Meanwhile Brazil went back to their last progressive president after Bolsonaro’s failure, and Bolivia has foiled two attempted coups by reactionary forces. Venezuela and Cuba also remain strong, with the latter being possibly the most democratic country on this planet.
In Africa, the most notable “democracies” that have been overthrown in recent memory were all client states of western countries whose previous governments cannot in good faith be said to have been representative of the people.
The Middle East is pretty bad, what with Israel going full fash in the past year. It’s not like they haven’t been edging for decades, though.
But in Asia, the only country that might be more democratic than Cuba is China, and they’re as strong as they’ve ever been. Since that’s 1/5th of the population of this planet living under one of its premier democratic governments, I’d say the prognosis for global democracy is fine.
So the most Democratic countries on this planet according to you are cuba and china. Both of them are 1-party states, and China is straight up a surveillance state. Ok lol.
Does china pay you or are you spreading their bullshit propaganda for free?
I’m not a US citizen and I don’t remember mentioning it in this thread.
That’s not what one-party system means. The US is in principle a many-party system, but because of how their system works it means that voting anything that isn’t one of the 2 top parties means throwing away your vote. Making it a functionally 2-party system, which is way more democratic than a 1-party system.
Cuba’s democracy is actually a 0-party state. Candidates stand on their own for election, and most politics are run through local orgs and workplaces. They recently concluded one of the most democratic exercises in the history of the Western Hemisphere, when through a series of local referendums they amended their constitution. No lobbyists, no special interests, no controlled media - an almost totally pure example of a government run by citizens, for citizens.
As for China, the Chinese people have something like 90%+ satisfaction with their central government, as measured by independent observers. The reason for this is their commitment to Full Process Democracy, which means that your democratic participation in the system doesn’t end with your vote for a representative - low and mid level officials are required to constantly be polling their constituencies, and they can be dismissed (either by a recall election or by higher ups) if they don’t act in accordance with the desires of the people they’re supposed to represent.
Furthermore, China’s ruling party may be one party on paper, but it is “one party” that is made up of over one hundred million members. It has internal factions that range from neoliberal to anarcho-communist, and it is very intentionally embedded into every single Chinese institution. Most of the service that the CPC provides to the people is provided at a local or even individual level - for example, a Chinese worker’s equivalent to a union leader is a coworker who’s with the party, where if you have problems with your boss you can get it resolved through them.
I guess not having freedom of press and a very censored internet is an easy way to have the population like the government. You could feed people worms if you don’t let them know there’s other food out there, they’ll like you if you tell them out there not even worms exist.
The people of Hong Kong absolutely LOVED having their democracy suppressed by china’s (#1 best democracy of the world!!!).
I guess nobody even asked the Uyghurs how they feel about their government. Or they’re <10% of Chinese population so who cares, they don’t need democracy.
Do you think that there isn’t independent press in China? You’re not allowed to spread baseless conspiracy theories, but you can express dissatisfaction with the government or its policies. This 'aint the Cultural Revolution.
Hong Kong’s system is still entirely intact under the one country two systems principal. China has shown more restraint in reintegrating it into the national system than pretty much any other country that has undergone something similar, like when East Germany was plundered and deindustrialized by West Germany.
The Harvard study was a study of all Chinese people, not sure why you think that Uyghurs would be excluded. They stopped collecting that data because, frankly, they didn’t like the results they were getting, which is that China’s government is successful and that the people living under it aren’t trampled and downtrodden and miserable. Meanwhile in the “free” west, our population dutifully changes its opinion on foreign countries when it’s commanded to by the ruling class.
Meanwhile Brazil went back to their last progressive president after Bolsonaro’s failure, and Bolivia has foiled two attempted coups by reactionary forces. Venezuela and Cuba also remain strong, with the latter being possibly the most democratic country on this planet.
In Africa, the most notable “democracies” that have been overthrown in recent memory were all client states of western countries whose previous governments cannot in good faith be said to have been representative of the people.
The Middle East is pretty bad, what with Israel going full fash in the past year. It’s not like they haven’t been edging for decades, though.
But in Asia, the only country that might be more democratic than Cuba is China, and they’re as strong as they’ve ever been. Since that’s 1/5th of the population of this planet living under one of its premier democratic governments, I’d say the prognosis for global democracy is fine.
So the most Democratic countries on this planet according to you are cuba and china. Both of them are 1-party states, and China is straight up a surveillance state. Ok lol.
Does china pay you or are you spreading their bullshit propaganda for free?
The US is effectively a one-party system as well, because the rest of the world gets fucked over either way you guys vote.
I’m not a US citizen and I don’t remember mentioning it in this thread.
That’s not what one-party system means. The US is in principle a many-party system, but because of how their system works it means that voting anything that isn’t one of the 2 top parties means throwing away your vote. Making it a functionally 2-party system, which is way more democratic than a 1-party system.
If you think a two party system is “way more” democratic than a one party system, there’s nothing else worth discussing with you.
Cuba’s democracy is actually a 0-party state. Candidates stand on their own for election, and most politics are run through local orgs and workplaces. They recently concluded one of the most democratic exercises in the history of the Western Hemisphere, when through a series of local referendums they amended their constitution. No lobbyists, no special interests, no controlled media - an almost totally pure example of a government run by citizens, for citizens.
As for China, the Chinese people have something like 90%+ satisfaction with their central government, as measured by independent observers. The reason for this is their commitment to Full Process Democracy, which means that your democratic participation in the system doesn’t end with your vote for a representative - low and mid level officials are required to constantly be polling their constituencies, and they can be dismissed (either by a recall election or by higher ups) if they don’t act in accordance with the desires of the people they’re supposed to represent.
Furthermore, China’s ruling party may be one party on paper, but it is “one party” that is made up of over one hundred million members. It has internal factions that range from neoliberal to anarcho-communist, and it is very intentionally embedded into every single Chinese institution. Most of the service that the CPC provides to the people is provided at a local or even individual level - for example, a Chinese worker’s equivalent to a union leader is a coworker who’s with the party, where if you have problems with your boss you can get it resolved through them.
I guess not having freedom of press and a very censored internet is an easy way to have the population like the government. You could feed people worms if you don’t let them know there’s other food out there, they’ll like you if you tell them out there not even worms exist.
The people of Hong Kong absolutely LOVED having their democracy suppressed by china’s (#1 best democracy of the world!!!).
I guess nobody even asked the Uyghurs how they feel about their government. Or they’re <10% of Chinese population so who cares, they don’t need democracy.
Do you think that there isn’t independent press in China? You’re not allowed to spread baseless conspiracy theories, but you can express dissatisfaction with the government or its policies. This 'aint the Cultural Revolution.
Hong Kong’s system is still entirely intact under the one country two systems principal. China has shown more restraint in reintegrating it into the national system than pretty much any other country that has undergone something similar, like when East Germany was plundered and deindustrialized by West Germany.
The Harvard study was a study of all Chinese people, not sure why you think that Uyghurs would be excluded. They stopped collecting that data because, frankly, they didn’t like the results they were getting, which is that China’s government is successful and that the people living under it aren’t trampled and downtrodden and miserable. Meanwhile in the “free” west, our population dutifully changes its opinion on foreign countries when it’s commanded to by the ruling class.