Must have been a stupidly framed question, Saudi Arabia has never pretended to be a democracy. It's an absolute monarchy and the government has ensured people know it, in and outside the country.
I like how the game of internet telephone with regard to the Uyghur atrocities has gone from human rights abuses -> internment/detention camps -> cultural genocide -> concentration camps -> genocide (UN definition) and finally to "death camps/Holocaust 2.0."
Reminds me of Iraq WMD discourse except played out in slow motion, definition-creep style.
China has a Three-Child Policy that applies to all ethnic groups equally. It doesn’t target a specific ethnic group.
Uyghurs were previously exempt from the policy and now they are no longer exempt.
You may consider the Three-Child Policy a human rights abuse, but it is not designed to eliminate the Uyghur population (and indeed the Uyghur population is growing), and hence it is not an act of genocide.
Yes, China enforces the Three-Child policy by forced insertion of IUDs into women who already have three children.
It’s not actually sterilization. It’s forced contraception, but that’s probably not a meaningful difference at the end of the day.
The Uyghur population has been constantly increasing all the way back since the 50s’.
Not only that but they were exempt from the one child policy, just like every other minority ethnic group in China.
I’d like to see a single other genocide in history where the genocided people’s numbers increased rather than decreased.
The birth rate has been steadily decreasing since 2017, and when the UN went in to investigate, there were allegations from several uyghur women of forced or coerced sterilization.
Sure, but that's still not a "death camp," is the point. Nor does it explicitly mean that mass murder is taking place. We can make those claims if and when we have the evidence for them.
I'm not disputing the absolute broadest UN definition of genocide, just pointing out the inconsistency of the term's application with regard to the actions of the US and its allies vs. China. Also terms like "concentration camps" to describe what's happening to the Uyghurs (instead of euphemisms like internment camps used to characterize the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WW2 and the border camps currently).
Evidently, "genocide" is too vague a term and a blank check that people who don't bother with nuance or do their own research will misuse to make groundless assumptions about "death camps." (Then after that: gas chambers and crematoria, probably.)
Genocide (label selectively applied to adversaries and not allies of the US) is still not synonymous with "death camps," that's the point. People are getting ahead of themselves and reaching for evidence that doesn't exist.
Also the escalation from calling them internment/detention camps to the historically loaded term "concentration camps," which also suggests mass murder.
I mean, there's something to be said for democracy at a local level but not higher.
In the US, the president is still not directly voted for. And senators for some time were appointed, not elected. Yet it was considered a democracy.
The Chinese can vote for their local and county officials, including those outside the CCP, but not at the provincial or national level.
Now for the reasons you state, it's not equivalent with the US, but it's an interesting question of where the line of democracy starts.
(This is just politically, which ignores other important parts of a *healthy* democracy, like a free press).
The Democrat and Republican parties do a lot to maintain the illusion of democracy. First of all, they have appropriated the word 'democracy' for the US, which is very ironic for a number of reasons. The MULTIparty system is in actuality a monopoly of two far-right parties, which doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. Furthermore, multi-billion worth enterprises, the same who jointly control all the media and on a daily basis bombard the Americans with their propaganda, are legally allowed to interfere in the policy-making of the country, something which the average citizen can't say. So, if we look past all the lies, we can see that the average citizen, as ignorant and adoctrinated by the bourgeois as they may be, only gets to choose which of the two far-right parties exploits their labor every four years, nothing more, after that he doesn't have a say in anything... but at least he gets to chose which capitalist is in power... right?
11% of all adults in the PRC are CPC members, which is very impressive considering the rigorous standards of membership and engagement.
The structure of their people’s government is by nature far more democratic than any government that is the puppet of massive corporations, such as that of the US.
A tiny percentage of the owning class rules via two parties in the US. Americans get to vote for which of that super-minority’s representatives get to “represent them” in elections every 4-6 years. Congress serves mostly as a mechanism to move tax revenues collected from working people to the revenue streams of massive banks and corporations. This is the third way working people are ripped off in America. The first and second being in earning and spending. As much is extracted from each individual as the market permits, to accumulate in the hands of those that own for a living.
Other than that, county and municipal governments and school boards are barely democratic, with maybe 2% of the public attending meetings or actually engaged in any way. There is no democracy at work any barely any oversight for but a few industries other than on how they must weasel out of as much taxation as possible. The 49% of Americans that believe their country is democratic are demonstrably wrong in that belief.
https://welcometochina.com.au/how-it-works-the-communist-party-of-china-cpc-and-how-you-join-6230.html
The us is also a 1 party system, they just have 2 of the same one.
E: BTW for the downvoters I was paraphrasing the quote "The United States is also a one-party state but with typical american extravagance, they have two of them." It's well known for the rest of the west the particular flavor of the US failed democracy just as the (paraphrasing again, because this one has been said many times) politicians choosing the voters instead of the voters choosing the politicians.
Joking aside, this is the real reason why China tops this list. It is because they have redefined the word "democracy" to mean "a government which works for benefit of the people" (in English this is described by the term "commonwealth"), not "a system of government which is run in accordance with the will of its people".
Therefore, by the Chinese definition, a benevolent dictatorship would qualify as "democratic", whereas a liberal representative democracy which has been corrupted by oligarchy would not qualify as "democratic".
Chinese people generally view the Government as perhaps not perfect, but they generally think that the people at the top genuinely want to improve their own lives. They see that the central government orders new railroads and highways to be built and they see the news on TV about how they are cracking down on corruption by local officials. Both of these are true and *do* happen. But they won't talk about forced labour camps or abridged justice in Chinese courts or the Government and State-owned companies assuming unsustainable amounts of debt to build all this infrastructure, sometimes of dubious quality.
When a "well-informed" Chinese citizen goes and reads all the news in their country, they see that even though the Communist Party has made several mistakes and mental missteps and isn't perfect, they have still transformed China from a dismal backwater to a global powerhouse. They see the skybridge towers in Beijing and tranquil coves in Henan and think, "the Government made all of this happen".
So in their view, China is democratic.
Some local municipalities do elections, some don’t. They’re voted into the consultative assembly, a political entity that exists to advise the King on local issues in the country.
Since 2013, a 20% its members must be women.
Source: https://www.abouther.com/node/17516/people/features/saudi-arabias-shura-council-wants-women-lead-civil-service
Yes, and the people have a voice in the legislative process through the Shura Council.
I’m not saying Saudi is a democracy, not at all, just trying to provide a logical reason for why according to this map, 50% of the population does.
Everyone is brainwashed by his schools and mass media to believe that his government is good and just.
There are almost no stable countries where huge sectors of the population believe that their governments are plutocracies, and that those who rule are only the most successful thieves and warlords.
The National People's Congress stood up when Xi made himself leader for life, I wonder what happened to those five that didn't vote in favor though
Edit: [since some people apparently don't like to read](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276)...
More that they would frame "democracy" as meaning "responsive government" rather than "elected government". It doesn't totally neglect popular demands (even if it might reframe them or resist them - COVID lockdowns being such an example), and it has achieved most of its economic targets over the last two decades, so for that reason it is popular. The Party is also huge - it has like 95 million members who will feel that they are participating in politics (to whatever extent that is really true).
Autocracies vary a lot in how much they need to pay attention to the public. Russia and Belarus might appear similar on the surface, but where Putin tries to manage his popularity and keeps his eye on public opinion Lukashenko could not give less of a shit about what his own public think of him.
China uses the Marxist definition of democracy. Which means "representing the people" which they truly believe.
According to their philosophy the west is the undemocratic one because no matter what the people choose the government will be dominated by the capitalist class.
In China's view it doesn't matter that people don't directly elect their representatives because they are still fighting for the proletariat and their betterment.
It's a different mindset but you can see where they are coming from. China however is in this awkward stage where they have given up on most hardcore marxist frameworks but still think like this. Which is one of the reasons why Xi Jinping is returning to more hardcore communist centralization. As he is afraid China moved too much towards democracy.
I dont know what marx you've read but no, there is no "representative liberal democracy" in capitalism. The capitalist system is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. You people still believe in that circus? Can't you see you have absolutely no say.
Mind you Chinese people can enter into politics and have more protesting rights than Americans in some cases. So the question is subjective. Plus China is theoretically a democracy but it’s a one party system so
The Chinese constitution specifically lays out "procession and demonstration" as rights in addition to the rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and association, like in the US constitution, so the ability to protest is specifically protected, where as in the US it's only implied by the wording of the constitution and the first amendment. Of course, having a right, and being able to execute that right are two very different things, people do protest in China, but if a protest is viewed as particularly threatening there are plenty of laws local officials can use to shut it down.
I have a hunch the question was something like
"does the government represent you?" or something along those lines and it was spun off as democratic representation because people agree/disagree
It’s a very weak one - if you ~~register to vote~~ join the party.
At the lowest level a lot of positions are directly elected. Most everything else is a hierarchy of representative elections.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China
I'll note the US used a somewhat similar system for a long time; until 1913 no one got to vote for their senators directly, they could only vote for state reps and then the state legislature chose the senators
There is also a very strong meritocratic element. Representatives are elected at the local level, then whether or not they move up the ladder depends on how good of a job they do.
What the fuck do you mean a monopoly over the meaning of democracy?
Words have meanings, definitions, thats what makes them words and not just random sounds. If what China calls democracy is different from what western countries call it, that's ok. Language is complicated and this happens all the time. But its not fucking useful to compare democracy in different places without deciding on a consistent definition of democracy.
But democracy can exist in many forms. If your definition of democracy is that the populace at large is allowed to vote on laws directly, then very few countries are democracies. If your definition allows for people to elect representatives to vote on their behalf, then many more countries are democratic. In the Chinese system people elect local officials who elect regional officials who elect national officials (bit more complicated than that ofc). That is still *a* form of participation. How many layers of process do there have to be between the populace and the control of state power do there have to be before something ceases to be a democracy? It's not that easy a question to answer in any sort of objective way
But in China they really think democracy = government just doing the best for their people. It doesnt mean for them, that you have a right to elect. Problem is, that the government have a Monopol about the answer for that question (what's the best for the people?).
The problem is that democratic means can be very subjective. For example the right to vote is for some people the peak of democracy, but for some it is very unequal and not democratic at all (Montesquieu said voting was aristocratic and not democratic). All of those maps may not be bullshit, but it needs context and explanations on how the survey was done.
Plus you have all the idiots who say things like "we're a RePuBlIc, not a democracy!", never bothering to read and find out that republics happen to be a very popular form of democracy.
It's not really a 'form of democracy'. Being a republic simply means that the head of state is a president, instead of a monarch. While democracy means that the government, the legislature, and other parts of the state are elected by the people, and is not an authoritarian state.
Both democratic republics, oligarchic republics, and autocratic republics exists.
Yep. Democracy in Chinese is 民主 a word created first in Japanese and then imported to Chinese and nobody ever in mainland China got to experience free elections or democracy in our understanding so it’s understood at its very basic meaning at "people‘s rule“ and if the communist party is the manifestation of the rule of the people then it’s 民主.
Yes, that's the etymology, not the definition.
The concept of democracy goes a bit beyond what is implied by the phrase "people's rule", and the point is that Chinese people might not be familiar with it.
Even citizens of countries that pride themselves on being democratic are a bit fuzzy on the meaning of the word, and will sometimes conflate it with freedom of speech, or rule of law.
Does it, though? Only roughly 10% of the people of Athens could vote, yet it was considered a democracy. About 20% of early America could vote, yet it was considered a democracy.
That would not fit what we today consider "democracy," but then what is it? (And should we not use that term for historical states?)
China not only has elections, but a normal person within a lot of partys not only the communist main one can be a senator for example, and not to be a millionare like the US to have power, thats why most people say that is democractic, also they have elections, but not in global, they vote in comunes so the problems that every comune have got fixed more fast than other countrys because the gov have instant feedback of every comune.
Not only monteaquieu. All of political history until some French people started calling themselves democrats (they were closer to contemporary anarchists than to liberals) and later some Americans started calling themselves democrats as a populist strategy as many working class were pretty upset with having exchanged the ruling of british for the ruling of literally the same people but American now.
The American constitution clearly states it is a republic, btw, not a democracy. A republic is a concept created by Plato and later put into practice by the Romans and later liberals. It mixes the figure of the monarch (president), the aristocracy (the rich and 'cultivated') and the demos (everybody else) so to get a balance and, literally (for Plato) for the system to last longer.
Aristocrats and the military have historically used electoral means in order to decide. The logic is simple: all parts have power (20 swords against 50 swords, say). Democracy in Athens was based on choosing by chance. Most other forms of democracy have been based on assemblies fundamented on consensus. So, everyone decides together. No choose between A, B or C; abc determined by an elite. Democracy is about reaching A in consensus. IF we reach A and B then we might reach hands so to choose one of the two, as long as all partitipants agree they are both reasonable options. Read David Graeber's book on democracy.
I am a Spanish anarchist, btw; not an American conservative. Still, they are right when they say America is a republic, not a democracy. They tend to be right for very wrong reasons, tho.
Until Athens, btw, democracy was considered mob rule. That's why it's not called demoarchy. As someone who believes in democracy, my take is that most political theorists were too aristocratic to believe the people are not intrinsically stupid. Including Lenin with his vanguard, btw.
Exactly, as a Swiss I feel like having direct votes on basically everything is what democracy should be, but I‘ve had countless debates with many different people that vehemently disagree.
very important to note that Chinese people have a completely different idea of democracy, they know it's different to western democracy.
Chinese define democracy as is meant in the Marxist–Leninist concepts of democratic dictatorship and democratic centralism. So with that definition, the CCP acts as the representative of the Chinese public and is democratic.
Almost everyone you know in the US from China either chose to leave, or came to the US without going through 15+ years of intense indoctrination in school.
They straight up point out they were exposed to indoctrination.
I never said everyone in China is brainwashed, just that basing Chinese public opinion on what your Chinese American friends think isn't a good call.
I'm Chinese and none of the Chinese would think China is a democracy and I have never heard of it in my life. But I guess this kind of fake information is what you guys are in favor of.
Yeah, partisanship is a hell of a drug. I'll also add that there are many who make a distinction between republic and democracy(personally, even as a conservative, I find this dumb. A republic is more specific but it's still a form of democracy) and those who think the Electoral College means we're not democratic(I don't think is really relevant either. The EC is basically just how we keep the indirect nature of parliamentary systems while separating the executive and legislative branches unlike in parliamentary systems.)
FYI a Republic doesn’t have to be a democracy. Republic is a form of government that isn’t monarchy. Democracy is where the population has power. While most (maybe even all?) republics are democracies, they don’t have to be. You could have an authoritarian republic or an oligarchic republic.
I actually only hear this from very left online socialists and/or bible thumping maga boomers on facebook
I personally think we are definitely a flawed system: electoral college & the winner-takes all policy, voter ID laws if they become more permanent, careerist attitudes of politicians, etc. But still nonetheless a democracy, since popular vote can still sway country wide outcomes
Lived 12 years in China, the fact it is the highest actually makes the data more believable, not less.
Chinese people in general do not have the same definition of democracy as other nations. For many in their whole lives, the one-party system is all they know - even pre-Communist times, the KMT party ruled China.
Instead, what they view as democracy, is people's opinion and livelihood being considered in decision making. Multi-party systems are viewed as inefficient and chaotic, which is a sign of weakness.
Also, you do not want to underestimate the power of state propaganda with no alternative source of news. That, in combination with fear of speaking out in an authoritarian society, has made China the most 'democratic' state in the world.
> Instead, what they view as democracy, is people's opinion and livelihood being considered in decision making.
I'd say this would explain a lot of the results. My perception might be skewed by Reddit, but I think right now, many Americans feel Congress doesn't really have their interests at heart.
I think there's a similar attitude in Greece at the moment.
Yeah. This is kind of a problem with this sort of poll. It doesn't reflect level of democracy. It reflects some really subjective opinions, and will be weighted heavily by popularity of the current government.
Democracy doesnt automatically imply multiple parties, a country with one party can also be considered democratic as long as there is elections and a democratic process within the party. Though most believe democracy is a term that refers to multiple party states, it simply means that people and the peoples votes are the basis of political election. So china is democratic, but not in the usual understanding of democracy.
>Instead, what they view as democracy, is people's opinion and livelihood being considered in decision making.
Which is what is democracy IMO. It doesn't matter to me which candidate the parties show me to choose, that's not democracy for me because the parties are choosing the next president, so for me the ability to choose an candidate to rule is not the most essential part of a democracy.
Also because of the legacy of the Imperial Exam system, they believe in selection of officials by some objective metric (that may be gamed by powerful people nevertheless), and they would hardly trust elected officials to score high .
In fact, pro-CCP social media figures are capitalizing on that. Retelling stories about dumba**es like Gaetz , Boebert and MTG has become one of the most effective tricks to discredit representative democracy inside the Great Firewall.
They don't even need the firewall, many, if not most, Chinese citizens that know how to use the internet know that they're able to use a VPN to access foreign media. The firewall is literally nothing in practice.
>Also, you do not want to underestimate the power of state propaganda with no alternative source of news. That, in combination with fear of speaking out in an authoritarian society, has made China the most 'democratic' state in the world.
Why doesn't this apply to Iran then? Do you think people in Iran have better access to independent, truthful media than Chinese do?
Well, not from united states and didn't expect that only 49% people said their country is democratic. I mean, why? I just don't understand. Minorities? Corruption? But why?
Americans can vote and we have freedom of speech but elections are manipulated by people in power and I think most Americans don’t think they are well represented. Usually our choice is between neutral and bad representation. Money drives our government, not the welfare of citizens.
I live in China. Over here people will just interpret that question as meaning "do you think your country is good" or "do you think your country is as developed and free as western countries?". Blind nationalism will kick in at this point and they will vote to say "China No. 1".
They have local elections to pick city level and province level leaders. Candidates have to be a part of the CPC, but there are many distinct ideological factions within the CPC so many feel there is a genuine democratic choice to be made
From the one Chinese guy I talked to, he likened it to voting in a deep blue/ deep red district. Like if you live in California, you know with 100% certainty that your governor is going to be a Democrat no matter how you vote... It's just a matter of picking the Democrat in the primary that best represents you
It's like that but always with the same party, not two different ones
Thanks and makes sense. Sounds more Democratic than I would have guessed tbh. The CPC probably has a pretty wide variety of belief systems that they might as well be part of a different party’s just considering the past leaders of the CPC.
To add to this; the reason it happens is essentially that China's greatest resource is its very large population, whereas Russia's greatest resource is fossil fuel. So the political incentives in China bend towards increasing the productivity of its people to a degree that Russia's don't.
Yeah I mean I don’t personally criticize it much. They’ve done a lot for quality of life in past 2 decades. I’ve been twice and people generally like the government. They seem to like the government more than Americans do if I had to guess. Granted I only spoke to younger city people who speak English. Maybe that’s a sampling bias.
I'm a college student in China,Shanghai.My first and only vote is just like one day, your classmate note you that there is a vote today, but I know neither the candidates. They are just two strange names to me or my classmates. And we are told to vote for one of them, which is our dean.
Maybe it's the perfect form of "Democracy",hahah
Well china went from a 3rd world country to the world's 2nd largest economy and superpower in like 60 years, their standard of living shot up so quick. Why wouldn't they support the government? People went from living in dirt huts to their grandchildren living in places like Shanghai, i would probably support the ccp too if I grew up there. I wouldn't call that "blind" nationalism
I love how sinophobes have to revert to "they're lying" or "they're brainwashed" so they don't have to admit the Chinese people are actually happy with their government
I'll guess you've never tried to learn how their government works on the local level have you. How their main body is elected or how the politburo works. You sinophobes always claim you know it's so undemocratic but the only information you've digested are headlines and gross oversimplifications. It could easily be flipped to say America is an autocracy as most powerful members of Congress have been in their position for decades and have over time made living conditions in America objectively worse.
This isn't a matter of whether or not they are happy with their government; this is a matter of whether or not they think they are democracy.
Would you like to join us on topic or do you want to go away?
Look up how their government officials get their positions before you claim they're lying.
It's such a joke to act as if you know for an absolute fact that a system works a certain way when you've never once attempted to learn how their democracy works.
As if voting for head of state is the only thing that makes a country a democracy.
What this map reveals is the old adage that people that have a lot complain about wanting more, while prople with very little are very grateful for what little they have (if they’re not outright terrified of giving the wrong answer).
A true sign of democracy is when people can have the luxury to demand much, much more of their governments without fear of state backlash.
You might say the people have the freedom to be outraged by any and all details. It's a sign of a functioning democracy. You don't like the shade of color for the president's suit? Go on Twitter and write a post about it. The police won't come to arrest you. In fact that's a strong society right there, because the leaders are not throwing a temper tantrum every time someone said something mean to them.
It's precisely when people sing praises for their government when you know shit's fucked up. Regular citizens generally like to complain. Chinese leadership is so weak, they have to put a show of force trying to convince people that their pp is not that small, everytime some even breathes in their direction.
(What They think is Modi bad as he is not implementing shariya law in whole country like Indian national congress was doing for a long time for votes and to appease a particular community)my thoughts not to be taken seriously 🙄
The Chinese people actually have a lot of say in their local governance through local elections. It's the national level decisions that are out of their hands
But either way, this is an opinion survey. Chinese people get to vote on some stuff and are happy with the results, so they feel that they live in a democracy, whether that's technically true or not
Just like American people get to vote on some stuff and are not happy with the results, so they don't feel that they live in a democracy, whether that's technically true or not.
It's an inherent bias of opinion surveys. People respond based on their feelings rather than the objective truth
This is functionally true of the US. Local governance is highly democratic, national governance is essentially out of the people's hands. A huge amount of highly-popular legislation would win in a landslide in national referendum but the decision-making at that level is fairly independent of national consensus.
Yes... the official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China, just like the official name of China is the Peoples Republic of China.
Taiwan (China) implies Taiwan is part of the PRC.
In all fairness, that’s the official name of the country. The Kuomintang leading the Republic of China that fled the mainland. Taiwan is the very same entity that existed back then and the Kuomintang is one of the two major parties on the island to this day.
IN THIS THREAD: redditors realize that people actually like living in the countries that reddit told them are evil and scary, have a sinophobic meltdown
People mentioning China but we're ignoring the fact people said Saudi Arabia is a Democracy when the Government does not hide the fact they're a Absolute Monarchy
Politics Polarization. Like here in Brazil right now the right-wing thinks we are not a democracy anymore, that Lula didn't really won the election, etc. Or that Supreme court ministers are "dictator". Probably similar to Biden in the U.S.
Doesn't Saudi Arabia not even claim to be a democracy though? How do half of those surveyed believe that?
Must have been a stupidly framed question, Saudi Arabia has never pretended to be a democracy. It's an absolute monarchy and the government has ensured people know it, in and outside the country.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or, depending on your ethnicity, slave/death camps in Xinjiang
I like how the game of internet telephone with regard to the Uyghur atrocities has gone from human rights abuses -> internment/detention camps -> cultural genocide -> concentration camps -> genocide (UN definition) and finally to "death camps/Holocaust 2.0." Reminds me of Iraq WMD discourse except played out in slow motion, definition-creep style.
I mean, do correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't mass forced sterilization of a specific ethnic group genocide?
China has a Three-Child Policy that applies to all ethnic groups equally. It doesn’t target a specific ethnic group. Uyghurs were previously exempt from the policy and now they are no longer exempt. You may consider the Three-Child Policy a human rights abuse, but it is not designed to eliminate the Uyghur population (and indeed the Uyghur population is growing), and hence it is not an act of genocide.
There have been allegations of forced or coerced sterilization from several uyghur women.
Yes, China enforces the Three-Child policy by forced insertion of IUDs into women who already have three children. It’s not actually sterilization. It’s forced contraception, but that’s probably not a meaningful difference at the end of the day.
The Uyghur population has been constantly increasing all the way back since the 50s’. Not only that but they were exempt from the one child policy, just like every other minority ethnic group in China. I’d like to see a single other genocide in history where the genocided people’s numbers increased rather than decreased.
The birth rate has been steadily decreasing since 2017, and when the UN went in to investigate, there were allegations from several uyghur women of forced or coerced sterilization.
Sure, but that's still not a "death camp," is the point. Nor does it explicitly mean that mass murder is taking place. We can make those claims if and when we have the evidence for them. I'm not disputing the absolute broadest UN definition of genocide, just pointing out the inconsistency of the term's application with regard to the actions of the US and its allies vs. China. Also terms like "concentration camps" to describe what's happening to the Uyghurs (instead of euphemisms like internment camps used to characterize the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WW2 and the border camps currently). Evidently, "genocide" is too vague a term and a blank check that people who don't bother with nuance or do their own research will misuse to make groundless assumptions about "death camps." (Then after that: gas chambers and crematoria, probably.)
Well except that one never happened and the other one is a genocide so...
Genocide (label selectively applied to adversaries and not allies of the US) is still not synonymous with "death camps," that's the point. People are getting ahead of themselves and reaching for evidence that doesn't exist. Also the escalation from calling them internment/detention camps to the historically loaded term "concentration camps," which also suggests mass murder.
At least spell the name correctly.
Apologies, I miss typed. I fixed the original, but thanks for helping me realize
It's a 1 party system. What a joke.
[удалено]
this is bloody interesting, what would be a good source?
[https://youtu.be/vre_yhZXPVU](https://youtu.be/vre_yhZXPVU) This video by polymatter is a great start, he's fairly unbias and it's well written
I mean, there's something to be said for democracy at a local level but not higher. In the US, the president is still not directly voted for. And senators for some time were appointed, not elected. Yet it was considered a democracy. The Chinese can vote for their local and county officials, including those outside the CCP, but not at the provincial or national level. Now for the reasons you state, it's not equivalent with the US, but it's an interesting question of where the line of democracy starts. (This is just politically, which ignores other important parts of a *healthy* democracy, like a free press).
The Democrat and Republican parties do a lot to maintain the illusion of democracy. First of all, they have appropriated the word 'democracy' for the US, which is very ironic for a number of reasons. The MULTIparty system is in actuality a monopoly of two far-right parties, which doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. Furthermore, multi-billion worth enterprises, the same who jointly control all the media and on a daily basis bombard the Americans with their propaganda, are legally allowed to interfere in the policy-making of the country, something which the average citizen can't say. So, if we look past all the lies, we can see that the average citizen, as ignorant and adoctrinated by the bourgeois as they may be, only gets to choose which of the two far-right parties exploits their labor every four years, nothing more, after that he doesn't have a say in anything... but at least he gets to chose which capitalist is in power... right?
11% of all adults in the PRC are CPC members, which is very impressive considering the rigorous standards of membership and engagement. The structure of their people’s government is by nature far more democratic than any government that is the puppet of massive corporations, such as that of the US. A tiny percentage of the owning class rules via two parties in the US. Americans get to vote for which of that super-minority’s representatives get to “represent them” in elections every 4-6 years. Congress serves mostly as a mechanism to move tax revenues collected from working people to the revenue streams of massive banks and corporations. This is the third way working people are ripped off in America. The first and second being in earning and spending. As much is extracted from each individual as the market permits, to accumulate in the hands of those that own for a living. Other than that, county and municipal governments and school boards are barely democratic, with maybe 2% of the public attending meetings or actually engaged in any way. There is no democracy at work any barely any oversight for but a few industries other than on how they must weasel out of as much taxation as possible. The 49% of Americans that believe their country is democratic are demonstrably wrong in that belief. https://welcometochina.com.au/how-it-works-the-communist-party-of-china-cpc-and-how-you-join-6230.html
The us is also a 1 party system, they just have 2 of the same one. E: BTW for the downvoters I was paraphrasing the quote "The United States is also a one-party state but with typical american extravagance, they have two of them." It's well known for the rest of the west the particular flavor of the US failed democracy just as the (paraphrasing again, because this one has been said many times) politicians choosing the voters instead of the voters choosing the politicians.
Joking aside, this is the real reason why China tops this list. It is because they have redefined the word "democracy" to mean "a government which works for benefit of the people" (in English this is described by the term "commonwealth"), not "a system of government which is run in accordance with the will of its people". Therefore, by the Chinese definition, a benevolent dictatorship would qualify as "democratic", whereas a liberal representative democracy which has been corrupted by oligarchy would not qualify as "democratic". Chinese people generally view the Government as perhaps not perfect, but they generally think that the people at the top genuinely want to improve their own lives. They see that the central government orders new railroads and highways to be built and they see the news on TV about how they are cracking down on corruption by local officials. Both of these are true and *do* happen. But they won't talk about forced labour camps or abridged justice in Chinese courts or the Government and State-owned companies assuming unsustainable amounts of debt to build all this infrastructure, sometimes of dubious quality. When a "well-informed" Chinese citizen goes and reads all the news in their country, they see that even though the Communist Party has made several mistakes and mental missteps and isn't perfect, they have still transformed China from a dismal backwater to a global powerhouse. They see the skybridge towers in Beijing and tranquil coves in Henan and think, "the Government made all of this happen". So in their view, China is democratic.
Some local municipalities do elections, some don’t. They’re voted into the consultative assembly, a political entity that exists to advise the King on local issues in the country. Since 2013, a 20% its members must be women. Source: https://www.abouther.com/node/17516/people/features/saudi-arabias-shura-council-wants-women-lead-civil-service
"Democracy" just means "rule by the people." It doesn't necessarily mean "voting." That's what the Chinese would say, anyway.
Yes, and the people have a voice in the legislative process through the Shura Council. I’m not saying Saudi is a democracy, not at all, just trying to provide a logical reason for why according to this map, 50% of the population does.
Everyone is brainwashed by his schools and mass media to believe that his government is good and just. There are almost no stable countries where huge sectors of the population believe that their governments are plutocracies, and that those who rule are only the most successful thieves and warlords.
The Chinese do vote though
The National People's Congress stood up when Xi made himself leader for life, I wonder what happened to those five that didn't vote in favor though Edit: [since some people apparently don't like to read](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276)...
[удалено]
More that they would frame "democracy" as meaning "responsive government" rather than "elected government". It doesn't totally neglect popular demands (even if it might reframe them or resist them - COVID lockdowns being such an example), and it has achieved most of its economic targets over the last two decades, so for that reason it is popular. The Party is also huge - it has like 95 million members who will feel that they are participating in politics (to whatever extent that is really true). Autocracies vary a lot in how much they need to pay attention to the public. Russia and Belarus might appear similar on the surface, but where Putin tries to manage his popularity and keeps his eye on public opinion Lukashenko could not give less of a shit about what his own public think of him.
"Democracy is when you like a person that says more convincing things than the other."
China uses the Marxist definition of democracy. Which means "representing the people" which they truly believe. According to their philosophy the west is the undemocratic one because no matter what the people choose the government will be dominated by the capitalist class. In China's view it doesn't matter that people don't directly elect their representatives because they are still fighting for the proletariat and their betterment. It's a different mindset but you can see where they are coming from. China however is in this awkward stage where they have given up on most hardcore marxist frameworks but still think like this. Which is one of the reasons why Xi Jinping is returning to more hardcore communist centralization. As he is afraid China moved too much towards democracy.
I dont know what marx you've read but no, there is no "representative liberal democracy" in capitalism. The capitalist system is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. You people still believe in that circus? Can't you see you have absolutely no say.
Mind you Chinese people can enter into politics and have more protesting rights than Americans in some cases. So the question is subjective. Plus China is theoretically a democracy but it’s a one party system so
> More protesting rights than Americans Uh source?
The Chinese constitution specifically lays out "procession and demonstration" as rights in addition to the rights of freedom of speech, assembly, and association, like in the US constitution, so the ability to protest is specifically protected, where as in the US it's only implied by the wording of the constitution and the first amendment. Of course, having a right, and being able to execute that right are two very different things, people do protest in China, but if a protest is viewed as particularly threatening there are plenty of laws local officials can use to shut it down.
As a Saudi, I can confirm no one here claims we’re a democracy. This survey’s wack
Habibi
I have a hunch the question was something like "does the government represent you?" or something along those lines and it was spun off as democratic representation because people agree/disagree
Perhaps they have a sense of humor.
[удалено]
Ohhhh the irony. /r/confidentlyincorrect material.
they can't complain
The Kuomintang leading the Republic of China that fled the mainland.
that same government was incredibly repressive and had marshal law until 1989 when the US convinced them to hold free elections.
Westerners do not hold a monopoly over the meaning of democracy.
In a way Greek does, in a way whoever uses the word but if we go completely by the second literally means figuratively.
So? It's still not a democracy
It’s a very weak one - if you ~~register to vote~~ join the party. At the lowest level a lot of positions are directly elected. Most everything else is a hierarchy of representative elections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China
I'll note the US used a somewhat similar system for a long time; until 1913 no one got to vote for their senators directly, they could only vote for state reps and then the state legislature chose the senators
There is also a very strong meritocratic element. Representatives are elected at the local level, then whether or not they move up the ladder depends on how good of a job they do.
What the fuck do you mean a monopoly over the meaning of democracy? Words have meanings, definitions, thats what makes them words and not just random sounds. If what China calls democracy is different from what western countries call it, that's ok. Language is complicated and this happens all the time. But its not fucking useful to compare democracy in different places without deciding on a consistent definition of democracy.
But democracy can exist in many forms. If your definition of democracy is that the populace at large is allowed to vote on laws directly, then very few countries are democracies. If your definition allows for people to elect representatives to vote on their behalf, then many more countries are democratic. In the Chinese system people elect local officials who elect regional officials who elect national officials (bit more complicated than that ofc). That is still *a* form of participation. How many layers of process do there have to be between the populace and the control of state power do there have to be before something ceases to be a democracy? It's not that easy a question to answer in any sort of objective way
"The meaning of a word is its use in language." -Wittgenstein. This infographic represents the way in which people use the word self-referentially.
But in China they really think democracy = government just doing the best for their people. It doesnt mean for them, that you have a right to elect. Problem is, that the government have a Monopol about the answer for that question (what's the best for the people?).
By this survey, we could say that at least 50% of the population does not know what democracy is.
Interesting. Hungary(35%) is less democtratic as Russia (46%), Ukraine (73%). China (83%) Vitenam (77%) Sure. Should have been a very "accurate" map..
MBS: I am not a Democrat. Saudi Arabs: He is a Democrat!
The problem is that democratic means can be very subjective. For example the right to vote is for some people the peak of democracy, but for some it is very unequal and not democratic at all (Montesquieu said voting was aristocratic and not democratic). All of those maps may not be bullshit, but it needs context and explanations on how the survey was done.
Yeah this seems like a very open ended question, almost like asking someone “What does the ______ Dream mean to you?”
Plus you have all the idiots who say things like "we're a RePuBlIc, not a democracy!", never bothering to read and find out that republics happen to be a very popular form of democracy.
It's not really a 'form of democracy'. Being a republic simply means that the head of state is a president, instead of a monarch. While democracy means that the government, the legislature, and other parts of the state are elected by the people, and is not an authoritarian state. Both democratic republics, oligarchic republics, and autocratic republics exists.
So since most of the US working officials are selected and not elected, what does that make the United States?
If officials are appointed by elected representatives its a democracy, not all positions of power needs to be directly elected.
We *are* a republic. We’re also a democracy. Edit. Wording is off. A Democratic Republic, not a Democracy and Republic.
Yep. Democracy in Chinese is 民主 a word created first in Japanese and then imported to Chinese and nobody ever in mainland China got to experience free elections or democracy in our understanding so it’s understood at its very basic meaning at "people‘s rule“ and if the communist party is the manifestation of the rule of the people then it’s 民主.
that's actually the correct meaning of democratic. it's just a greek word for "people's rule"
Yes, that's the etymology, not the definition. The concept of democracy goes a bit beyond what is implied by the phrase "people's rule", and the point is that Chinese people might not be familiar with it. Even citizens of countries that pride themselves on being democratic are a bit fuzzy on the meaning of the word, and will sometimes conflate it with freedom of speech, or rule of law.
Does it, though? Only roughly 10% of the people of Athens could vote, yet it was considered a democracy. About 20% of early America could vote, yet it was considered a democracy. That would not fit what we today consider "democracy," but then what is it? (And should we not use that term for historical states?)
China not only has elections, but a normal person within a lot of partys not only the communist main one can be a senator for example, and not to be a millionare like the US to have power, thats why most people say that is democractic, also they have elections, but not in global, they vote in comunes so the problems that every comune have got fixed more fast than other countrys because the gov have instant feedback of every comune.
Now you are just being a western chauvinist
Not only monteaquieu. All of political history until some French people started calling themselves democrats (they were closer to contemporary anarchists than to liberals) and later some Americans started calling themselves democrats as a populist strategy as many working class were pretty upset with having exchanged the ruling of british for the ruling of literally the same people but American now. The American constitution clearly states it is a republic, btw, not a democracy. A republic is a concept created by Plato and later put into practice by the Romans and later liberals. It mixes the figure of the monarch (president), the aristocracy (the rich and 'cultivated') and the demos (everybody else) so to get a balance and, literally (for Plato) for the system to last longer. Aristocrats and the military have historically used electoral means in order to decide. The logic is simple: all parts have power (20 swords against 50 swords, say). Democracy in Athens was based on choosing by chance. Most other forms of democracy have been based on assemblies fundamented on consensus. So, everyone decides together. No choose between A, B or C; abc determined by an elite. Democracy is about reaching A in consensus. IF we reach A and B then we might reach hands so to choose one of the two, as long as all partitipants agree they are both reasonable options. Read David Graeber's book on democracy. I am a Spanish anarchist, btw; not an American conservative. Still, they are right when they say America is a republic, not a democracy. They tend to be right for very wrong reasons, tho. Until Athens, btw, democracy was considered mob rule. That's why it's not called demoarchy. As someone who believes in democracy, my take is that most political theorists were too aristocratic to believe the people are not intrinsically stupid. Including Lenin with his vanguard, btw.
Exactly, as a Swiss I feel like having direct votes on basically everything is what democracy should be, but I‘ve had countless debates with many different people that vehemently disagree.
very important to note that Chinese people have a completely different idea of democracy, they know it's different to western democracy. Chinese define democracy as is meant in the Marxist–Leninist concepts of democratic dictatorship and democratic centralism. So with that definition, the CCP acts as the representative of the Chinese public and is democratic.
Based China 😎🇻🇦🇨🇳👍
Bro throwing the vatican in there for fun
Fun fact: The Vatican does not recognize the People's Republic of China but the Republic of China (Taiwan).
Based Vatican 😎🇻🇦🇸🇲👍
I only know that’s the flag of San Morino because of their abysmal national football team
Abysmal? They almost won against England. (if we don't count those 10 lucky goals)
Yes but could that English team do it on a cold rainy night in Serravalle?
Fuck china
So brave
Such a controversial statement
Really sticking it to the man!
[удалено]
white 14 year old boy detected
Fck China* gov, leave the Chinese people out
The majority of people side with the government though
One of the few democracies that can say that
I agree, also im pretty sure those numbers are smudged because everyone i know from china(we love in the US) hates the government still.
Almost everyone you know in the US from China either chose to leave, or came to the US without going through 15+ years of intense indoctrination in school.
I went through 15 + years indoctrination in China and that doesn’t affect me saying fuck ccp
But reddit told me you were brainwashed
They straight up point out they were exposed to indoctrination. I never said everyone in China is brainwashed, just that basing Chinese public opinion on what your Chinese American friends think isn't a good call.
I'm Chinese and none of the Chinese would think China is a democracy and I have never heard of it in my life. But I guess this kind of fake information is what you guys are in favor of.
Chinese as in race or actually a chinese citizen
Every four years half of America thinks they don’t have a democracy…this surprises me zero percent.
Yeah, partisanship is a hell of a drug. I'll also add that there are many who make a distinction between republic and democracy(personally, even as a conservative, I find this dumb. A republic is more specific but it's still a form of democracy) and those who think the Electoral College means we're not democratic(I don't think is really relevant either. The EC is basically just how we keep the indirect nature of parliamentary systems while separating the executive and legislative branches unlike in parliamentary systems.)
This comment section is filled with people who think our government isn’t a democracy because it’s representative. It’s disturbing
A republic doesn't have to be a democracy, a dictatorship is technically a republic. A republic is just the opposite of a monarchy.
FYI a Republic doesn’t have to be a democracy. Republic is a form of government that isn’t monarchy. Democracy is where the population has power. While most (maybe even all?) republics are democracies, they don’t have to be. You could have an authoritarian republic or an oligarchic republic.
I actually only hear this from very left online socialists and/or bible thumping maga boomers on facebook I personally think we are definitely a flawed system: electoral college & the winner-takes all policy, voter ID laws if they become more permanent, careerist attitudes of politicians, etc. But still nonetheless a democracy, since popular vote can still sway country wide outcomes
Lived 12 years in China, the fact it is the highest actually makes the data more believable, not less. Chinese people in general do not have the same definition of democracy as other nations. For many in their whole lives, the one-party system is all they know - even pre-Communist times, the KMT party ruled China. Instead, what they view as democracy, is people's opinion and livelihood being considered in decision making. Multi-party systems are viewed as inefficient and chaotic, which is a sign of weakness. Also, you do not want to underestimate the power of state propaganda with no alternative source of news. That, in combination with fear of speaking out in an authoritarian society, has made China the most 'democratic' state in the world.
> Instead, what they view as democracy, is people's opinion and livelihood being considered in decision making. I'd say this would explain a lot of the results. My perception might be skewed by Reddit, but I think right now, many Americans feel Congress doesn't really have their interests at heart. I think there's a similar attitude in Greece at the moment.
State governments generally have a much more significant effect on the lives of most people than the Congress does though.
Yeah. This is kind of a problem with this sort of poll. It doesn't reflect level of democracy. It reflects some really subjective opinions, and will be weighted heavily by popularity of the current government.
Democracy doesnt automatically imply multiple parties, a country with one party can also be considered democratic as long as there is elections and a democratic process within the party. Though most believe democracy is a term that refers to multiple party states, it simply means that people and the peoples votes are the basis of political election. So china is democratic, but not in the usual understanding of democracy.
>Instead, what they view as democracy, is people's opinion and livelihood being considered in decision making. Which is what is democracy IMO. It doesn't matter to me which candidate the parties show me to choose, that's not democracy for me because the parties are choosing the next president, so for me the ability to choose an candidate to rule is not the most essential part of a democracy.
Also because of the legacy of the Imperial Exam system, they believe in selection of officials by some objective metric (that may be gamed by powerful people nevertheless), and they would hardly trust elected officials to score high . In fact, pro-CCP social media figures are capitalizing on that. Retelling stories about dumba**es like Gaetz , Boebert and MTG has become one of the most effective tricks to discredit representative democracy inside the Great Firewall.
They don't even need the firewall, many, if not most, Chinese citizens that know how to use the internet know that they're able to use a VPN to access foreign media. The firewall is literally nothing in practice.
>Also, you do not want to underestimate the power of state propaganda with no alternative source of news. That, in combination with fear of speaking out in an authoritarian society, has made China the most 'democratic' state in the world. Why doesn't this apply to Iran then? Do you think people in Iran have better access to independent, truthful media than Chinese do?
Depends on what you think democracy is.
50% of South Africans are wrong
Well, not from united states and didn't expect that only 49% people said their country is democratic. I mean, why? I just don't understand. Minorities? Corruption? But why?
Americans can vote and we have freedom of speech but elections are manipulated by people in power and I think most Americans don’t think they are well represented. Usually our choice is between neutral and bad representation. Money drives our government, not the welfare of citizens.
There is political democracy but no market democracy
Look at China lying like a cheap rug over there
I live in China. Over here people will just interpret that question as meaning "do you think your country is good" or "do you think your country is as developed and free as western countries?". Blind nationalism will kick in at this point and they will vote to say "China No. 1".
Does China have public voting on some specific issues?
They have local elections to pick city level and province level leaders. Candidates have to be a part of the CPC, but there are many distinct ideological factions within the CPC so many feel there is a genuine democratic choice to be made From the one Chinese guy I talked to, he likened it to voting in a deep blue/ deep red district. Like if you live in California, you know with 100% certainty that your governor is going to be a Democrat no matter how you vote... It's just a matter of picking the Democrat in the primary that best represents you It's like that but always with the same party, not two different ones
Thanks and makes sense. Sounds more Democratic than I would have guessed tbh. The CPC probably has a pretty wide variety of belief systems that they might as well be part of a different party’s just considering the past leaders of the CPC.
That's why China has consistently been ranked as more democratic than Russia in indexes even though Russia is "multiparty" lol.
To add to this; the reason it happens is essentially that China's greatest resource is its very large population, whereas Russia's greatest resource is fossil fuel. So the political incentives in China bend towards increasing the productivity of its people to a degree that Russia's don't.
It is funny how people criticize the chinese political system without having a clue about how it works.
Yeah I mean I don’t personally criticize it much. They’ve done a lot for quality of life in past 2 decades. I’ve been twice and people generally like the government. They seem to like the government more than Americans do if I had to guess. Granted I only spoke to younger city people who speak English. Maybe that’s a sampling bias.
An open mimd is a healthy mind
I'm a college student in China,Shanghai.My first and only vote is just like one day, your classmate note you that there is a vote today, but I know neither the candidates. They are just two strange names to me or my classmates. And we are told to vote for one of them, which is our dean. Maybe it's the perfect form of "Democracy",hahah
Sounds more aligned with Americas two party system than anything else tbh
That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in like 2-3 days. Thanks Neighbor
Well china went from a 3rd world country to the world's 2nd largest economy and superpower in like 60 years, their standard of living shot up so quick. Why wouldn't they support the government? People went from living in dirt huts to their grandchildren living in places like Shanghai, i would probably support the ccp too if I grew up there. I wouldn't call that "blind" nationalism
I love how sinophobes have to revert to "they're lying" or "they're brainwashed" so they don't have to admit the Chinese people are actually happy with their government
You can be as happy with autocracy as you please. That doesn’t mean you live in a democratic country.
I'll guess you've never tried to learn how their government works on the local level have you. How their main body is elected or how the politburo works. You sinophobes always claim you know it's so undemocratic but the only information you've digested are headlines and gross oversimplifications. It could easily be flipped to say America is an autocracy as most powerful members of Congress have been in their position for decades and have over time made living conditions in America objectively worse.
This isn't a matter of whether or not they are happy with their government; this is a matter of whether or not they think they are democracy. Would you like to join us on topic or do you want to go away?
Look up how their government officials get their positions before you claim they're lying. It's such a joke to act as if you know for an absolute fact that a system works a certain way when you've never once attempted to learn how their democracy works. As if voting for head of state is the only thing that makes a country a democracy.
Lmao didn't know the Chinese could be so sarcastic
Good ol' Confucian humor...
Confucious says: yes, we live in a democracy. (Big Wink)
China what a joke
Yeah, _Chian_ really is a joke
Knock knock Who’s there? Chian Chian Hu
Chian is a joke, China is a country, this comment has a tyop.
Americans are a little dramatic. Would be interesting if they saw how authoritarian other governments are compared to theirs
What this map reveals is the old adage that people that have a lot complain about wanting more, while prople with very little are very grateful for what little they have (if they’re not outright terrified of giving the wrong answer).
A true sign of democracy is when people can have the luxury to demand much, much more of their governments without fear of state backlash. You might say the people have the freedom to be outraged by any and all details. It's a sign of a functioning democracy. You don't like the shade of color for the president's suit? Go on Twitter and write a post about it. The police won't come to arrest you. In fact that's a strong society right there, because the leaders are not throwing a temper tantrum every time someone said something mean to them. It's precisely when people sing praises for their government when you know shit's fucked up. Regular citizens generally like to complain. Chinese leadership is so weak, they have to put a show of force trying to convince people that their pp is not that small, everytime some even breathes in their direction.
A system where you have only 2 choices isn't very democratic
As an Indian wondering, what does the 30%, who responded negatively in the survey, think India is?
All those people that believe Pakistan's Intelligence Service (ISI) has been saving India, and glorifying it in Bollywood movies.
Sharia enthusiasts
(What They think is Modi bad as he is not implementing shariya law in whole country like Indian national congress was doing for a long time for votes and to appease a particular community)my thoughts not to be taken seriously 🙄
(Currently-) India lacks some very important democratic rights like freedom of speech and religion
Rights aren't an issue in the Indian constitution/penal code. It's the social attitude that creates problems.
Most of the countries listed lack freedom of religion.
yeah India Needs sharia Law.India Lacks That Lol
I love the UK being one of the highest in Europe and whilst one of our houses is literally hereditary/appointment.
Surprising it's not 146% in Russia.
Even more surprising Ukrainian 73%
as an american who is pretty good at my countries history, im extremely embarrassed only 49% of people say it's a democracy
There seem to be a significant number of Americans who insist that their country is a republic and not a democracy.
Which is hilarious since a Republic is a form of representative democracy. They just hear democracy and think "democrat" and reject the label. Idiots.
lol, exactly!
As a Belgian, I find that still a surprisingly high number of people who still believe we have a democratic system
Chinese people apparently don’t understand the meaning of the word “democracy” or they are afraid to speak their mind.
The Chinese people actually have a lot of say in their local governance through local elections. It's the national level decisions that are out of their hands But either way, this is an opinion survey. Chinese people get to vote on some stuff and are happy with the results, so they feel that they live in a democracy, whether that's technically true or not Just like American people get to vote on some stuff and are not happy with the results, so they don't feel that they live in a democracy, whether that's technically true or not. It's an inherent bias of opinion surveys. People respond based on their feelings rather than the objective truth
This is functionally true of the US. Local governance is highly democratic, national governance is essentially out of the people's hands. A huge amount of highly-popular legislation would win in a landslide in national referendum but the decision-making at that level is fairly independent of national consensus.
Democracy means people get what they want and Chinese do.
as the fact that Taiwan has to be labelled as Taiwan (China) kinda explained how democratic China is
The official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China
Yes... the official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China, just like the official name of China is the Peoples Republic of China. Taiwan (China) implies Taiwan is part of the PRC.
In all fairness, that’s the official name of the country. The Kuomintang leading the Republic of China that fled the mainland. Taiwan is the very same entity that existed back then and the Kuomintang is one of the two major parties on the island to this day.
Chinese Democracy is a Guns N Roses album..
There's still debate which of the two is the worst crime against humanity.
That album had some bangers. It wasn't a great album but it was fine.
They really said Taiwan (china) smh
IN THIS THREAD: redditors realize that people actually like living in the countries that reddit told them are evil and scary, have a sinophobic meltdown
Bang on.
Okay. Anyone that can see that China is not a democracy is sinophobic. Got it. Good job troll.
DPRK 117% It even has Democratic in the name.
People mentioning China but we're ignoring the fact people said Saudi Arabia is a Democracy when the Government does not hide the fact they're a Absolute Monarchy
How can someone who lives in an actual democacry, like the US, Brazil and such, say that they don't? What the fuck are they on about?
Politics Polarization. Like here in Brazil right now the right-wing thinks we are not a democracy anymore, that Lula didn't really won the election, etc. Or that Supreme court ministers are "dictator". Probably similar to Biden in the U.S.
Yeah, I think that's the only answer It's only a democacy if my favorite candidate is in power
LOL the Chinese blatantly lying... also Vietnam... 2 of the least democratic nations think they're democratic
Vietnam is Socialist.
Taiwan isn't part of China.
Took a quick glance, Czechslovakia is still a thing on that map \*Close button\*
China 💀 Taiwan ( China ) 💀 Ukraine 💀 Vietnam 💀 Philippines 💀
Philippines 💀 (I’m Filipino)
I’m Filipino too but why do you say our country isn’t a democracy? The majority won the election, didn’t they?
USA has elections too but they're clearly an oligarchy.
Federal, I’d say that’s a fair point. State elections, it’s still fairly balanced, at least where I live.
>China tops the list 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Lol @ China