I don't believe that. The chinese have just proven that you can very well "just do something" - if you have a Pinch of Recklessness and the Power to back up your Actions. You could well do without the one or the other, depending on what it is that you do (and if you don't have to do it against the Will of a Lobby)...
I was talking about within a democratic system which the Chinese definitely do not have. They 'just do things' but speaking to my comment that everyone wants representation and that such systems lead to abuses of power: the Chinese are facing large peasant uprisings on a near weekly basis. They put these down using techniques from medieval times (literally getting thugs to go out with sticks and beat them up) and bureaucracy (protest zones that no one can get permission to participate in, long lines to aid offices that literally go nowhere). Also as I mentioned earlier, such a system
will destabilize itself. Either they will get bogged down more and more in bureaucracy as people want more representation and get it, or they will go more authoritarian thus leading to higher tensions with the rest of the world and greater unhappiness within their people.
...but barely anyone gets represented in a Way he likes. Especially not for four Years straight.
Agreed.
That's human Nature. That Problem is that Democracy forces Politicians to do Things, that aren't in the Peoples Interest, so they can keep their Power.
I agree with you that it's human nature. But I would also say that many politicians and bureaucrats do the things they do quite happily. "Forcing" is in the eye of the beholder. Politicians know how to play the game and it's a game millenia old.
Anyone who gets into the system now-a-days knows what he or she is getting into (many claims to the contrary put aside). As my international politics professor used to say, power games and greed have existed ever since the first caveman looked at another and said "ugg ugg I want your shoes" (direct quote). Today we have more than shoes, we have all manner of things to crave, but the most conisistent over the millenia being power and money. Money is another issue entirely so we will stick to power to remain on topic. Kings wanted to remain in power, so do bureaurcats. Many bureaurcrats blatently resist change because it will diminish their 'kingdoms.' This sort of behavior has been proven over and over in hearings and such, sometimes to extreme levels.
The problem comes when you say "I just want to get things done" and you suddenly find a ravening pack of bureaucrats between you and your goal. They are part of a system stretching back more than 200 years, a system that has been growing larger with every year and a system that has been getting more and more complicated for reasons that are both logical and illogical. The logical reason is that what was once a government set up to govern 3 million people is now a government that is set up to govern
300 million people.
The only way to regulate all those people and systems is with many people in government. The illogical ones are bad policies, power grabs, feuds, world history, etc that people failed to compensate for or didn't care to fix after the fact. Regardless, the system today is so muddled that no one can envision it as a map much less navigate it to the heart of the problem and slay the dragon. Indeed there are probably hundreds of dragons that would need slaying in the same instant.
Well, that depends on what you consider "social". To say it bluntly, if it's about helping Loosers, then i guess there's no Chance. A System that i would consider social is rather easy to set up on the other Hand...
By social I meant true socialism, aka Marxism, but not communism (aka Stalin/Mao's interpretations of Marx's manifesto). Marx had many wonderful ideas and many very accurate criticisms of capitalism (amusingly enough some of them came true just this very month). However, Marx failed to take into account human nature. People aren't satisfied being equal with one another and public custodians are never pure and untainted by greed. Thus a Marxist system will always spiral to tyranny under the guise of altruism. Even if one great man or woman is pure, his or her successor surely will not be.
Socialism isn't just about helping losers or the poor. It has the notion that there are no losers. Everyone has a place in society and it is society's job to make sure they get to have that place... it's just not a very happy fun place as it turns out in socialist systems. People just aren't satisfied with it and the color grey describes more than just the color of Soviet architecture, it describes the mood of most people living under such a system.