I’m not doing any such thing. But what I am saying is that without outcomes there cannot be meaningful democracy in the first place. Outcomes are a prerequisite for any sort of democratic process. And any country that consistently fails to produce outcomes the public demands cannot be said to be democratic. Also, the term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in China, the ruling party serves the working class. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and the party enjoys broad support from the masses.
I get the impression that you haven’t actually spent any time to think about what democracy actually is. Western liberal democracy is simply an attempt at implementing the broader concept, and given what we see in the west, it’s pretty clearly not an effective one. There are other ways to implement this idea, such as democratic centralism, which is what’s practiced in China. The results that stem from these respective approaches speak for themselves.
I’m not doing any such thing. But what I am saying is that without outcomes there cannot be meaningful democracy in the first place. Outcomes are a prerequisite for any sort of democratic process. And any country that consistently fails to produce outcomes the public demands cannot be said to be democratic. Also, the term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in China, the ruling party serves the working class. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and the party enjoys broad support from the masses.
I get the impression that you haven’t actually spent any time to think about what democracy actually is. Western liberal democracy is simply an attempt at implementing the broader concept, and given what we see in the west, it’s pretty clearly not an effective one. There are other ways to implement this idea, such as democratic centralism, which is what’s practiced in China. The results that stem from these respective approaches speak for themselves.