In my last article, I explained why China’s political system is not an autocracy. An autocracy will not serve the needs of the people and the interests of the nation. A meritocracy will. Because the Communist Party of China follows the meritocracy model, respects science, understands the nature of public governance and human weaknesses, and embraces a culture of service to the people of China and the world, it has not only served the Chinese people but, remarkably, the shared future for humanity exceedingly well.
I would now like to expound on the logic of the demise of adversarial democracy, and why I truly believe that an amendment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is well justified.
Let me begin with the recent news that Japan, with its declining fertility and aging population, has decided to tighten its immigration laws. Even immigrants who have stayed in Japan for decades and have abided by the law since making their homes there have been told that they may have to leave. Some of these are hard-working and have run small businesses that have served the local community for many years. For example, restaurant owner Manish Kumar, who came from India and has lived in Japan for three decades, was recently told that his business manager visa will not be renewed. His children speak only Japanese. Returning to India will be a nightmare for the family. Similarly, Budhathoki Samjhana, from Nepal, came to Japan as a student in 2016 and saved for years to open her first restaurant in 2023. After opening her third eatery in January, she brought her 14-year-old daughter to Japan from Nepal following a decade of separation and she is now enrolled in a Japanese school. Samjhana’s dream of settling her family in Japan for good is now broken as she too is under threat of being sent back to her native country.
For all of these reasons and more, China’s political system has served the country’s interests — and humanity’s interests — far better than Western-style adversarial democracies. For the benefit of the public interest and the future of humanity, let us seriously think about revising the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has mistaken means for ends. Equal political, social, and economic rights are a human right, but periodic elections to form a government should not be guaranteed
Japan’s rightward turn is not an aberration. An online article published last year in Factually carried the title Is the World Shifting Towards the Right? The executive summary begins thus: “The materials indicate a recognizable surge in right-wing and far-right activity across multiple countries during 2025, visible in electoral gains, mass rallies, violent demonstrations, and the elevated profiles of conservative influencers; contributors point to shared drivers such as immigration concerns, economic dislocation, and cultural backlash.”
The problem is that electoral democracy assumes, without critical analysis, that as long as the processes are fair, everyone should be free to use politics to their own advantage, because this will automatically serve the public interest. Electoral or adversarial democracy is essentially the rule of the majority. Depending on the nature of the policy decision, the threshold for majority rule will vary but it is still essentially the rule of the majority. The threat of immigrants for a country with a low fertility rate lies in the threat of immigrants eventually becoming the majority, which will then “take over” the country, change its laws, and an alien culture would eventually replace the original culture. Human nature being what it is, the threat is sorely felt, because people have a natural desire to cling to their identity. Seeing their country turning from a predominantly Christian country into a predominantly Islamic country is unacceptable, and vice versa. Seeing their country turning from a predominantly white country into a predominantly black, brown or yellow country is unacceptable, and vice versa. The majority rule does have these implications. So it is logical for Japan to turn right. Yet how would rejecting hardworking immigrants who have long adapted to the Japanese society serve the public interest or the country’s best interests?
The presumption that adversarial democracy will serve the public interest if all are bound by supposedly fairly designed procedures has never been empirically proved. A new book by Didi Kuo, a researcher at Stanford University, titled The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don’t, published by Oxford University Press, has added to the growing literature that shows that electoral democracy may not serve the public interest. Kuo wrote: “As parties grew more professional and campaign-oriented, they also became less responsive, shedding the representation and mobilization functions they once performed.” Her book follows titles by other authors such as Against Democracy (2016); Compulsory Voting: For and Against (2014); The Ethics of Voting (2012); and Public Governance in Asia and the Limits of Electoral Democracy (2010).
Given human weaknesses and the nature of electoral democracy, it is perfectly understandable that people will worry that immigrants might “take over the country”. Given that political campaigns need funding, it is perfectly understandable that politicians will pay back sponsors for their financial support. Given human weaknesses, it is perfectly understandable that politicians will fabricate stories to attack their competitors. Given the limits of office terms, it is perfectly understandable that short-termism will characterize each administration elected to power. In the case of the United States, policy reversals from one administration to the next are common, and such reversals often overturn international treaties.
For all of these reasons and more, China’s political system has served the country’s interests — and humanity’s interests — far better than Western-style adversarial democracies. For the benefit of the public interest and the future of humanity, let us seriously think about revising the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has mistaken means for ends. Equal political, social, and economic rights are a human right, but periodic elections to form a government should not be guaranteed.
The author is an honorary research fellow at the Pan Sutong Shanghai-Hong Kong Economic Policy Research Institute, Lingnan University, and an adjunct professor at the Academy for Applied Policy Studies and Education Futures, the Education University of Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
