China Is a democracy

Democracy Index is Biased and Ranks Some Nations Highly Even Though It is Questionable Whether They are Truly DemocraciesThe Democracy Index is made by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which is part of the multinational media corporation, The Economist Group. It is a private corporation, it's primary purpose is to make money for its shareholders. That already makes a strong case that its "Democracy Index" is subject to bias. It is based in the UK, so naturally the business will rely more on its connections with people in Western society and in particular in British society. It also means that the people working for them and formulating the Democracy Index are more likely to have grown up in Western culture. So biases may be at play that the people involved are not even aware of.That Western countries are democracies is itself in doubt. According to one study the United States is an oligarchy because of the concentrated influence of a few wealthy interests.http://www.telegraph.co.uk...There is also evidence that the UK is more fittingly labeled an "oligarchy" rather than a democracy.https://www.ft.com...However, in China power flows from the bottom up. People vote for representatives and are capable of recalling them, which gives the representatives an incentive to care strongly about the views and needs of their constituents. Since each level of government is elected by the one below it the influence of these needs and views puts pressure on each level of government above it. Con doesn't seem to understand my argument for why multi-tiered democracy is in fact better. It's because at the level where an office is directly elected there are fewer people within that politician's constituency. Therefore one individual can make more of an impact than they could have if the constituency were bigger. That encourages more confidence that their voices will be heard and so encourages more participation in politics.If the national level were directly elected the constituencies would by necessity have to be bigger, diluting the impact of an individual voter. By having a multi-tiered system each level is campaigning for the votes of a smaller number of people, so at the next level up politicians must campaign for the votes of people who are directly elected and not only that directly elected by small constituencies of people. They have to weigh the concerns of these various constituencies, which are represented and advocated for by the politicians at the level below them. And they have to weigh this not only in making laws at their level of government but also in choosing (and possibly recalling) representatives at the next level. This creates an incentive throughout government to balance the interests of all the people the politician is representing.In Western democracies that do not use this system the power of an individual voter is dilutted, if not at the local levels then at the national levels. This gives wealthy and special interests more influence, ultimately leading to an oligarchy which is only a democracy in name.A Socialist Market Economy Is More DemocraticAnother thing which makes China more democratic is that it is socialist, but it is a flexible socialism. Market forces are allowed when it is determined that it is in the best interests of the people of China. Productive forces and land belong to the people, but the people through their representatives sometimes find it to be in their best interests to give permission to businesses to engage in private competition. This system gives the people and their representatives more options in terms of public policy. In Western 'Democracies' there is such a strong taboo reinforced by monied interests and the media against socialist policies that it makes the responses of Western governments less flexible and more dogmatic. There is a large voice in Western politics which calls for "small government" as an end in and of itself without bothering to weigh the costs and benefits carefully. Not That Hard to Run For Office"In addition, it should be noted that, while the people to get to vote for their representatives in China, the candidates who can run are chosen by the party[5]. Not anyone can just run like is the case in America or other countries. This limits democracy, because not everyone is free to run for office, and it has to be approved by the current administration. "https://en.wikipedia.org...On the contrary there are many ways to be approved to run for office in China. Any legally recognized political party can approve a candidate for election, as may mass organizations. And an organization doesn't even need to approve a person to run. A person can run for office even if they are approved by just three people. Petition requirements to get your name on the ballot are much more difficult in United States elections.There are more stages in the process. There is the "discussions and consultations" stage that is necessary before a final list of candidates is made. An election committee must approve the final list. But similarly in the United States there are requirements for who can run for office. http://www.factcheck.org...Some states such as Texas bar felons from running for office. While there is no such rule at the federal level the House and Senate may decide these questions on a case by case basis. The House and Senate have the authority to expel any member they deem unfit or unqualified to serve.Having procedures for determining whether someone is fit or qualified to run for office or continue serving is not inherently undemocratic. If such rules are made in a democratic system then they can be used to protect democracy from influences which could undermine it. Such systems do run the risk of becoming impediments to democracy themselves. However, having a separate "election committee" determine whether a candidate is eligible to run is less of a danger to democracy than having the elected body itself determine who is and is not eligible to run, because this way there is a separation of powers, avoiding the conflict of interests inherent in having the same elected body determine whether or not its own members are eligible for office.Forced Cooperation?As I have mentioned it is not even necessary to be approved by a party or organization to run for office. This is hardly "forced cooperation". If the people elect a government that wishes to express its gratitude to the Communist Party of China for its historical and continuing leading role then that is an expression of democracy. As I pointed out in the last round a study showed that the average Chinese person supports the government in power at 8.0 on a 10.0 point scale. If the people support the government in power how could it be democratic for that government to lose power?Freedom of speechCon questions whether there are truly differing opinions expressed in China's government. But there are. I would have provided more details but was low on time due to having a somewhat busy schedule. But here's one example.http://www.wsj.com...This is from the Wall Street Journal, and it's clear from reading it that they go to great lengths to make China sound like a dictatorship. However, what the article is about is that the National People's Congress has recently had an increase in debates among their members. This means that there is room for discussion and debate.China does restrict freedom of speech. I will grant you that. However, this is to prevent sedition. These speech restrictions come from laws passed by democratically elected officials and the aim of the laws is to protect social stability, ultimately to prevent the possibility of the democratic government of China from being overthrown from radical or outside influences. Other countries through their own supposedly democratically elected governments have similar restrictions. Some European countries such as Hungary even ban symbolism and speech in favor of communism even if the speakers claim to want to elect a Communist Party within the framework of a Western-style electoral system.