What is the truth behind the “Democratic Giant”

（photo from: RFA)

China, amidst its economic marvel of the past four decades, has risen as an emerging power on the global stage, with its democratic development under constant scrutiny by the international community. According to The Economist’s Intelligence Unit’s “++Democracy Perception Index++,” China ranks in the bottom 20 countries in terms of democratic perception. Despite China’s self-proclaimed status as a “democratic giant,” the authoritarian political regime, lack of free speech, and opaque governmental operations paint a starkly different picture—one in which China’s democracy is little more than the emperor’s new clothes, visible only to the “wise” in power.

From a structural basis, political plurality in China is severely lacking. Since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Communist Party of China (CCP) has been the sole ruling party for 75 years. While the government released a 14,000-word white paper titled “++The New Party System of China++” in 2021, emphasizing a longstanding practice of “multi-party cooperation” with various parties purportedly participating deeply in political discussions, the reality is much different. Jianguo Zhai, a democracy activist sentenced to nine years for attempting to establish the “China Democracy Party,” stated in an interview with ++Radio Free Asia (RFA)++ that the so-called “multi-party system” led by the CCP consists merely of the eight parties that existed before 1949, with no new parties permitted since then. He pointed out that the CCP has strict control over these eight parties’ leadership, finance, and membership development, and that they just serve as advisory committees with no checks and balances. With absolute one-party dominance persisting for decades and no room for multi-party competition or diverse voices, how can this be deemed as democracy?

Freedom of speech, a cornerstone of democratic societies, is severely suppressed in present-day China. The government exercises high-intensity control over freedom of speech through legal, technological, surveillance, and propaganda means. One effective instrument used to limit citizens’ freedom of expression is ++China’s Great Firewall++. This digital barrier employs various techniques such as IP blocking, URL filtering, keyword censorship, and DNS hijacking to prevent access to websites and content deemed sensitive. For example, within China’s borders, apart from what is reported by official government media, there’s virtually no information available about the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine on the entire internet. Simultaneously, under the legal pressure of the “++Internet Management Regulations++,” discussions on topics like “human rights,” “war,” or “democracy” online are prohibited, with such content deemed sensitive and subject to censorship. The French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy in America” that there are only two possibilities when it comes to the right to free speech: absolute liberty or absolute servitude. There is no in-between. So, where does China currently stand on this spectrum? The answer is glaringly obvious.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency in governmental decision-making and execution processes is conspicuous. The public has limited chances to monitor and participate in government actions, policy-making, and resource distribution. The constitutional amendment in 2018 by President Xi Jinping, abolishing the presidential term limit, serves as a prime example. According to ++China’s Legislation Law++, constitutional amendments should be conducted with “democracy” and “openness,” under the auspices of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC), with drafts typically open to nationwide discussion for months beforehand. However, the 2018 amendment process left no room for public discourse and was entirely conducted under the leadership of the Party Central Committee, stripping the NPC of its rightful oversight and decision-making powers. People were simply notified abruptly, “The constitution has been amended, and the president can now serve indefinitely.” With all executive, legislative, and military powers vested in a president with no term limit, can one still distinguish between a national president and a feudal emperor? If merely renaming despotism, it’s not democracy—it’s just the emperor’s new clothes, merely for the entertainment of those in power. This lack of transparency and public involvement in governmental operations is not limited to constitutional amendments but permeates all aspects of governance in China.

As to the International Budget Partnership’s “++Open Budget Survey++” of 120 nations, China’s public involvement, budget oversight, and transparency are all far lower than the worldwide average.  Despite 75 years of remarkable economic achievements, China lags far behind in the practical realization of core values such as democracy, rule of law, and human rights. There is a simple litmus test for determining if a society is democratic: whether its citizens have the rights and capabilities to constrain those in power. Regardless of the system, politics is fundamentally about the contest and distribution of power and interests, inherently ugly and brutal. Therefore, it’s not which party holds the government that matters; what matters is whether the government remains in the hands of the people.