I actually appreciate that this comes off so transparently as propaganda. It's far better than what comes out of 'the West' when they self-congratulate themselves on being democracies. The latter actually take themselves seriously.

Yes - there's almost an honesty in its duplicity.

That all said one only has to look at what is happening right now to the Apple Daily newspaper (nothing to do with Apple the tech company) in Hong Kong to see how hilarious the article in the OP is. In the West, they've figured out a much better model. Instead of the government shutting down or controlling the press, they give them directly to billionaires, who spew their propaganda without any state intervention whatsoever.

That demonstrates China's commitment to "whole process' democracy to “close national security loopholes”.

When is a democracy not a democracy? — Banno

'Political democracy' minus – contra – economic democracy (inclusivist stakeholder control) equals oligarchy/plutocracy (exclusionist shareholder control).

So much democracy, it hurts.

Interestingly enough, the criticisms is western democracies are the only thing accurate about that article.

When is a democracy not a democracy?
— Banno

Are the people happy?
Do the people trust the government?

BTW, I read the article discover this forum while trying to find out Western response to China' "Whole Process Democracy."

"First, whole-process democracy transcends Western-style democracy in that the latter represents only the rights and interests of a small number of people, especially the upper class. By contrast, whole-process democracy is geared toward safeguarding the rights and interests of all the Chinese people, thus making it truly representational in nature"

So, there is "no upper or ruling class" in China, no multi-billionaires with links to the regime, and having just one party that seized power by force of arms in 1949 and has stayed in power ever since by suppressing opposition, constitutes "representative democracy".

Perhaps we should all emigrate to China then. I'm already learning Mandarin ....

Are the people happy?
Do the people trust the government? — ltlee1

You mean like Germans in 1938?

addendum:

"Shareholder democracy" is not substantive democracy.

I like your new photo. Are you wearing your hair in a different fashion?

Why, thank you. As part of @jamalrob's secret police, I have to change my identity periodically.

1. How long did Nazi German last after 1938?
Many in the US had predict China's collapse. However, China is getting better year after year for decades.
2. Did Hitler not gain power through Western democratic election?
China is not following German's example. What make you think China should be compare to German.
3. Do you believe citizens enjoying real democracy should be unhappy and choose not to trust their government?

I had tried to explain several hours ago why Chinese people understand the importance of democracy. And they are searching for the right kind of democracy. But I had provided a bloom berg link. And it needed to be approved by the moderator. If you are interested, search for an bloom article with the title of

China Is More Democratic Than America, Say the People

Democracy and billionaires are not mutually exclusive.
In China, one does not need to spend billions to participate politics meaningfully.

Not really.
At least no epidemic of despair.

You've just joined the forum specifically to address this thread? How interesting.

Ok, so you implied here that a good democracy was one in which folk were happy and trusted the government. I cited pre-war Germany as an example of a country that is demonstrably not democratic but in which trust and happiness were evident. That is, to show that your comment was mistaken.

There's no point in your citing Bloomberg stuff if it is inaccessible.

I have great admiration fo the progress China has made, and the fortitude of the Chinese people. But democratic, China is not.

Add Tiananmen square, Tibet, The Xinjiang internment camps, crushing civil liberties in Hong Kong, manipulation of national boundaries in the South China Sea, Face projects producing empty cities - around 50 of them, as I understand it...

China is muddling on as best it can. Good luck to it. It's not a democracy. The pretence in the article cited in the OP was laughable.

Do I now have a profile with the Guoanbu?

Current day China democracy does not have a lot of commonality with Nazi German. For starter, China was not forced to pay war reparation they can't afford. One billion Chinese had tour the world during the last decade buying all sorts luxury goods.

Where is the statistics that Germans were in general happy and they trusted their government before the war. Don't think Germans would follow Hitler into the disastrous WWII if they were happy citizens. Happy people have too much to lose in a war. Unhappy and hopeless people have little to lose but a lot to prove for themselves.

Americans voting for Trump is more comparable. Many are frustrated, angry, and/or otherwise hopeless with the US government. Even Tucker Carlson admitted that point.

The article is readily available. The following cut and paste from the article.
"The disparity between those who believe in democracy and those who think they live in a democracy is the “perceived democratic deficit,” according to the Democracy Perception Index, an annual survey of 124,000 people across 53 countries conducted by Dalia Research, in collaboration with the Alliance of Democracies. The greater the deficit, the more citizens feel that their country fails to honor their democratic ideals. ...

The countries with the smallest deficits in 2020 include Taiwan, Philippines, Switzerland, Denmark and Saudi Arabia; those with the largest include Venezuela, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine and Nigeria.

Charted below are the survey results from 20 countries, and they illustrate some startling beliefs — not least that 73% of Chinese consider China to be democratic, whereas only 49% of Americans believe the same about the U.S."

This thread is about Chinese democracy. I will stick to the topic.
If you want to discuss other issue, start a new discussion.

Current day China democracy does not have a lot of commonality with Nazi German. — ltlee1

Oh, indeed, and I did not claim otherwise. I asked "When is a democracy not a democracy?"

You replied:

Are the people happy?
Do the people trust the government? — ltlee1

Now I took this to be a reply, such that you are claiming that the measure of a democracy is happiness and trust in the government. I think that is wrong, and to illustrate that point, I chose an example of a country which I suppose that we might both agree was not a democracy, but in which the population were generally happy and trusted their government - pre-war Germany.

End of that story.

Democracy Perception Index — ltlee1

Interesting that you should raise this. Here's a link to the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#cite_note-index2020-13

My country comes in at #9. The US comes in at #25.

China comes in at #151.

The Index does not help your case, if your claim is that China is a Democracy.

@ltlee1

The point of this thread, so far as there is one, is my amusement that a Chines writer - Dennis Meng - would attempt to argue in an English Language version of the People's Daily, that China was a Democracy. I would have been more impressed had the argument admitted to China being a totalitarian regime and then argued that this was a better solution for China.

@ltlee1

I found this: https://www.tbsnews.net/world/china-more-democratic-america-say-people-98686

It might be what you are referring to.

Given how far China is from being seen as a democracy, perhaps what is shown is that Chinese folk are unwilling to say that their country is not a democracy. At least those in Saudi Arabia and Iran recognise that they are living in an authoritarian state. I suppose the Chinese have not known anything else.

I wonder what the statistics would be, were we able to collect them for Honk Kong - a place that might perhaps have a better understanding of the nature of democracy than mainland China.

Just saw that Banno beat me to it. I'll post this all the same

Charted below are the survey results from 20 countries, and they illustrate some startling beliefs — not least that 73% of Chinese consider China to be democratic, whereas only 49% of Americans believe the same about the U.S." — ltlee1

If memory serves me right, paraphrasing a comment once made by Darwin to the captain of The Beagle (the captain being vociferous about the benefits of slavery) as was recorded in Darwin's autobiography:

When a slave-master asks his slaves if they are happy, of course most will answer "yes". Even though, one would be tempted to believe, they answer "yes" because it is the only rational thing to do to avoid grave reprisals from the slave-master. And not because they are in fact happy being slaves.

Side note: Darwin was either incredibly courageous or stupid in so saying to the captain of a ship out in the middle of nowhere who staunchly disagree with Darwin's take on slavery. I readily choose to believe the former. At any rate, as it happens, young Darwin didn't accidentally drown on this voyage after so expressing to the captain.

At any rate, my question: Why should the self-reported happiness and the self-reported trust of a people be taken into consideration when appraising the question of "when is a democracy not a democracy". For instance, if such self-reports are to be deemed indicative of the truth regarding what is reported, then this would definitively prove that the majority of USA slaves in pre-Abolition days were exceedingly happy in so being slaves. Which history evidences is patently false.

And BTW, I'm all for the notion that "democracy" is nowadays becoming an Orwellian propaganda term which is in the process of losing nearly all meaning in, at least, the USA. Much like the "communism" (you know, a great big kibbutz-like loving community of comrades where fraternity rules) which never was in Europe, here pointing to a place I know best, except in places where the term had nothing to do with the reality.

Chinese students had been taught about the significancy of Mr De(mocracy) and Mr Sci(ence) for over 100 years.

The Nationalist government (i.e ROC) had also tried Western style Parliamentary Democracy about 100 years ago. Unfortunately, the experiment had failed badly. China won the civil war and the ROC flee to Taiwan.

In short, democracy is not anything new to the the Chinese people. They desire democracy then and now.The issue what kind of democracy is suitable for China. The following article shows how the Chinese see democracy and Chinese democracy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-26/which-nations-are-democracies-some-citizens-might-disagree

Sure, all understood.

The Nationalist government (i.e ROC) had also tried Western style Parliamentary Democracy about 100 years ago. Unfortunately, the experiment had failed badly. China won the civil war and the ROC flee to Taiwan. — ltlee1

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that the Nationalist Government ruled as a one-party state - the Kuomintang never faced an election. Is that not so?

@tlee1, I'd be interested in your opinion of Chinese views of democracy.

Specifically I'd be interested in your views on the imperative for social harmony and for serving the common good. Do you agree that these are central to the Chinese notion of democracy?

Current day China democracy does not have a lot of commonality with Nazi German. — ltlee1

I tend to disagree with that statement.

1. For starters, China is a dictatorship. Perhaps not a dictatorship of one single leader, but still a dictatorship of the Communist Party.

2. Secondly, China's official policies are essentially national socialist and, to some extent, racist.

3. Thirdly, China is becoming more and more militaristic and aggressive in its rhetoric and foreign policy and has an expansionist agenda.

I think the similarities with Nazi Germany cannot be denied.

Did someone not pronounce "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as unalienable? A "of the people, by the people, for the people" democracy would naturally contribute to make the people. No?

Democracy begins the people. Not committee from foreign countries. Whether a country is democratic is for the people to decide.