> There isn't really something called the "interests of the population at large" here, populations in reality are heavily heterogenous with often conflicting interests.
Incorrect. In a democracy, the people gather, present ideas, discuss, argue, and eventually reach agreement. That agreement may not be exactly what any individual wants, but the population at large does reach an agreement as to what is in its interest as a whole group.
> What I'm trying to point out here that a democracy is going to try to serve, or rather balance the interests of everyone involved.
Whereas in reality the interests don't show up. In fact, in the USA, showing up to the table (a.k.a. lobbying) has come to be considered abhorrent behaviour, even though that's technically the civic duty of all citizens in a democracy. Lobbying (i.e. gathering, presenting ideas, discussing, arguing, and eventually reaching agreement — and passing that result onto the massager, in the case of representative democracy) is the only way a democracy can function, fundamentally.
China isn't cut off from the rest of the world. They notice just as well as we do that even if these places are democratic on paper, the people don't actually practice it, instead leaving control to a small group of figureheads and the few people who do show up to (i.e. the 'evil' lobbyists). Their claim is that leaving control to that small group of people who are pushing their own personal interests, is, on the spectrum, ultimately less democratic than an equally small group that ostensibly takes in all the considerations of the population at large.
I infer that what you are trying to say is that in a place like the USA, the social environment would allow people to change their ways, kick the small group to the curb, and start practicing democracy, if for some reason they wanted to in the future, without tremendous pushback, whereas the CCP would not be so accepting. That is no doubt a fair assessment, but completely talking past the original point. It wasn't said based on some kind of future hypothetical.
>Their claim is that leaving control to that small group of people who are pushing their own personal interests, is, on the spectrum, ultimately less democratic than an equally small group that ostensibly takes in all the considerations of the population at large.
Well then it's important then actually to undertand what the CCP itself believes here. This is not what they are claiming explicitly. Wang Huning's critique of America isn't because it is poor or mismanaged, it's because it accepts heterogenity, in multiculturalism and diversity that he believes leads to social decay, loss of cohesion, and weak stability. And National Sovereignity and Powerful State is Paramount, not the livelihood of the people. To that extent, heterogenity is suppressed in favour of enforced homogenization all through a powerful central party. Dissent, Historical "Nihilism", Postmodernism, Plurality, cannot be tolerated because they weaken National Direction.
They don't find the idea of small group of corporates leading as problematic because it still provides a single coherent direction. No, what they fear is when everyone goes to table and starts pushing their own opinion.
If you understand this, that their rejection of liberal democracy comes from fundamental point through influence of figures like Carl Schmitt and Marx, the idea that they are "democratic" is just largely just rhetoric for foreign audiences. And it's worldview that quite close to American Postliberals like JD Vance or Peter Thiel. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing, but this is not democracy in any sense of the word. You need to know at least what side you're speaking for, because many posters in HN certainly are displaying irony in supporting China while simultaneously opposing Trump, when Trump's authoritarian actions of cracking down on minorities and opposition are very much what the CCP would be endorsing. And by Trump's own words, he is justified by the "Will of the People".
> the idea that they are "democratic" is just largely just rhetoric for foreign audiences.
They don't claim to be democratic, only more democratic. The alternatives compared against aren't democratic either, so the hypothetical possibility of the CCP being, on the spectrum, more democratic is theoretically sound. Reality isn't, though. The trouble with the claim is that what makes something more or less democratic in the real world is completely nebulous, allowing anyone to pick arbitrary criteria to make the claim.
> You need to know at least what side you're speaking for
Information can be inaccurate, but it doesn't have a side, fundamentally.
>They don't claim to be democratic, only more democratic.
No. As shown in Wang Huning's Neo-Authoritarianism, being more democratic is bad. Ideally they'd be operating on greater homogenization.
>Information can be inaccurate, but it doesn't have a side, fundamentally.
You need to seperate foreign rhetoric from actual political beliefs. Do you understand here what are the implications of Huning's beliefs, and lineage they draw from Schmitt? Or are you going to make the claim that Trump is more "democratic", which is banal it's meaningless.