Even taking Hickel at face value, his own anonymized studies show support dropping to 62-77%, well below the headline figure. He also admits the methodology has its own problems.
But more importantly, none of this answers the actual question. Plenty of people liked Mussolini. Democracy is not about whether people approve of their government. It is about whether they can peacefully remove it. In China they cannot. That is the whole point. I’m glad most seem to like it. That does not make it a democracy, though.
And 62-77% is still far ahead of vast majority of western countries. And you will get different results depending on the questions you ask and how you measure. That’s just how surveys work. No methodology is perfect, but when EVERY single study on China consistently shows that majority of the population says they have a democracy and they support their government, it’s frankly idiotic to claim that’s not the case.
People liking their government does not make it a democracy. That’s just a hamfisted straw man you’re making though. The question asked is whether they feel they are being represented, and whether the government works in their interest. Also, if majority of people liked Mussolini, he definitely would not have ended up the way he did.
Democracy is not about removing the government either. It’s, once again, about having a government which implements the will of the majority. This is demonstrably the case in China. Perhaps learn what democracy actually is before wasting other people’s time attempting to debate a subject you’re woefully ignorant on?
If democracy means a government that implements the will of the majority, then every functional dictatorship that delivers economic growth qualifies. Singapore, UAE, Rwanda. You have defined away the problem entirely.
The reason procedural guarantees like elections, term limits and an independent press matter is precisely because they are how you verify the claim that the government represents the majority. Without them you are just taking the government’s word for it. Which is not democracy, it is blind trust.
Also Mussolini did not fall because people stopped liking him. He was overthrown by the Italian king and his own Grand Council after military defeat. Popular approval held up considerably longer than it should have. That is actually the point.
That is literally the definition of democracy, a government that implements the will of the public. It’s absolutely hilarious how you lump Singapore, which uses a democratic framework featuring regular elections and universal suffrage, with UAE and Rwanda. It once again highlights that you have absolutely no business discussing this subject.
The reality is that we have ample proof that procedural guarantees like elections, term limits, and oligarch owned press do fuck all to facilitate meaningful democracy. They create a procedural democracy where all the boxes are checked, but the government is in no way accountable to the working majority. It’s a dictatorship of capital.
And no, people in China aren’t taking the government’s word on anything. The single party is very much accountable to the public because its very legitimacy rests on implementing the will of the public. Meanwhile, liberal multi party systems simply play hot potato with responsibility.
Popular approval held up considerably longer than it should have.
The single party is very much accountable to the public because its very legitimacy rests on implementing the will of the public.
Not to mind the fact that slightly over 1 in 14 people are party members, party offices are everywhere to take criticism and feedback and when you can’t be bothered to walk to the office you can just call 12345 for a direct line to the local government to ask questions and provide criticism and feedback.
Exactly, in China you have meaningful direct participation of the working class in governance. In the west, there’s practically no worker representation in any major political party, and there is no 12345 equivalent for people to submit any feedback or criticism. All you get to do is pull a lever every few years to decide which member of the ruling class will repress you.
All you get to do is pull a lever every few years to decide which member of the ruling class will repress you.
And in many cases you don’t even get to do that. Look at the UK and how they purged labour or in the US how Bernie was suppressed and Copmala was smuggled past the primaries.
You’re still defining democracy purely by outcomes. A government that delivers results and therefore retains legitimacy. By that logic any successful authoritarian system qualifies, which makes the definition meaningless.
I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on what democracy is and I don’t see that resolving itself here.
Even taking Hickel at face value, his own anonymized studies show support dropping to 62-77%, well below the headline figure. He also admits the methodology has its own problems.
But more importantly, none of this answers the actual question. Plenty of people liked Mussolini. Democracy is not about whether people approve of their government. It is about whether they can peacefully remove it. In China they cannot. That is the whole point. I’m glad most seem to like it. That does not make it a democracy, though.
And 62-77% is still far ahead of vast majority of western countries. And you will get different results depending on the questions you ask and how you measure. That’s just how surveys work. No methodology is perfect, but when EVERY single study on China consistently shows that majority of the population says they have a democracy and they support their government, it’s frankly idiotic to claim that’s not the case.
People liking their government does not make it a democracy. That’s just a hamfisted straw man you’re making though. The question asked is whether they feel they are being represented, and whether the government works in their interest. Also, if majority of people liked Mussolini, he definitely would not have ended up the way he did.
Democracy is not about removing the government either. It’s, once again, about having a government which implements the will of the majority. This is demonstrably the case in China. Perhaps learn what democracy actually is before wasting other people’s time attempting to debate a subject you’re woefully ignorant on?
If democracy means a government that implements the will of the majority, then every functional dictatorship that delivers economic growth qualifies. Singapore, UAE, Rwanda. You have defined away the problem entirely.
The reason procedural guarantees like elections, term limits and an independent press matter is precisely because they are how you verify the claim that the government represents the majority. Without them you are just taking the government’s word for it. Which is not democracy, it is blind trust.
Also Mussolini did not fall because people stopped liking him. He was overthrown by the Italian king and his own Grand Council after military defeat. Popular approval held up considerably longer than it should have. That is actually the point.
That is literally the definition of democracy, a government that implements the will of the public. It’s absolutely hilarious how you lump Singapore, which uses a democratic framework featuring regular elections and universal suffrage, with UAE and Rwanda. It once again highlights that you have absolutely no business discussing this subject.
The reality is that we have ample proof that procedural guarantees like elections, term limits, and oligarch owned press do fuck all to facilitate meaningful democracy. They create a procedural democracy where all the boxes are checked, but the government is in no way accountable to the working majority. It’s a dictatorship of capital.
And no, people in China aren’t taking the government’s word on anything. The single party is very much accountable to the public because its very legitimacy rests on implementing the will of the public. Meanwhile, liberal multi party systems simply play hot potato with responsibility.
[citation needed]
Not to mind the fact that slightly over 1 in 14 people are party members, party offices are everywhere to take criticism and feedback and when you can’t be bothered to walk to the office you can just call 12345 for a direct line to the local government to ask questions and provide criticism and feedback.
Exactly, in China you have meaningful direct participation of the working class in governance. In the west, there’s practically no worker representation in any major political party, and there is no 12345 equivalent for people to submit any feedback or criticism. All you get to do is pull a lever every few years to decide which member of the ruling class will repress you.
And in many cases you don’t even get to do that. Look at the UK and how they purged labour or in the US how Bernie was suppressed and Copmala was smuggled past the primaries.
You’re still defining democracy purely by outcomes. A government that delivers results and therefore retains legitimacy. By that logic any successful authoritarian system qualifies, which makes the definition meaningless.
I think we just have a fundamental disagreement on what democracy is and I don’t see that resolving itself here.