In the last decade, international attention has focused on the People’s Republic of China, a country with a governance model officially referred to as democracy with Chinese characteristics. This model has been in the spotlight not only because of its rapid economic growth but also because of its challenge to the liberal democracy that many countries have embraced. Observing this phenomenon, it is important to explore how China’s democratic model can provide a new perspective on the principles of liberal democracy. This article will discuss the fundamental differences between the two models, as well as the potential lessons to be drawn from China’s experience.
Basic Differences Between China’s Democracy Model and Liberal Democracy
The liberal democratic model adopted in Western countries is generally based on the principle of separation of powers and protection of human rights. With regular elections, multiparty systems, and freedom of speech and assembly, the main goal of liberal democracy is to create a government that is responsive and accountable to the people. However, the idea of democracy itself varies widely, and no single culture or country can claim exclusive ownership of it.
On the other hand, China’s system of government is more centralized and managed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In this model, the integrity and stability of the state are considered more important than individual freedom. For example, strict law enforcement and social control policies, despite being criticized by many internationally, are seen as efforts to maintain social harmony and security. This reflects the Confucian view of the importance of education and morality in society to create stability, which is very different from the individualistic approach often found in liberal countries.
Although China has experienced some early experiments with democracy, including the establishment of a parliament and local-level elections, its political system remains very different from the western liberal democratic model. The press in China functions as an instrument of the state, in contrast to the role of the press in liberal democracies, which acts as an independent watchdog over the government. This contrast shows how values such as freedom of speech and the system of checks and balances common in liberal democracies have no place in China’s current political framework (Markin, 2024).
A democracy with Chinese characteristics, while different from Western democracy, is still designed to respond to the needs of its people. Liberal democracy is usually synonymous with free elections, freedom of the press, and separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. However, China consciously rejects some of these basic principles not because it does not value the people, but because it has a different cultural foundation, history, and governance strategy.
One of the main reasons why a liberal democratic system in the context of free elections has not been adopted in China is because of the differences in its political history and culture. In Chinese tradition, particularly influenced by Confucianism, social stability and harmony are favored over open political competition. In this view, what is more important is not who comes to power through elections, but how leaders can perform their duties ethically and responsibly. The ideal leader is wise, educated, and focused on the interests of society, not on popularity alone.
It is true that China restricts the freedom of the press and civic organizations, but this is done within the framework of maintaining stability and preventing the spread of information that could divide society. In today’s digital world, the spread of hoaxes, hate speech, and extremism can grow quickly. The Chinese government sees information control as part of the state’s responsibility to maintain public order. This does not mean that people are ignorant or unable to criticize, but that criticism is channeled through more structured channels.
China adheres to the doctrine of unity of power rather than separation of powers. This means that all government institutions are under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). To some Westerners, this sounds like a closed or authoritarian system, but in practice, it allows for high decision-making efficiency and political stability. For example, in a liberal democratic system, there is often political deadlock between different parties, which can hamper public policy. In China, important decisions can be made more quickly and implemented consistently, especially in dealing with major issues such as poverty, pandemics, or infrastructure development. Although there are no direct elections at the central level, China still operates a consultative mechanism called consultative democracy.
The government actively seeks input from citizens, organizations, and academics before making policies. This shows that the people still have a channel to express their voice, even though it is not through a multi-party electoral system like in Western countries. China’s characteristic democracy, while different from western democracies, is still designed to respond to the needs of its people. Liberal democracy is usually synonymous with free elections, freedom of the press, and separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. However, China consciously rejects some of these basic principles not because it does not value the people, but because it has a different cultural foundation, history, and governance strategy.
In terms of economic and social development, China’s model has proven successful. In recent decades, hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, and China has become one of the world’s largest economic powers. If liberal democracy is forced in, there is a risk that the concentration of power that now underpins political stability and economic progress will be disrupted. Democracy that is too fast and not suited to the local context can cause instability, as has happened in several other countries that have experienced failed political transitions.
The liberal democratic model is also not free from weaknesses. Western countries themselves face problems such as political polarization, covert political corruption through campaign financing, and the influence of money and media that do not always support the interests of the people. China has avoided these pitfalls by creating a government structure that focuses on performance and meritocracy. In the CCP, leaders are selected through a long process of assessment and promotion, based on merit and ability, not popularity.
Moreover, the success of a governance model depends not only on its form but also on the effectiveness of its implementation in meeting people’s key needs and maintaining national stability. As John C. Reitz argues, “Liberal democracy is not the only path to good governance.” Democracy is not one-size-fits-all. While liberal democracies emphasize freedom and popular participation, models such as China’s show that a more centralized system focused on economic development and political stability can also achieve rapid growth and significant improvements in welfare. Each country has different social, cultural, and historical contexts, so the choice of the optimal system of government should be tailored to support sustainable progress and ensure that people feel protected and accommodated in decision-making, without being tied to a single, universal model.
The Importance of Contextual Understanding in Building Good Governance
In closing, it is important to remember that there is no absolutely perfect governance model or one single solution that fits every society. Every country and community has its own unique cultural background, history, social structure, and economic challenges, which significantly affect the way it chooses to govern itself and meet the needs of its people. Therefore, critical reflection on various systems of governance, be they liberal democracies that emphasize individual freedom and community participation or more centralized models such as the Chinese system that prioritizes stability and long-term economic development, is essential in building a comprehensive understanding. This allows us to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of each system, as well as consider how certain components can be adapted to meet local contexts and needs.
Sustained and respectful dialogue between countries with different political and cultural backgrounds will be key in addressing future global challenges. Today’s world is increasingly connected and complex, and challenges such as climate change, economic inequality, cross-border migration, and cybersecurity demand effective international collaboration. In this context, opening minds to learning about different governance systems can be a pathway to inspire innovation and improvement. Through the exchange of experiences and knowledge, countries can adopt best practices that suit their own context and avoid the trap of rigid political dogma.
By continuing the constructive conversation between these models of governance, we are not only preparing ourselves for current and future challenges but also strengthening the foundations of an adaptive and inclusive democracy. A system of governance that is able to adapt quickly to changing times, while ensuring fairness and broad participation, will be key in creating a prosperous and stable society. This philosophy of inclusiveness and diversity, if applied wisely, will help strengthen mutual trust and solidarity among nations and build a more peaceful and stable world amid the evolving dynamics of globalization.
