And in this one by the European union they rank themselves lower or equal to western countries. As well as ranking low on things like freedom of speech and separation of power.
That survey acknowledges that different countries see democracy differently, both in what it is and what the purpose of democracy is. The EU, for example, says it’s about “protecting individual rights and freedoms,” while China says it’s about “improving living standards and well-being.”
The kicker is that they specifically ask questions surrounding how well a country abides by liberal, capitalist democracy while not asking how well a country abides by socialist democracy! As you admit, they focus on concepts like “separation of powers,” or “freedom of the private press,” or “political pluralism,” as well as “peaceful transition of power.” This fundamentally is meant to disqualify socialist concepts of democracy, focused on cooperation, cohesion, social unity, rule by the common people, and limiting of the powers of the wealthy over society.
Ultimately, both polls are accurate. What’s dishonest is the EU poll framing democracy purely in a liberal manner. It isn’t a survey about democracy, it’s a survey about how well a country abides by Eurocentric, liberal democracy. This isn’t an example of polls conflicting each other, when polled in a manner that reflects how well society represents the interests of the common person, the poll I cited is a much better reflection.
But that’s none of those things are democracy. Democracy is rule by the majority. Whether you get individual rights, social protection, or something else is all dependent on who makes up that majority.
Sure, the PRC has rule by the majority. It’s definitionally democratic. The EU poll specifically tested for liberal models of democracy designed to give more freedom for capitalists and work against social cohesion.
I apologise but my media literacy is so bad I can’t find where press is even mentioned in the document. The closest I could find is freedom of speech but those are two different things.
As you admit, they focus on concepts like “separation of powers,” or “freedom of the private press,” or “political pluralism,” as well as “peaceful transition of power.” This fundamentally is meant to disqualify socialist concepts of democracy, focused on cooperation, cohesion, social unity, rule by the common people, and limiting of the powers of the wealthy over society.
How do those “fundamentally disqualify” democracies that focus on “cooperation, cohesion, social unity, rule by the common people and limiting the powers of the wealthy over society”?
I would have thought that separation of powers makes it easier to limit the power of the wealthy. Does that concept impede cohesion, cooperation, social unity or rule by the common people in any way? How can the common people have any chance to rule if you don’t have courts that make sure the law is upheld by the powerful?
In my very limited worldview political pluralism plays a pivotal role in establishing a functioning socialist democracy. Yes, having many differing opinions on any given topic slows the decision making process down. However, how can you expect the marginalized to be represented in any way if you don’t have a party representing them? But I guess if you educate your people properly then even in a population of 1.4 billion people everyone’s political opinions can be represented by a single party.
As for peaceful transition of power, how is that bad exactly?
Since we’re cherry picking questions here, how do “government transparency”, " freedom of speech" or “rule of law” prohibit the rule of the common people? I would think that they only help strengthen the common people? How are they at odds with any of the other socialist concepts you mentioned?
Please excuse my stupid questions, as you mentioned, my media literacy is terrible so I don’t even understand these really basic concepts.
In the section on how democratic a country is, it says “freedom of the press,” which is taken to mean freedom of the private press as that’s what isn’t very high in China.
As for why things like allowing the private press to way whatever they want even as they are funded by the wealthy, political pluralism, etc, the concept of a state that changes hands constantly or is fractured and led by factions is more of a liberal thing. Socialist countries tend to have one major party and perhaps a few other special interest parties, because the goal is unity and cohesion.
That doesn’t mean there’s no room for discussion either, in fact that becomes far more important because it doesn’t become a party v party issue but one that anyone can give their input on. Same with separation of powers, there is room for specialization, but the idea that government needs to be hostile to itself to function is more liberal.
“Peaceful transition of power” in the context of the PRC means the bourgeoisie can succeed in ousting the CPC, in a country where class struggle is definitely very alive you have to limit that.
Gov transparency isn’t the worst metric, but it also isn’t what makes something democratic. Freedom of speech in the context of a socialist country that still has a capitalist class means freedom for the bourgeoisie to mouth off and destabilize the system, so in practice it’s typically billionaires like Jack Ma that are oppressed. Rule of Law isn’t bad, but it has little to do with democracy.
All in all, all of these are things Europeans describe democracy as, but the very word means “rule by the people,” meaning different countries have different views on what that looks like. The questionaire seems to benefit one where the press is freely dominated by billionaires, where there is endless squabbling in government between parties vying for power, etc while not allowing democratic one party states to be seen as democratic even if the people believe it to represent their interests.
And in this one by the European union they rank themselves lower or equal to western countries. As well as ranking low on things like freedom of speech and separation of power.
Perceived democracy survey by the EU 2025
One survey, be it from the EU or Harvard doesn’t really prove anything. If you want to convince people then you should find a meta analysis.
That survey acknowledges that different countries see democracy differently, both in what it is and what the purpose of democracy is. The EU, for example, says it’s about “protecting individual rights and freedoms,” while China says it’s about “improving living standards and well-being.”
The kicker is that they specifically ask questions surrounding how well a country abides by liberal, capitalist democracy while not asking how well a country abides by socialist democracy! As you admit, they focus on concepts like “separation of powers,” or “freedom of the private press,” or “political pluralism,” as well as “peaceful transition of power.” This fundamentally is meant to disqualify socialist concepts of democracy, focused on cooperation, cohesion, social unity, rule by the common people, and limiting of the powers of the wealthy over society.
Ultimately, both polls are accurate. What’s dishonest is the EU poll framing democracy purely in a liberal manner. It isn’t a survey about democracy, it’s a survey about how well a country abides by Eurocentric, liberal democracy. This isn’t an example of polls conflicting each other, when polled in a manner that reflects how well society represents the interests of the common person, the poll I cited is a much better reflection.
You may need to work on your media literacy.
But that’s none of those things are democracy. Democracy is rule by the majority. Whether you get individual rights, social protection, or something else is all dependent on who makes up that majority.
Sure, the PRC has rule by the majority. It’s definitionally democratic. The EU poll specifically tested for liberal models of democracy designed to give more freedom for capitalists and work against social cohesion.
I apologise but my media literacy is so bad I can’t find where press is even mentioned in the document. The closest I could find is freedom of speech but those are two different things.
How do those “fundamentally disqualify” democracies that focus on “cooperation, cohesion, social unity, rule by the common people and limiting the powers of the wealthy over society”?
I would have thought that separation of powers makes it easier to limit the power of the wealthy. Does that concept impede cohesion, cooperation, social unity or rule by the common people in any way? How can the common people have any chance to rule if you don’t have courts that make sure the law is upheld by the powerful?
In my very limited worldview political pluralism plays a pivotal role in establishing a functioning socialist democracy. Yes, having many differing opinions on any given topic slows the decision making process down. However, how can you expect the marginalized to be represented in any way if you don’t have a party representing them? But I guess if you educate your people properly then even in a population of 1.4 billion people everyone’s political opinions can be represented by a single party.
As for peaceful transition of power, how is that bad exactly?
Since we’re cherry picking questions here, how do “government transparency”, " freedom of speech" or “rule of law” prohibit the rule of the common people? I would think that they only help strengthen the common people? How are they at odds with any of the other socialist concepts you mentioned?
Please excuse my stupid questions, as you mentioned, my media literacy is terrible so I don’t even understand these really basic concepts.
In the section on how democratic a country is, it says “freedom of the press,” which is taken to mean freedom of the private press as that’s what isn’t very high in China.
As for why things like allowing the private press to way whatever they want even as they are funded by the wealthy, political pluralism, etc, the concept of a state that changes hands constantly or is fractured and led by factions is more of a liberal thing. Socialist countries tend to have one major party and perhaps a few other special interest parties, because the goal is unity and cohesion.
That doesn’t mean there’s no room for discussion either, in fact that becomes far more important because it doesn’t become a party v party issue but one that anyone can give their input on. Same with separation of powers, there is room for specialization, but the idea that government needs to be hostile to itself to function is more liberal.
“Peaceful transition of power” in the context of the PRC means the bourgeoisie can succeed in ousting the CPC, in a country where class struggle is definitely very alive you have to limit that.
Gov transparency isn’t the worst metric, but it also isn’t what makes something democratic. Freedom of speech in the context of a socialist country that still has a capitalist class means freedom for the bourgeoisie to mouth off and destabilize the system, so in practice it’s typically billionaires like Jack Ma that are oppressed. Rule of Law isn’t bad, but it has little to do with democracy.
All in all, all of these are things Europeans describe democracy as, but the very word means “rule by the people,” meaning different countries have different views on what that looks like. The questionaire seems to benefit one where the press is freely dominated by billionaires, where there is endless squabbling in government between parties vying for power, etc while not allowing democratic one party states to be seen as democratic even if the people believe it to represent their interests.
Super interesting survey, thanks for sharing.