The class critique of western democracy is legitimate and I don’t dismiss it. Structural change attempted within liberal democratic systems consistently runs into capital, media and institutional resistance before it gets anywhere. That is a real problem worth taking seriously.
So you agree your shining examples of democracy are in fact not democracy but rather the dictatorship of capital?
That is a real problem worth taking seriously. But that does not make China a democracy. It makes western liberal democracy compromised. Those are two different problems.
Perhaps. But if you use Japan and South Korea as the standard China must emulate to be considered “real democracy,” then the fact that they are not rule by the people (democracy ) but in fact systems dominated by capital, the US, media monopolies, corporate boardrooms, and in South Korea’s case chaebol and cult influence (dictatorship of capital), it is extremely relevant.
You cannot hold up liberal client states as the gold standard, admit they are structurally blocked by capital, and then act like party rotation is still the decisive test of democracy.
China’s model integrates the people throughout the process: local elections, mass consultation, cadre evaluation, policy pilots, petitions, grassroots legislative liaison stations, anti-corruption discipline, and material performance. You are free to dislike that model, but it is not refuted by saying “but can a capitalist opposition party take power?” No, nor should it.
On the local mechanisms, you listed them again without addressing the point. Consultation, local elections and cadre accountability are compatible with authoritarian systems. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have versions of all of them. Responsiveness is not the same as accountability.
This comparison is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are hereditary monarchies. The top of the state is literally dynastic rule. Political authority flows from royal families.
China’s local mechanisms are not decorative suggestion boxes attached to a monarchy. They are integrated into a system where direct elections exist at township and county levels, deputies are required to start from the bottom and move upward through the people’s congress structure, cadres are expected to prove themselves through practical work at lower levels, and policy is shaped through consultation, pilots, inspection, correction, and implementation. That is not remotely equivalent to Gulf monarchies giving controlled municipal channels while royal houses rule by decree.
The documented treatment of Uyghurs
Which treatment, exactly?
Given that you are using it to dismiss China as a democracy altogether, I suspect you mean the Zenz-style atrocity narrative rather than the actual reality.
Were there real abuses? Yes. Racial profiling, dragnet policing, excessive securitisation, and heavy-handed counter-extremism are all serious and should be criticised. But if those disqualify a country from democracy, then I have bad news for the entire Euro-American bloc. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Koreae, etc.
The Western approach to terrorism was mass surveillance, drone murder, torture sites, Guantanamo, invasions, occupations, sanctions, and millions dead and millions more displaced across the Middle East and Central Asia. China’s approach, however flawed in implementation, was not to bomb Muslim countries into rubble, but to suppress armed separatism and extremism domestically while also pushing development, education, infrastructure, poverty alleviation, and integration.
As an aside: would it have been more “democratic” for China to follow the Euro-American model and commit war crimes abroad in response to ETIM attacks? Or is it possible that China’s line of deradicalisation, development, and social integration, even with serious excesses, was still vastly less barbaric than the Western model?
the 709 crackdown
You might have a point here if not for the unfortunate reality of these “human rights” activists like many others being backed by and used as vehicles for US foreign policy interests through NGO links as opposed to actually fighting for any real rights. Was the crackdown excessive, likely, but it didn’t come from nowhere and is not a reflection of the Chinese approach to government criticism more broadly.
system that claims genuine popular accountability.
The system does not claim it. Popular legitimacy has been repeatedly demonstrated, from the Harvard Ash Center’s long-term survey showing extremely high central government satisfaction, to broader democratic perception surveys such as the democratic perception index where Chinese respondents consistently report high confidence in their system.
You may not like the result because it does not flatter liberal assumptions, but Chinese people are not props. If the overwhelming majority of us experience the state as responsive, developmental, representative, and legitimate, that matters more than whether Western liberals approve of the institutional design. Again democracy is rule by the people not swap the face of the dictatorship of capital every handful of years.
So you agree your shining examples of democracy are in fact not democracy but rather the dictatorship of capital?
Perhaps. But if you use Japan and South Korea as the standard China must emulate to be considered “real democracy,” then the fact that they are not rule by the people (democracy ) but in fact systems dominated by capital, the US, media monopolies, corporate boardrooms, and in South Korea’s case chaebol and cult influence (dictatorship of capital), it is extremely relevant.
You cannot hold up liberal client states as the gold standard, admit they are structurally blocked by capital, and then act like party rotation is still the decisive test of democracy.
China’s model integrates the people throughout the process: local elections, mass consultation, cadre evaluation, policy pilots, petitions, grassroots legislative liaison stations, anti-corruption discipline, and material performance. You are free to dislike that model, but it is not refuted by saying “but can a capitalist opposition party take power?” No, nor should it.
This comparison is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are hereditary monarchies. The top of the state is literally dynastic rule. Political authority flows from royal families.
China’s local mechanisms are not decorative suggestion boxes attached to a monarchy. They are integrated into a system where direct elections exist at township and county levels, deputies are required to start from the bottom and move upward through the people’s congress structure, cadres are expected to prove themselves through practical work at lower levels, and policy is shaped through consultation, pilots, inspection, correction, and implementation. That is not remotely equivalent to Gulf monarchies giving controlled municipal channels while royal houses rule by decree.
Which treatment, exactly?
Given that you are using it to dismiss China as a democracy altogether, I suspect you mean the Zenz-style atrocity narrative rather than the actual reality.
Were there real abuses? Yes. Racial profiling, dragnet policing, excessive securitisation, and heavy-handed counter-extremism are all serious and should be criticised. But if those disqualify a country from democracy, then I have bad news for the entire Euro-American bloc. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Koreae, etc.
The Western approach to terrorism was mass surveillance, drone murder, torture sites, Guantanamo, invasions, occupations, sanctions, and millions dead and millions more displaced across the Middle East and Central Asia. China’s approach, however flawed in implementation, was not to bomb Muslim countries into rubble, but to suppress armed separatism and extremism domestically while also pushing development, education, infrastructure, poverty alleviation, and integration.
As an aside: would it have been more “democratic” for China to follow the Euro-American model and commit war crimes abroad in response to ETIM attacks? Or is it possible that China’s line of deradicalisation, development, and social integration, even with serious excesses, was still vastly less barbaric than the Western model?
You might have a point here if not for the unfortunate reality of these “human rights” activists like many others being backed by and used as vehicles for US foreign policy interests through NGO links as opposed to actually fighting for any real rights. Was the crackdown excessive, likely, but it didn’t come from nowhere and is not a reflection of the Chinese approach to government criticism more broadly.
The system does not claim it. Popular legitimacy has been repeatedly demonstrated, from the Harvard Ash Center’s long-term survey showing extremely high central government satisfaction, to broader democratic perception surveys such as the democratic perception index where Chinese respondents consistently report high confidence in their system.
You may not like the result because it does not flatter liberal assumptions, but Chinese people are not props. If the overwhelming majority of us experience the state as responsive, developmental, representative, and legitimate, that matters more than whether Western liberals approve of the institutional design. Again democracy is rule by the people not swap the face of the dictatorship of capital every handful of years.