are in the majority and the bad guys are in the minority" and "if under the guidance of democratic centralism, we elect those who have the support of the majority of the people and entrust them with important tasks, then the bureaucratic culture will change greatly. In this way, there will be no market for those who are political ‘social climbers’, who only seek to curry favors with others but don’t seek to accomplish anything."
I.e. he is arguing explicitly against having senior officials decide on promotions and wants rank-and-file cadres to get a vote instead.
Just because he is affiliated with the Central Party School, it should not be assumed that he wants to paint a rosy picture of the government. On the contrary, it is kind of their raison d'être to be aware of the government's shortcomings, so that they can educate future cadres to improve the system. (Though I don't think posting such criticism publicly was part of the job description.)
> various “failures of democracy” that, if left unchecked, could lead to the weakening of the Chinese political system. Not only does his analysis argue the importance of having more senior officials rather than the rank-and-file party cadres select competent officials, but also serves as an implicit suggestion of the superiority of the Chinese system in contrast to western democratic systems.
I believe that is a misinterpretation caused by misunderstanding "failures of democracy" as referring to "failures of Western democracy". However, as an academic affiliated with the Central Party School, Wang Dongjing can safely be assumed to be using official terminology, in which China is defined as a democratic country. So all references to "democracy" in the article should be understood to refer to the system of leadership selection implemented in China. In particular, the "failures of democracy" he talks about are specifically "failures of leadership selection in China".
That is also very noticeable when he talks about the difference between "majority of the minority and the majority of the majority". In his example of minority selection, all 20 superior officials are corrupt, blocking the young official's promotion for not doing them a favor. Then later he says that "in our society, the good guys are in the majority and the bad guys are in the minority" and "if under the guidance of democratic centralism, we elect those who have the support of the majority of the people and entrust them with important tasks, then the bureaucratic culture will change greatly. In this way, there will be no market for those who are political ‘social climbers’, who only seek to curry favors with others but don’t seek to accomplish anything."
I.e. he is arguing explicitly against having senior officials decide on promotions and wants rank-and-file cadres to get a vote instead.
Just because he is affiliated with the Central Party School, it should not be assumed that he wants to paint a rosy picture of the government. On the contrary, it is kind of their raison d'être to be aware of the government's shortcomings, so that they can educate future cadres to improve the system. (Though I don't think posting such criticism publicly was part of the job description.)