China has democracy. Just not bourgeois liberal democracy. The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local levels are directly elected, and then these representatives from around the country elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Also due to the nature of things the vast majority of representatives are among those directly elected by the people. You should research things before you just say things. And we’re very happy with our system. Even Harvard puts the approval rating around 95%.
No, nominal western liberal democracy pretends to have that checklist (I could go into details on how there’s none of that in the West). functional democracy means that, regardless of the mechanisms, the results are what people want. In this way, China is a lot more democratic functionally than what we have in the west by all polls of satisfaction with policy.
Turns out that when you have a powerful minority capitalist class with diametrically opposed interests to those of the majority, the majority of policy is passed against our interests!
Correct. Which makes it strange that you ignored everything I explained in this reply to you and just went back to the same checklist again.
Functional democracy needs: Opposition
No. That is the liberal electoral model, not the universal definition of democracy. Democracy means political authority comes from the people and that they participate in governance.
China’s system does this through whole-process people’s democracy. People directly elect local People’s Congress deputies, those bodies elect higher congresses, and the system scales upward to the National People’s Congress. Most representatives come from those directly elected levels. Officials advance after years working through those layers.
It is a different institutional design. Pretending it does not exist because it is not your familiar Western party circus is not an argument.
Free media
Again you should read Michael Parenti on “inventing reality.” In the West media is not magically independent. It is owned by a tiny number of massive corporations and billionaires. Those owners decide what gets covered, what narratives dominate, and what perspectives disappear.
Calling that “free” while pretending ownership power does not shape information is extremely naive.
Open voting / Free elections
China holds direct elections at the grassroots level where the majority of representatives originate. Higher levels are elected by the bodies below them. Again, a hierarchical representative system instead of a national campaign spectacle.
Different design. Not absence.
Same law for everyone
This one is especially funny coming from systems where billionaires routinely dodge consequences while corporations treat fines as operating costs.
Civil liberties
China prioritizes social stability and development as core measures of legitimacy. Over forty years it lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty and massively expanded infrastructure, education, and living standards.
You may not like that model. Fine. But dismissing it with slogans while ignoring the outcomes is not serious.
As far as I’m aware
Yes, that part was obvious. Your entire argument is basically “it doesn’t look like my system therefore it isn’t democracy,” plus a “citation” from the eagle burger institute of goodness democracy index in your other comment made it abundantly clear.
Because it’s not a democracy
China has democracy. Just not bourgeois liberal democracy. The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local levels are directly elected, and then these representatives from around the country elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Also due to the nature of things the vast majority of representatives are among those directly elected by the people. You should research things before you just say things. And we’re very happy with our system. Even Harvard puts the approval rating around 95%.
Perception != reality
Functional democracy needs those things:
As far as I’m aware, China doesn’t have any of those things.
No, nominal western liberal democracy pretends to have that checklist (I could go into details on how there’s none of that in the West). functional democracy means that, regardless of the mechanisms, the results are what people want. In this way, China is a lot more democratic functionally than what we have in the west by all polls of satisfaction with policy.
Turns out that when you have a powerful minority capitalist class with diametrically opposed interests to those of the majority, the majority of policy is passed against our interests!
Unless it’s your perception, of course
Your awareness is painfully inadequate
Correct. Which makes it strange that you ignored everything I explained in this reply to you and just went back to the same checklist again.
No. That is the liberal electoral model, not the universal definition of democracy. Democracy means political authority comes from the people and that they participate in governance.
China’s system does this through whole-process people’s democracy. People directly elect local People’s Congress deputies, those bodies elect higher congresses, and the system scales upward to the National People’s Congress. Most representatives come from those directly elected levels. Officials advance after years working through those layers.
It is a different institutional design. Pretending it does not exist because it is not your familiar Western party circus is not an argument.
Again you should read Michael Parenti on “inventing reality.” In the West media is not magically independent. It is owned by a tiny number of massive corporations and billionaires. Those owners decide what gets covered, what narratives dominate, and what perspectives disappear.
Calling that “free” while pretending ownership power does not shape information is extremely naive.
China holds direct elections at the grassroots level where the majority of representatives originate. Higher levels are elected by the bodies below them. Again, a hierarchical representative system instead of a national campaign spectacle.
Different design. Not absence.
This one is especially funny coming from systems where billionaires routinely dodge consequences while corporations treat fines as operating costs.
China prioritizes social stability and development as core measures of legitimacy. Over forty years it lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty and massively expanded infrastructure, education, and living standards.
You may not like that model. Fine. But dismissing it with slogans while ignoring the outcomes is not serious.
Yes, that part was obvious. Your entire argument is basically “it doesn’t look like my system therefore it isn’t democracy,” plus a “citation” from the eagle burger institute of goodness democracy index in your other comment made it abundantly clear.