Why Explore China Governance Model vs Democracy is a Must

17 Comments

1. While the prospect of an autocratic government with a leader in perpetuity doesn’t readily appeal, we are seeing such an option potentially occurring , in the short term at least, in the Unstable States of America and hints of it here with the Labor mandate being used not for the improvement of our democracy, tax regime, environmental policies, refugee situation or even the housing problem but rather to increase surveillance, crack down on protests, reduce transparency and use legislation to get around legalities. A bold long-term plan of real democratic and other reforms would definitely help allay some of the current misgivings about the ‘do as little as possible’ government we have now.

2. Thank you for this explanation. We see time and time again in both the mainstream media and social media people screaming about the communists in China, without understanding the Chinese process of governance or that what the west has been fed about communism is not entirely true of China. While China is still communistic in some ways they are really a capitalist society with a stable government, unlike many western democracies whose governments stagger from one instability to the next while making no forward movement at all.

   It would be difficult to find a western democratic country where 90% of the population express high satisfaction with their government’s performance. It seems that in most democracies government has become about opposing anything that the other side wants, instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing and working together for the betterment of the country and its people, hence why change when it does come, comes slowly and in tiny increments.

   The party system has completely changed what and who the people’s “representatives” actually represent. It is no longer about knowing who your local/state/federal member is and what they stand for and whether they stand for the community they supposedly represent, it is about falling into line with what the party says it stands for, which is often decided by people who are not elected but run the party.

   China over the past 40 years has lifted over 800 million of its people out of poverty, most of it deep, abject poverty. I cannot see that any democracy is capable of doing this. And the US is going the other way, and while US poverty may not be as deep as China poverty was, more and more of its people are heading into poverty and the Democrats don’t seem to have any answers and the Republicans when the democrats are in government spend all their time white anting any slight progress that is made.

   Same happens here in Australia when the ALP is in government and they have become so gun shy that even now with a huge majority in government they still won’t take anything other than teeny weeny steps in a direction that addresses some of the inequities in our society and are still being lead by the nose by big business to the detriment of the people they purport to represent.

3. RomeoCharlie, well said.

   The Chinese government is not as autocratic as the Western media would have us believe.
   The Party has control of the big-ticket items like defence, foreign policy, environment.
   But local development and administration is largely in the hands of locally elected councils for which Party membership is not a requirement.
   The local councils have enough authority to censure Party officials and act independently.

   The icing on the cake is that all levels of government and business must act with the welfare of the people uppermost.
   I’ve no doubt that this condition is side-stepped from time to time, possibly often, but its very existence modifies behaviour in a positive way.
   We have no such principle in place because our system has no foundational philosophy.
   Because we have no foundational philosophy our public and business affairs just bounce around erratically, without purpose.
   This makes for good news media sensationalism, great headlines, but does not provide for sustained social development and prosperity.

4. Patricia, my apologies, I did not see your comment before posting.

   I should have worked your comment in with mine.

5. Steve Davis, No apologies needed.

6. RomeoCharlie,
   While China is often labelled an “autocratic” system in the West, the reality is more complex. The China governance model does not operate on the same basis as a personal dictatorship. Leadership is chosen through a multi-tiered process that starts with grassroots elections at the village and district level, moving upward through several layers before reaching national leadership positions. This ensures leaders have governance experience at multiple levels before taking top roles.

   China also uses what it calls whole-process people’s democracy, where the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) brings together representatives from many sectors, ethnic minorities, business, science, religion, and more, to consult on legislation and policy. While it’s true that the Communist Party is the only ruling party, its governance style relies heavily on long-term planning and measurable outcomes rather than short-term election cycles.

   This is not to say the system is without its flaws, but it’s worth noting that, according to long-running Harvard University research, over 90% of Chinese citizens express satisfaction with their government’s performance, figures far higher than trust levels in many Western democracies.

7. Patricia, I think you’ve summed up the issue well. While China has embraced many market-driven policies, it remains at its core a socialist country, one where the state plays a central role in ensuring public needs are met. The government retains significant control over key industries, directs long-term planning through Five-Year Plans, and invests heavily in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and poverty reduction.

   I believe this is one of the main reasons why many Western governments and much of the media portray China so negatively. A system that consistently delivers better living standards for its citizens, lifts hundreds of millions out of poverty, and maintains public approval levels above 90% is a direct challenge to the narrative that Western-style democracy is the only effective form of governance.

   When people see that a government can work for the collective good, rather than be paralysed by party politics, short election cycles, or corporate influence, it forces uncomfortable questions about why our own systems so often fail to deliver similar results.

8. Steve, you’ve highlighted something that is rarely acknowledged in Western coverage of China, the fact that governance there is multi-layered and that local councils, often led by non-Party members, have real authority in local decision-making.

   I think one of the biggest misconceptions is that China operates as a monolithic, top-down autocracy where everything is dictated from Beijing. In reality, the Party sets strategic direction on the “big ticket” issues, but much of the day-to-day governance is decentralised. This allows for local accountability and solutions tailored to community needs, including the ability to censure Party officials when required.

   What really stands out is the foundational philosophy you mentioned, that governance and business should prioritise the welfare of the people. While it’s not perfect in practice, it does provide a clear national purpose, something our own system lacks. Without such a guiding principle, many Western democracies drift from one short-term political cycle to the next, too often serving corporate or political interests instead of long-term social prosperity.

9. Do I have vain hopes that Dan Andrews’ visit to China’s Victory Celebrations over Imperial Japan will herald “Dan the Man” returning to the Labor fold with instructions of how to get true governance into place in Australia? (just sayin’)

10. Any system is open to corruption; it always depends on the people who operate that system.

11. Mediocrities,
    From memory, I think Dan signed Victoria up for the Belt and Road and Morrison blocked it

12. Unashamedly biased per having a Chinese partner for nearly 20 years; her story not atypical re. the support offered… a free ride through high school and university to higher degree level; tuition and housing gratis along with a tenured appointment following graduation… she has often commented how privileged Chinese students are compared to the western experience.

    Notwithstanding these personal experiences, the extent of infrastructural development across the country is nothing short of extraordinary, as is well understood in the west…. comparatively we are sluggish and second rate in terms of vision and initiative.

    China’s strength in large part is a function of its deep history over millennia and the sense of national pride in that aspect of their culture. In the context of it being nominally a Communist country… it’s undisputable that it’s a better state of affairs than constant internecine warring between antagonists…a former state of play that kept that country in turmoil for years & years. The Chinese government benefits by virtue of being one-party and thus able to set long-term development programs for the betterment of its citizens.

    Criticisms abound: repression of the Tibetans, ditto Xinjiang & the Uyghurs, mass surveillance of citizens, the Taiwan question. China is not unique in these matters, and other countries whose hands are not squeaky clean could look to taking care of their own houses before focusing on China’s issues.

    The rise of the East and the decline of the West would appear to be an unfolding and irreversible phenomenon.

13. Yes Denis, He did, ‘tho it is not known what commitments were made in our name. Similarly the Port of Darwin lease to Chinese agencies that caused apoplectic fits from PM Morrison, our ADF and the Pentagon in USA. Strange indeed.

14. Hi, thank you for the article. It would appear that the Western-style democracy model, with its combative parties in Parliament while overseen by a third-party eg monarchy, and supported by capitalist market systems, is deeply if not irreversibly flawed. Even though our ‘representational democracy’ system is supposed to ensure the ‘people’ have influence on politics, it is billionaires and corporations that appear to have greater access and influence. People only come into the equation at election time.

    Overall, I’m not convinced that Western democracies, with capitalism/markets/profits at their core, can ever be salvaged in comparison to the Chinese model of ‘whole-process’ democracy with Chinese characteristics

15. There is a Chinese saying (remember Bruce Lee): “A full glass, though open, can’t receive fresh water”.

    To understand the Chinese government model and system, Westerners need more than just an open mind; they may need to let go of the Western way of thinking and value system.

    Remember what JFK once said: “Don’t ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country”

    The Chinese have followed this doctrine since King Wen of Zhou (1152-1056 BC), known as the civilising King. Every child in every Chinese family is brought up to learn to respect their parents and to contribute to the family (filial piety).

    If everyone in a nation has the right attitude (to give instead of to take), all the rules, regulations and the whole system they create will be beneficial to their nation’s development. i.e. eliminating the poverty of 800 million people as observed by Patricia. And as leefe says, it all depends on the people who operate the system.

16. Canguro, I think one of the biggest gaps in understanding comes from how Tibet, Xinjiang, surveillance, and Taiwan are reported in the West.

    Xinjiang & the Uyghurs: What is almost never explained is that the Chinese government’s actions in Xinjiang came after a wave of violent terrorist attacks linked to extremist separatist groups. These attacks killed both Han Chinese and Uyghur civilians. The measures introduced, increased security, anti-extremism programs, job training, and economic investment, were aimed at protecting all people in Xinjiang from further violence. Unfortunately, these policies have been heavily distorted in some Western media as “oppression” of the Uyghur population, when in reality they were intended to restore stability and improve livelihoods.

    Tibet: Investment in transport, healthcare, and education has raised living standards significantly, even if political disagreements remain.

    Mass surveillance: This is often portrayed in the West as purely oppressive, yet it is also one of the reasons China is one of the safest countries in the world. Violent crime and many forms of anti-social behaviour are rare. Public spaces, transport systems, and city streets are closely monitored, which not only deters crime but also allows for quick responses to emergencies, accidents, and disasters. Similar systems exist in many Western nations, but in China the scale and integration mean residents, including women, children, and the elderly, can move around freely and confidently, even late at night. From my own experience visiting China, one thing that stood out is that ordinary police do not carry firearms and have a far less threatening presence than police in Australia. The overall atmosphere is calm and non-confrontational, reinforcing that sense of public safety.

    Taiwan: This remains a sovereignty dispute rooted in the unresolved Chinese civil war. For Beijing, it’s a question of national unity, not simply ideology.

    These issues are complex, and while debate is healthy, it’s important to recognise when narratives have been simplified or politicised.

17. Whilst China years ago dealt with its fiefdoms and warlords, opting for unification and betterment, the ‘west’ has merely glossed over via a thin veil of ‘democracy’.

    Underlying ‘western democracy’ are the predominant influences of land barons, rent seekers, profiteers, (agglomerating) corporations, and self-serving religious propagandists. And rather than temper these influencers to facilitate universal equity and improvement, the ‘western’ democratic process through a plethora of loopholed statutes, and exclusive and secretive parlaying with them, embedded them as dominating self-serving power-brokers, and in concealement, entered a cycle of corruption. Then, because of that concealment and corruption, assisted their hegemonic dominance via coercive police and military to defend and spread the indefensible via various forms of conquest. For example, as T-Rump recently enacted, turning the National Guard against the populace, and renaming the Dept of Defense, the Dept of War.

    Whilst to a large extent, in antiquity, dominance and rule was imposed by cruelty and fear – ‘You’re either with us or agin us’ it operated by threat and bloody demonstrations. In the 15th century, after understanding the world wasn’t flat, it was ordained that the Greko-Roman ‘scythian-type’ conquest of the world was OK, or even desirable. World-wide oppression, subjugation, thievery and press-ganging in the ‘western democratic’ model flourished as did the influencers. The era of imperia began and ran its arrogant course.

    China opened to them and was drugged, duped, bombarded and ring-fenced, so it closed itself off, made its own errors, revived and built massive defenses.

    Patently, the cruel western imperia under the thin veil of ‘western’ democracy is crumbling rapidly under the weight of its influencers and cost of conquest. Being splintered and ethically and economically bankrupt, all it has left is propaganda focused against those that no longer ascribe to its brutal and chaotic wiles, and now even the propaganda is rapidly failing.

    Whereas China has the support of 90% of its populous, who feel supported, safe and secure, and has accumulated alliances and affiliates of many countries comprising 80% of the Eurasian landmass, at least half of the world’s population and 36% of global GDP on a price parity basis – dwarfing any other global alliances, which are shrinking, whilst China’s are growing.

    Seems to be a no-brainer, soft-power through betterment vs hard-power through brutal coercion.

    All that, with the global south, once extorted by the ‘west’, looking on. In particular Africa, whose population is set to burgeon from 1.5 billion to more than 3.3 billion this century (>30% world population), whilst others, particularly the ‘west’ shrink.