From a Chinese Perspective, Politicians in Germany, South Korea, and France Are All Unqualified

【Editor’s Note: In 2024, countries such as Germany, France, and South Korea experienced social and political unrest. The intertwining of politics and business has become more blatant. Elon Musk’s sponsorship of Trump, Britain’s far-right political parties, and his appearance at a German far-right AfD campaign event last Saturday are stark examples. On January 21, the latest episode of China’s top political commentary program, “This is China,” featured Professor Zhang Weiwei, Dean of the China Institute at Fudan University, analyzing the current global political landscape. (This article was translated by AI.】
In addition to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the chaos in the Middle East, 2024 also witnessed numerous disturbances: the collapse of the Scholz government in Germany, France changing four prime ministers within a year, a showdown between two political dynasties in the Philippines, the most serious unrest in the UK in a decade, and ongoing political turmoil in South Korea. This raises the question: What has happened to the Western model? Let’s focus on the political unrest in France, Germany, and South Korea and evaluate the deep-seated crises of the Western model using the Chinese model as a reference.
Last December 24, France’s Le Monde published an article stating that 2024 would go down in history as the worst year for the Fifth Republic of France, as the country changed four prime ministers in a single year, the first time since 1935. The article noted that French politics is becoming a “victim of triple decline”: a decline in the president’s functions, with increasing calls for Macron’s resignation; a decline in the National Assembly, where three factions are vying for power; and a decline in trust in the prime minister, who lives under the threat of a vote of no confidence.
The reasons behind this political decline stem from France’s economic downturn, with industrial competitiveness continually weakening, increasing pressure on government finances, and a growing debt burden and deficit level. For ordinary people, the job market is sluggish, and the cost of living is rising, with over 70% of respondents expressing concern about the current living conditions in France, believing that “living standards are constantly falling.”
On December 18 last year, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung bluntly declared: “France is in crisis, and this crisis is shaking the foundations of the Fifth Republic.” The article mentioned that when De Gaulle founded the Fifth Republic, its features included sound public finances, stable political situations, and control over vast former French colonies. However, these “heritages” have now been “squandered,” which must be regarded as a tragedy. The author pointed out that France today is mired in government debt and domestic political turmoil while withdrawing troops from former colonies such as Mali, Chad, and Niger.
Germany’s situation is equally bleak. At the end of 2024, the Scholz government announced its collapse. In early November last year, German Chancellor Scholz declared the dismissal of FDP chairman Lindner as finance minister, and the FDP subsequently announced its withdrawal from the so-called Ampelkoalition with the Social Democrats and Greens, which directly triggered this crisis and led to a no-confidence vote against Scholz in parliament.
In reality, the main reason for Scholz’s downfall lies in Germany’s severe economic crisis. After the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Germany, along with the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries, sanctioned Russia, leading to worsening energy and inflation issues in Germany, significantly increased manufacturing costs, and widespread dissatisfaction in German society. Germany blindly followed the U.S., excluding advanced technologies such as Huawei’s 5G equipment and Alibaba Cloud, ultimately rendering Germany’s Industry 4.0 strategy a bubble.
South Korea’s political instability is even more perplexing. On the night of December 3, 2024, President Yoon Suk-yeol suddenly declared “martial law,” the first such instance in South Korea since 1980. Yoon claimed this move was to purge domestic “anti-state forces” and defend the country’s free democratic system. However, most analysts believe the fundamental reason is Yoon’s discontent with the opposition party controlling the majority in parliament and accusations against his wife’s family.
The martial law order was lifted after six hours, sparking massive street protests. Subsequently, Yoon was impeached by the Korean National Assembly, which also overwhelmingly passed an impeachment measure against Acting President Han Duck-soo. This marked the first time in South Korea’s history to impeach both a president and an acting president in two weeks, making South Korea’s extreme political infighting and legal system a subject of international ridicule.
The deep-rooted reasons behind South Korea’s political unrest also lie in economic stagnation, declining national competitiveness, and severe social division. South Korea is one of the countries with the most severe generational, gender, class, and regional conflicts globally. Furthermore, inflationary pressures, especially rising housing and food prices, further exacerbate social tensions.
In fact, the political turmoil in these three countries is just a microcosm of the crisis in the Western political model. I have always advocated assessing the world through the lens and standards of the Chinese perspective. The more we apply Chinese standards, the more we can project them globally and exert influence. I believe this is a significant aspect of the profound changes unseen in a century.
When measured by Chinese political standards, we can at least raise the following four questions about the Western model: 1. Is it capable of independence? 2. Can it select talents and appoint them effectively? 3. Can it plan for the long-term? 4. Can it prioritize people’s well-being? My conclusions tend to be negative unless the West undergoes substantial reforms, or the decline of the Western model will accelerate.
Regarding independence, China is one of the few countries with high autonomy, firmly opposing any country’s interference in its internal affairs. Yet today, we see that countries like Germany, France, and South Korea cannot control their destiny, which is a situation faced by many countries worldwide.
The soft and hard power of the United States pervades these countries, with a significant U.S. military presence in Germany and South Korea. Many Europeans understand that NATO’s eastward expansion could likely result in military conflict with Russia, but they continue to follow the U.S. and push for expansion, eventually causing the Russia-Ukraine conflict to break out and the collapse of the Franco-German vision of a “unified European home.” Meanwhile, France, Germany, and others have been severely hit in economic, technological, and social development sectors.
Regarding talent selection and appointment, the Chinese proverb states: “The key to governance lies in acquiring the right people; using unsuitable talent inevitably leads to misrule.” Nearly all Chinese people agree with the idea that “governing a country must rely on talent.” However, the current Western model has not provided an effective system for selecting qualified leaders. The multi-party electoral system has long devolved into “game-like democracy,” equating “democracy” with “elections,” and “elections” further reduced to political marketing. Political marketing often manifests as a contest of money, resources, public relations, strategies, image, performance, etc., with the elected officials not necessarily possessing the strategic judgment and execution needed for governance.
Regarding long-term planning, this is the biggest difference between the Chinese and Western models. China has always emphasized, “Without foresight, there will be impending worries,” and “Those who do not plan for the entire chessboard are not fit to plan for a single domain.” The comparative advantage of the Chinese model lies in successive medium- and long-term planning, including the execution and formulation of five-year plans. Western politicians often focus on personal interests and the short-term demands of some voters, overlooking the overall public interests and global interests. Moreover, the multi-party electoral system makes it difficult to ensure policy continuity. Last year, France changed four prime ministers; Scholz abandoned many of Merkel’s policies; Yoon Suk-yeol is entirely at odds with his predecessor—where is the strategic thinking or implementation mechanism for long-term planning in these countries?
Regarding prioritizing people’s livelihood, “Of all matters, people’s livelihood is paramount” is among China’s exemplary governance traditions. China’s rapid rise in just a few decades has continuously prioritized improving people’s livelihood. This philosophy has helped us eradicate extreme poverty in a short time, creating the world’s largest middle class and leading the way in the global new industrial revolution.
Recently, massive wildfires raged in Los Angeles, burning wealthy neighborhoods in the “developed regions of a developed region” of the U.S., with limited rescue efficiency, and chaotic scenes of officials blaming each other were astonishing. One may compare it to the 6.8-magnitude earthquake in Dingri County, Shigatse, Tibet, China, almost happening simultaneously in our underdeveloped border region in the highlands. Our disaster relief mobilization was incredibly fast and efficient, shocking the world: within ten minutes, military aircraft carrying soldiers and supplies flew to the disaster area, half a day later, the county town’s electricity was restored, 24 hours later, the national highway was entirely accessible, hot meals began to be served, and almost all relief supplies were in place within a day.
I refer to China’s democratic practice as the “people-oriented democratic model,” or “Chinese People-oriented Model,” contrasting it with the “Western democratic model.” I believe the “Chinese People-oriented Model” reveals a profound governance law, in that it doesn’t matter which political system is used—multiparty system, one-party system, or no party system—it ultimately must be realized in the fundamental aspect of improving people’s lives, including material and spiritual improvements. In today’s Chinese political discourse, this translates to the coordination of “economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological civilization construction” and ultimately transforms into people’s “sense of gain.” Therefore, I personally tend to believe that if there is competition between “Western democratic model” and “Chinese People-oriented Model” in the world today, the “Chinese People-oriented Model” has already prevailed. Of course, we can further improve in various aspects. Based on this, we can also more comprehensively understand General Secretary Xi Jinping’s previous powerful statement: “Since the new era, the clear contrast between ‘East rising and West declining,’ ‘China governance and Western chaos,’ has shown great developing countries new hope and options.” I also firmly believe that history will stand on the side of the “Chinese People-oriented democratic model”!
Editor: Zhongxiaowen