@ChristianKl You’re right — the petition system (信访) isn’t entirely ineffective. But I’m right too: its “effectiveness” lies in delaying political collapse, not in protecting citizens’ rights.
You posed a neat logical challenge:
“To prove the system is ineffective, you must show that no petition ever had any effect on public policy.”
That’s like saying: “To prove this glass of water is poisonous, someone must drink it and die.” That’s not empiricism. That’s a political trap disguised as logic.
The real issue isn’t anecdotal success or failure — it’s about systemic intent and structural incentives:
China’s petition system doesn’t exist to improve governance through feedback. It exists to absorb rage, defuse protests, and identify future threats for targeted suppression.
Counter-evidence logic:
If 信访 were designed for public input, why is “petitioning higher authorities” considered “disrupting public order”?
Why are petitioners intercepted, disappeared, or locked in black jails?
Why does the regime employ special units to stop people from submitting petitions to Beijing?
If this were a democratic feedback mechanism, they’d roll out the red carpet — not the riot police.
In the U.S., most petitions go nowhere. True. But:
Does anyone get jailed for submitting them?
Are there “petitioning blacklists”?
Are there agents intercepting you from Pennsylvania to D.C.?
In China, the petition system isn’t “weak governance” — it’s not governance at all. It’s theater. It’s a feedback mimicry system with the true goal of information control, social profiling, and political anesthesia.
So I’ll repeat my judgment:
The 信访制度 isn’t an “input mechanism” for the people — it’s an “exhaust valve” for the Party. A way to log your rage, contain it, and lock it down.
This is not a “petition system.” This is a mass-distributed anesthetic, disguised as a help desk.
@ChristianKl
You’re right — the petition system (信访) isn’t entirely ineffective. But I’m right too: its “effectiveness” lies in delaying political collapse, not in protecting citizens’ rights.
You posed a neat logical challenge:
That’s like saying: “To prove this glass of water is poisonous, someone must drink it and die.”
That’s not empiricism. That’s a political trap disguised as logic.
The real issue isn’t anecdotal success or failure — it’s about systemic intent and structural incentives:
China’s petition system doesn’t exist to improve governance through feedback.
It exists to absorb rage, defuse protests, and identify future threats for targeted suppression.
Counter-evidence logic:
If 信访 were designed for public input, why is “petitioning higher authorities” considered “disrupting public order”?
Why are petitioners intercepted, disappeared, or locked in black jails?
Why does the regime employ special units to stop people from submitting petitions to Beijing?
If this were a democratic feedback mechanism, they’d roll out the red carpet — not the riot police.
In the U.S., most petitions go nowhere. True.
But:
Does anyone get jailed for submitting them?
Are there “petitioning blacklists”?
Are there agents intercepting you from Pennsylvania to D.C.?
In China, the petition system isn’t “weak governance” — it’s not governance at all.
It’s theater. It’s a feedback mimicry system with the true goal of information control, social profiling, and political anesthesia.
So I’ll repeat my judgment:
This is not a “petition system.”
This is a mass-distributed anesthetic, disguised as a help desk.