Western visitors to China are frequently surprised at how friendly, welcoming and happy its people are. After all, isn’t China supposed to be an “authoritarian regime” that oppresses its people and makes their lives miserable? This is certainly the impression given by the Western media, which invariably portrays China in the most negative light possible. In artwork, a caricature always focuses on one feature and then blows it up to grotesque proportions. Similarly, with China, the fact that it isn’t a Western-style liberal democracy is blown up into the image of a “dictatorship”.
In the interests not only of accuracy but of peaceful coexistence and good international relations, this crude Western caricature of China needs to be challenged. Yes, it’s true that China is not a Western liberal democracy, but this doesn’t automatically make it an oppressive autocracy, as many in the West would have you believe. The reality is very different.
First, China is very much a political meritocracy, providing some real benefits which are notably absent in many Western countries. It is run by experienced, tested politicians who have risen through the lower ranks of government, honing their skills as leaders and administrators. To reach the highest level of the central government, politicians first have to climb the ladder from the very bottom, only being able to progress if they merit promotion. This can take decades. No one can take short cuts; no one can smooth-talk or bribe their way in. By the time they have reached the Politburo level, China’s leading politicians have governed populations larger than most states in Europe. So central government membership is determined purely by proven merit. This is in sharp contrast to Western democracies. In the United States, for example, a property developer and reality TV star was able to become president, without ever running a city, governing a state, or being a member of Congress. To have someone elected president with absolutely no government experience can clearly be a recipe for trouble.
Good government needs experienced, skilled, proficient practitioners collaboratively focusing on long-term national priorities, rather than inexperienced, partisan politicians squabbling with opposition parties and focusing on short-term political gain. The meritocratic nature of China’s government is a big positive in this respect. It helps explain why China has flourished in recent years while the West has lingered behind. The stellar growth of China’s economy, its remarkable scientific and technological advances, its world-leading infrastructure, the development of large, vibrant cities, the eradication of poverty, the war on pollution, and the transformative social progress in areas such as education, housing and healthcare are all directly related to the quality of leadership in its meritocracy. Compare this with the economic problems, decaying infrastructure, and declining public services which currently afflict democracies such as the US and the UK.
It’s true that a single party, the Communist Party of China, is intertwined with and plays a dominant role in China’s meritocracy, but the Western image of the Party as a small, unrepresentative and oppressive clique is flawed. Its stated central philosophy is putting the people’s interests first, ensuring them a good life, and viewing its legitimacy as rooted in popular support. It has over 100 million members from across all walks of life.
Additionally, China’s provincial governments play a crucial role in the implementation of policy. Given the size and complexity of China, this lower but hugely important level of government is given considerable flexibility in interpreting and experimenting with policy measures.
If labeling China as a “dictatorship” is a gross caricature, so is the narrative that it “lacks legitimacy” with the Chinese people. The West’s perception is that only directly elected governments are legitimate, which Westerners narrowly interpret as a means of expressing the consent of the people. At the heart of the West’s derision of China is the belief that the vast majority of Chinese people are desperate to throw off the yoke of the CPC and adopt Western-style electoral democracy. The reality, however, is very different. Most Chinese people are not only skeptical about Western democracy, but also believe that China’s form of government is more effective and more in keeping with Chinese values.
Good government needs experienced, skilled, proficient practitioners collaboratively focusing on long-term national priorities, rather than inexperienced, partisan politicians squabbling with opposition parties and focusing on short-term political gain. The meritocratic nature of China’s government is a big positive in this respect. It helps explain why China has flourished in recent years while the West has lingered behind
Public support for China’s political system has been highlighted in recent research by two independent and highly respected Western institutions. Both conclude that China’s government enjoys strong popular support, with most citizens believing their political system is democratic, fair, and acting in the interests of the people.
The first of these is a meticulous, long-term study into Chinese public opinion, published by Harvard’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation in 2020. Far from being a pro-China institution, the Ash Center’s core mission is to foster practices that enhance effective democratic governance. If the expectation was that their study would confirm the Western narrative of an authoritarian, illegitimate regime in China, the results will have come as a big surprise. In their report summary, the Ash Center concluded: “We find that, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before.” Surveys were conducted in eight waves over 13 years and captured opinion data from 31,000 individual respondents. The research found that there was consistently a very high level of satisfaction with China’s government. In the final survey, 93.1 percent of respondents were either “fairly satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the central government. In contrast to these findings, Gallup polling in the United States at that time (January 2020) showed that only 38 percent of respondents were satisfied with the federal government there.
The second study is by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation (ADF), a Danish nongovernmental organization. Again, it cannot in any way be accused of pro-China bias. Its website proudly proclaims: “We are the megaphone of democracy.” It goes on to spell out its values: “At the heart of the Alliance of Democracies Foundation is our dedication to promoting freedom, democracy, and free markets. We believe in the power of collective action and strive to foster a global community that champions democratic ideals and resists authoritarianism.”
In the ADF’s 2024 survey, 92 percent of people in China were reported as having positive views of their political system, with 79 percent saying the country is democratic. An impressive 91 percent believed their government serves the interests of most people, rather than a small group of vested interests, and 85 percent said that all people in China have equal rights before the law. On these figures, China has some of the best results globally, easily outperforming the US, the UK and most European countries. It’s a similar story with people’s perceptions of freedom of expression. Here too, the study shows that China outperforms the US and most of Europe. In responding to the statement “Everyone in my country can freely express their opinion on political and social topics”, only 18 percent of people in China disagreed (compared to 27 percent in the US).
In analyzing these results, anthropologist Jason Hickel addressed the question whether the responses were distorted by people in China being reluctant to say negative things about their government through fear of repression. However, he concludes that the methodology used was explicitly designed to mitigate against this possibility. In contrast to surveys conducted face-to-face or by telephone, the ADF methodology ensured the anonymity of respondents. Moreover, as Hickel points out, if China’s positive results were due to fear of repression, one would expect to see similarly positive results in other countries that are regarded in the West as having “repressive regimes”. Yet this is not the case. People living in such states did not hesitate to express critical opinions. In Russia, for example, only 50 percent of people said their country was democratic.
The results of both the Ash Center and ADF studies are compelling. In Hickel’s words, they suggest that “what matters most when it comes to people’s perceptions of democracy is not whether their country has Western-style elections, but whether they believe their government acts in the interest of most people”. Using this metric, it’s clear that China scores much more highly than Western democracies. Governing in the interests of most people, rather than the existence of multiparty elections, provides an alternative criterion for evaluating the democratic credentials of political systems. Western critics of China need to reflect on this. Nothing is black and white in politics.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
