The ‘myth’ of Western-style democracy is losing its appeal even in the West (China Global Times editorial)

[Feroze]

What did Don Mattrick do ?

Don Mattrick made the shit xbox. Xbox One was shit compared to the PS4 back then.

 

[sutton9999]

@ety ,

Yes China overcame USA in GDP PPP. I am waiting for this Asian century to begin Insh'Allah.

Surpass or Not will only happen after the war in East Asia.

 

[kankan326]

Of course, I wouldnt like to see a war in Cuba, it wont be the solution. But if it would have some opportunity to a peaceful regime change with good USA relations, I guess they would develop a lot, with the huge amount of rich Cubans who live next to them in Miami.

If Cuba abandons communism either peacefully or militarily, it would become an ordinary Latin country that is too far from heaven, too close to America. Communism brings order to Cuba, which is latin American countries need most.

No country became any better after color revolution conducted by US. Cuba won't be an exception. It is US you should blame for Cuba's poverty. Not communism.

 

[flyingorca]

It may not be the perfect system, but democracy still works if votes are respected, as shown in the U.S. just today, when the Republicans were punished.

No other system has proven as resilient and adaptable to change.

Dont get the gora invented democracy worship by many Pakistanis. Every nation has its own unique situation where you cant just copy past someone else system just because it works there. Just like you can not copy past billionaire personal lifestyle inorder to become rich like them.

 

[Feroze]

Dont get the gora invented democracy worship by many Pakistanis. Every nation has its own unique situation where you cant just copy past someone else system just because it works there. Just like you can not copy past billionaire personal lifestyle inorder to become rich like them.

Exactly Pakistan should be an Islamic One Party System. Enough of Liberal democracy bullshit.

Follow Imperial Japanese slogan: "Rich country, Strong military."

 

[Michael]

talk about how big decisions (like wars or big economy things) are taken in USA and China, it's too much guess. Really we dont know for sure much about it.

how lobbies and bankers influence politicians in such big decisions in USA? We dont have a clue. Most of public information is BS.

This information is actually public; it’s just that you won’t see it in English-language media—they have chosen, selectively, not to report it.

China’s national strategic planning and the decisions of its top leadership are essentially determined through the Beidaihe meetings.

The Standing Committee of the Politburo serves as the supreme decision-making body for major day-to-day national affairs.

Exactly Pakistan should be an Islamic One Party System. Enough of Liberal democracy bullshit.

Follow Imperial Japanese slogan: "Rich country, Strong military."

What matters is not whether there is a one-party or multi-party system, nor whether it is a so-called "democratic" or "centralized" system.

Rather, the question is: how can the entire nation be brought together in unity?

BTW.
China’s political system is not suited to Pakistan. Pakistan needs to find a political system that fits its own circumstances, rather than simply copying the entire system of another country.

 

[ety]

 

[Michael]

Exactly Pakistan should be an Islamic One Party System. Enough of Liberal democracy bullshit.

Let me share a rule unique to Chinese politics—see if Pakistan could ever implement something like it.

In China, once you reach the provincial or ministerial level (equivalent to the chief minister of a province in Pakistan or a minister in the central government), you lose your eligibility to be an ordinary citizen for life! (There is an exit mechanism for officials below the provincial-ministerial level, but no such mechanism exists for officials at or above the provincial-ministerial level.)

1. You no longer have the right or the freedom to "opt out." Laws and regulations do not permit you to voluntarily withdraw.
2. From this point forward, you are not permitted to keep your personal passport in your own possession. Any travel abroad, for any reason, requires special authorization from the relevant authorities. Even within China, you are not free to travel as you please—whether you are currently employed or retired, you lack personal freedom, and any travel must be reported and approved.
3. Your private social activities are subject to close monitoring by law enforcement and oversight bodies. Even receiving a bag of apples from your hometown—sent by a relative—must be reported.
4. You and your family members are subject to comprehensive, lifelong surveillance by law enforcement and oversight authorities. The professional activities of your spouse and children are also subject to extremely stringent restrictions and vetting.
5. Even after retirement, you remain accountable for any professional misconduct or criminal acts committed during your tenure. This is a system of lifelong accountability.

In short, once you reach this level, many of your rights as a citizen are stripped away for the rest of your life. You no longer belong to yourself; you belong to the state. Of course, in return, the state provides you with lifelong security, ensuring you never have to worry about your livelihood.

If Pakistan were to also implement similar rules, do you think its government officials and the Pakistani people would be able to accept them?

 

[Viet]

If it were South Vietnam who annexed North Vietnam, Vietnam today would be another Philippines. Which is very unfortunate for your country. You should thank Ho Chi Minh who brought communism to Vietnam.

Even Cuba with communism is different than other Latin American countries. Where are full of crimes, voilence, gangsters. Cuba is a like an Asian country in Lantin Ameica. Philippines is like a Lantin American country in Asia.

Ho’s goal is to end the war, kicking out the foreigners, uniting Vietnam under a banner. It happened under communism because USSR and China and the East block is communists.

If China still communist today you would be another Cuba. If just holding communist ideology North Vietnam would never have won the war.
The reality is only money and power matters.
South Vietnam was corrupt, its military incompetent, the entire economy relying on US support. Industry, manufacturing is almost zero.

 

[ety]

Ho’s goal is to end the war, kicking out the foreigners, uniting Vietnam under a banner. It happened under communism because USSR and China and the East block is communists.

If China still communist today you would be another Cuba. If just holding communist ideology North Vietnam would never have won the war.
The reality is only money and power matters.
South Vietnam was corrupt, its military incompetent, the entire economy relying on US support. Industry, manufacturing is almost zero.

China is still Socialist or Communist in ideology. Its economy is free market or mixed. China would not be another Cuba because of its sheer size and far distance from US threat that leaves much room to do what it chooses unlike Cuba that is under constant US threat and constraint, Cuba has no choice unless it wants to become a US vassal.

 

[Viet]

China is still Socialist or Communist in ideology. Its economy is free market or mixed. China would not be another Cuba because of its sheer size and far distance from US threat that leaves much room to do what it chooses unlike Cuba that is under constant US threat and constraint, Cuba has no choice unless it wants to become a US vassal.

Yes, China is communist but its business is capitalism. Otherwise you still drive bicycles, exports not in trillions USD today. The only thing that saves Cuba is copying China or Vietnam. They can keep communism ideology. The US elite really don’t care of ideology. Only of money.

 

[peagle]

The ‘myth’ of Western-style democracy is losing its appeal even in the West: Global Times editorial
By Global Times
Published: Nov 04, 2026 12:09 AM

Demonstrators face off with law enforcement officers during a protest in Paris, France, on October 17, 2026. Photo: Xinhua


The most fundamental and significant standard for evaluating whether a democracy is good is whether it can consistently provide the populace with stable livelihoods, clear expectations, and hopeful prospects.

A poll released by the Pew Research Center this year shows that public satisfaction with how democracy works in their own countries is declining dramatically. Dissatisfaction rate stands at 69 percent in France, 68 percent in Spain, 62 percent in Italy, 47 percent in Poland and 69 percent in the US. In fact, sustained tracking by several other prominent Western polling organizations, including Ipsos and Gallup, points to the same trend: Dissatisfaction with the functioning of democracy in Western countries is evolving from isolated discontent into a widespread public sentiment.

This dissatisfaction is not merely reflected in polling figures; it is also visible on the streets across the Western world. Each Western country has its own set of problems. Some are plagued by frequent changes in political leadership, while others remain mired in the challenges of immigrant integration. Some are grappling with the painful effects of the energy transition and the steady decline of traditional industries, while others are struggling to contain increasingly intense social divisions. Yet polling data reveal a common thread running through public sentiment: More and more people no longer believe their governments genuinely represent the interests of ordinary citizens, or that existing political systems are capable of delivering meaningful change.

Calls for fighting corruption, strengthening accountability, making public policies more responsive and ensuring that ordinary people's voices are genuinely heard have become shared demands across party lines and social classes in Western societies.

Many once believed that voting was the entirety of democracy: As long as electoral procedures were followed, the outcome was legitimate and the popular will would naturally find its way into policymaking. But a growing number of people in Western countries are now realizing that voting is more like a periodic ritual. Making a choice once every few years does not guarantee that people will continue to have a say in public affairs in their daily lives between elections.

According to a relevant OECD survey released this year, 68 percent of respondents believe that voting in an election has a significant or moderate influence on what government does, but only 31 percent are confident that people like them have a say in what government does. When people seeking to have their concerns addressed find that their votes often fail to translate into policy responses, their confidence in democracy naturally erodes in the face of reality.

Current discussions among some Western elites about "what has gone wrong with democracy" often veer toward two one-sided explanations: either blaming all the problems on agitation by populists or attributing public dissatisfaction to a "loss of patience" with democracy. Both explanations evade a basic fact: The dissatisfaction with democracy in Western countries does not stem from misunderstanding, but from the failure of existing democratic institutions to respond effectively to public demands and meet societal needs.

Following the end of the Cold War, Western countries experienced a period of relative social stability. At that time, the legitimacy of Western democracy did not derive from the so-called "end of history," but rested on the West's dominant advantages across multiple fields. As globalization accelerated, capital mobility increased, and industrial production was restructured, Western governments found their ability to redistribute wealth increasingly constrained by systemic pressures.

Meanwhile, institutional corruption has increasingly permeated political processes, further exposing the inherent flaws of Western democratic systems.

At its core, the dissatisfaction among Western populations is not a denial of democratic values, but rather a profound disappointment with the practice of democracy in the West. Some political parties in the West are increasingly leaning their policymaking toward capital interests, while the livelihood issues of ordinary people are being set aside. Electoral politics is gradually deteriorating into a power struggle between different elite factions, with partisan conflicts, veto politics, and policy flip-flops becoming the norm. The gap between political promises and reality continues to widen. The discontent from the grassroots is continuously questioning the practical adaptability of Western democratic systems, sowing further uncertainty for the future trajectory of Western politics.

For most countries, the truly beneficial insight from the Western reflection on "what has gone wrong with democracy" is that there has never been a one-size-fits-all institutional form, nor is there a democratic model that can operate independently from its local soil and the genuine needs of its people. If votes are long treated as the entirety of democracy, if party interests are placed above the public good, and if slogans replace actual governance, then no matter how glossy the institutional facade, it will ultimately be discarded amid the repeated disappointments of the populace.

The ‘myth’ of Western-style democracy is losing its appeal even in the West: Global Times editorial - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

Democracy without richness is useless.
Richness without democracy, it's a lot more tolerable.

Yet it's western democracy which has delivered the most for it's citizens and continues to be the ideal, even in twisted forms.
I don't think a Chinese emperor was ever elected by votes.

 

[kankan326]

If China still communist today you would be another Cuba. If just holding communist ideology North Vietnam would never have won the war.

Big part of China's economy is Communist. Land, bank, communication, rail way, water are owned by state.

In China's text book, we were told China is in "primary stage of socialism" because of current low productive force. When someday productive force is high enough, communism will come. At first I wondered how could that happen. But now AI is likely to do all works for human beings. It seems communism will come.

 

[Leclerc]

Big part of China's economy is Communist. Land, bank, communication, rail way, water are owned by state.

In China's text book, we were told China is in "primary stage of socialism" because of current low productive force. When someday productive force is high enough, communism will come. At first I wonder how could that happen. But now AI is likely to do all works for human beings. It seems communism will come.

Sorry for having deleted my post btw. I am yet to read my first book about modern China and when I do that, I will certainly know more.

 

[Leclerc]

Big part of China's economy is Communist. Land, bank, communication, rail way, water are owned by state.

In China's text book, we were told China is in "primary stage of socialism" because of current low productive force. When someday productive force is high enough, communism will come. At first I wondered how could that happen. But now AI is likely to do all works for human beings. It seems communism will come.

Socialism originally meant (and still means) an economic system in which private ownership of the means of production has been abolished.

If you don't call German ordoliberalism and France under dirigisme socialist, you shouldnt call China socialist either.