[infamia]

> Despite not having elections for higher representatives (China does have elections for lower-level representatives) and independent judiciary

If there is no accountability at the top (and there clearly isn't), then there is no meaningful accountability at all. Such arrangements provide a veneer of agency, with lower level functionaries and regional governments acting merely as scapegoats when embarrassing situations get out of hand and cannot be suppressed. Likewise, when only one party is allowed to run for "elections", those "elections" by definition are a fraud with no meaningful choices.

[FooBarWidget]

That is certainly one way to view it, but it's not the only one. China is all about outcome legitimacy (actually governing well = legitimate, regardless of the selection process) as opposed to process legitimacy (legitimacy is tied to how officials are selected). Many Chinese prefer meritocracy because it makes it harder for bad leaders to get to the top in the first place. Many think it's backwards to oust a bad president after the fact. In China, it takes 30 years of political career to become the president. Of course meritocracy has its problems, as has democracies in which the top leader is directly elected. They both have their own pros and cons. There are examples which are accountable in the Chinese system but not in western democracies, and vice-versa.

> Likewise, when only one party is allowed to run for "elections", those "elections" by definition are a fraud with no meaningful choices.

In China, parties don't run for elections, people do. People from other parties (China has 8) are elected. At present, there are 152000+ members from other parties that hold positions in People's Congresses (China's representation body) as deputies. [1]

Parties don't form adversarial, power-balancing relationships with each other. The existance of other parties are not used to put up a fake display of western-style multiple-party elections. Instead, the system works completely differently, trying to push participants towards unity, even if only outwardly.

> and regional governments acting merely as scapegoats

Given the meritocratic system, in which officials are promoted based on KPIs, this is not a logical thing to do. Scapegoating your own subordinates undermines the system's selection process of a future leader. Even Xi himself started at the village level, working his way up to county, city and province level over a 30-year period.

It is also illogical given that China's governance system is highly decentralized. The central government doesn't make all the policies, a lot are left to local governments. They aren't mere puppets that follow instructions. That wouldn't even be scalable given the country's size.

---

China's system is distinct, and different from both actual western systems and from western imagined dystopias or fake democracies.

You can argue that only the western democratic way is acceptable. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree. I subscribe to Kishore Mahbubani's thought. He's ex-UN Security Council head, ex-Singapore diplomat. He says that the west should accept that not all countries will become carbon copies of the west. He says that the west should accept a world with a diverse range of governance systems.

[infamia]

> In China, parties don't run for elections, people do. People from other parties (China has 8) are elected. At present, there are 152000+ members from other parties that hold positions in People's Congresses (China's representation body) as deputies.

This is sophistry considering that out of the one group of representatives that are elected directly, those candidates are only allowed to run at the pleasure of Chinese Communist Party (the "CCP") leadership. Saying there are eight parties, when one party controls the candidate selection process is again just thin a veneer slapped on a defacto single-party system. It is worth noting it is impossible for the populace to determine if a leader is "actually governing well" considering the heavy restrictions on information, free speech, and a non-existent free press.

> You can argue that only the western democratic way is acceptable. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree.

I made no such claim about democracies. My main point is that the CCP is objectively repressive and despotic on a scale, consistency, and breadth not yet seen over such a sustained period of time (i.e. Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, One Child Policy, The Great Firewall of China, Hong Kong, etc.). Therefore, the CCP regime is utterly loathsome from a humanitarian perspective.

[ashwagary]

>objectively repressive and despotic on a scale, consistency, and breadth not yet seen over such a sustained period of time

Not familiar with Chinese governance but on your last point, if we take the worst actions of the US Democrat and Republican party, don't they also have a horrific track record over the last 70+ years, both domestically and internationally (mass murder in Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia, Japan, Afghanistan, South America, and so on..., mass surveillance, assassinations, racist laws, mass incarceration, etc)?

It would be hard to claim that just because we segment the atrocities into 4-8 year periods, these parties (which are united during the execution of much of these atrocities) are not as objectively repressive and despotic as the Chinese variety.

Where scale is concerned, we get equivalent scale by operating internationally while the CCP operates primarily domestically.