In the section on how democratic a country is, it says “freedom of the press,” which is taken to mean freedom of the private press as that’s what isn’t very high in China.
As for why things like allowing the private press to way whatever they want even as they are funded by the wealthy, political pluralism, etc, the concept of a state that changes hands constantly or is fractured and led by factions is more of a liberal thing. Socialist countries tend to have one major party and perhaps a few other special interest parties, because the goal is unity and cohesion.
That doesn’t mean there’s no room for discussion either, in fact that becomes far more important because it doesn’t become a party v party issue but one that anyone can give their input on. Same with separation of powers, there is room for specialization, but the idea that government needs to be hostile to itself to function is more liberal.
“Peaceful transition of power” in the context of the PRC means the bourgeoisie can succeed in ousting the CPC, in a country where class struggle is definitely very alive you have to limit that.
Gov transparency isn’t the worst metric, but it also isn’t what makes something democratic. Freedom of speech in the context of a socialist country that still has a capitalist class means freedom for the bourgeoisie to mouth off and destabilize the system, so in practice it’s typically billionaires like Jack Ma that are oppressed. Rule of Law isn’t bad, but it has little to do with democracy.
All in all, all of these are things Europeans describe democracy as, but the very word means “rule by the people,” meaning different countries have different views on what that looks like. The questionaire seems to benefit one where the press is freely dominated by billionaires, where there is endless squabbling in government between parties vying for power, etc while not allowing democratic one party states to be seen as democratic even if the people believe it to represent their interests.
In the section on how democratic a country is, it says “freedom of the press,” which is taken to mean freedom of the private press as that’s what isn’t very high in China.
As for why things like allowing the private press to way whatever they want even as they are funded by the wealthy, political pluralism, etc, the concept of a state that changes hands constantly or is fractured and led by factions is more of a liberal thing. Socialist countries tend to have one major party and perhaps a few other special interest parties, because the goal is unity and cohesion.
That doesn’t mean there’s no room for discussion either, in fact that becomes far more important because it doesn’t become a party v party issue but one that anyone can give their input on. Same with separation of powers, there is room for specialization, but the idea that government needs to be hostile to itself to function is more liberal.
“Peaceful transition of power” in the context of the PRC means the bourgeoisie can succeed in ousting the CPC, in a country where class struggle is definitely very alive you have to limit that.
Gov transparency isn’t the worst metric, but it also isn’t what makes something democratic. Freedom of speech in the context of a socialist country that still has a capitalist class means freedom for the bourgeoisie to mouth off and destabilize the system, so in practice it’s typically billionaires like Jack Ma that are oppressed. Rule of Law isn’t bad, but it has little to do with democracy.
All in all, all of these are things Europeans describe democracy as, but the very word means “rule by the people,” meaning different countries have different views on what that looks like. The questionaire seems to benefit one where the press is freely dominated by billionaires, where there is endless squabbling in government between parties vying for power, etc while not allowing democratic one party states to be seen as democratic even if the people believe it to represent their interests.