You said your phase as if the reason Chinese people don't have natural rights is because they don't live in a democracy, which is why I compared to US. Granted, we're much closer to democracy than them, but in a more strict sense, we're also not a democracy.
We are a representative democracy and a republic. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.
When people say things like "US is a republic, not a democracy", they're using the archaic definition of "democracy" from 200 years ago. Modern English has a different definition.
I think that "archaic" definition still has plenty of modern salience. Whenever someone is complaining that a majority of the people support xyz or wanted so-and-so as President but didn't get it, they are appealing to "democracy". Whenever someone responds by saying that's just fine and that the point of the system isn't to translate majority wills into policy, they are appealing to a notion of republicanism.
The definition of republic has held up. It's still true that we are a republic, even under modern English. Some call it a democratic republic but notice no one calls it a republican democracy.
We have many Democratic elements. We elect our Representatives, many times we elect our own laws, and we even indirectly elect businesses, voting with the wallet. But yes, generally speaking we live in a republic hybrid, for good reason.
Electing representatives to manage the government is the defining part of a republic. When citizens are voting on laws themselves, they are practicing actual democracy. That's relatively rare in the U.S. and it also only happens at the state and local level.