BEIJING, June 21 (Xinhua) -- As the world moves toward multipolarity, the "superiority of the Western system" is increasingly being questioned, and fewer people believe it's universally better for all countries.
In a recent debate comparing the Chinese and American systems, French entrepreneur Arnaud Bertrand -- with facts and logic, fresh perspectives and the courage to correct Western biases and misconceptions -- made a solid case that the Chinese model fits the very particular economic and geopolitical context that China is in today, and the Chinese system is suitable for promoting the wellbeing of its people.
In a spirited online debate titled "Is the Chinese System Better than the American System," organized on April 5 by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a nonprofit American educational organization, it turns out that relatively unknown Bertrand emerged victorious over Adrian Zenz, an anti-China German academic based in Washington D.C., who was heavily promoted by part of the American political sphere and mainstream media.
The exchange drew nearly 1,200 comments on YouTube, most of which praising Bertrand. People are curious about what led to Bertrand's victory and how he received so many positive responses from netizens.
First and foremost, Bertrand relied on facts and logic.
As a new-generation China observer, Bertrand has lived in China for seven years and has a deep understanding of the country and its people. Currently, he has over 100,000 followers on Twitter, where he frequently shares insightful comments on China-related topics.
At the start of the debate, Bertrand made a statement acknowledging that while the debate aimed at comparing the Chinese system and the American one, he believed that political systems cannot be compared because each grows out of a country's unique history, economy, and geopolitical context, and is applicable only to its own people. However, within the framework of the debate, he proceeded to make comparisons in different areas.
By citing abundant international research data and his personal experiences, Bertrand provided detailed explanations of China's performance in terms of freedom, stability, and prosperity.
The entrepreneur mentioned China's remarkable achievements in poverty alleviation, saying that led to the largest and fastest reduction of poverty in the world and provided personal freedom for many as a result. In 2021, China declared the elimination of absolute poverty, having lifted nearly 100 million rural poor out of poverty in eight years.
Citing statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau, Bertrand pointed out that 6 percent of U.S. citizens live in deep poverty, adding that a survey found 25 percent of the U.S. population worried about money for buying food.
On the other hand, his opponent Zenz, who was initially expected to provide a strong defense of the superiority of the American governance system and values, spent the whole time criticizing communism and disparaging the Chinese government, completely deviating from the topic.
"He spent all his time complaining about China, citing only the reports he himself wrote or the fabricated reports he published in Western media. The whole time, it was just a series of 'China is bad because ...' content, but that's not the topic of the debate," remarked a viewer who had watched the debate.
Secondly, Bertrand won with his fresh perspectives and thoughts.
Bertrand argued that poverty is the antithesis of freedom. When people live in extreme poverty, they lose the freedom of choice in most aspects of life. He also raised a simple question about "freedom from fear:" Can a person freely walk outside late at night in the United States? These arguments offered a refreshing perspective for Western viewers, enabling them to engage in deep reflection.
Bertrand subsequently presented a deeper line of thinking: collective freedom. He pointed out that former French President Charles de Gaulle had once proposed that the biggest form of freedom should be independence as a sovereign nation, which is a prerequisite for all other forms of freedom. It is difficult to consider the people of a country to be free when the country is in a situation of being a "vassal state" or within the sphere of influence of a major power.
"China is unarguably the freest country in the world in this regard, as it cannot be even remotely considered as being any country's vassal state and it just doesn't do military alliances -- it doesn't have any ... This high level of sovereignty allows China to focus on internal development and to maintain its freedom of action on the international stage," said Bertrand.
Lastly, Bertrand dared to correct the biases and misconceptions about China in the so-called mainstream narratives.
From freedom to stability, and then to prosperity, Bertrand made thorough comparisons, powerfully demonstrating that China's development has not only benefited its own people, but also made positive contributions to global peace and development. In contrast, Zenz spent the entire time repeating the debunked lies about China, failing to articulate his position in the debate, which was to argue for the superiority of the American system. Offline voting in the debate showed that Bertrand emerged as the clear winner.
The debate between the two sides has been hailed as a public lecture on comparing the Chinese and American systems. While a single debate may not help much find the path to truth, it has opened a window for those, who have come to realize the biases in some U.S. perceptions of China, and believe in the power of facts over rhetoric. ■
