What am I missing here? Yes, China is considered Authoritarian because they are a one-party-state...
Oh wait, they say Russia is a dictatorship. Oh yeah, in fact in Russia you have international observers during elections, in the US not. In Russia you have 4 parties in the Duma, in the US just two. In Russia you have a pletora of parties in the elections, in the US just two.
I am seriously angry they didn't add the biggest dictatorship in the world, the American Empire!
Deleted comment
Well, before the world famous show called 'The War on Terror' premiered post-9/11, there were a series of violent clashes between dissidents in the West and Globalist forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Raid_on_Armando_Diaz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests
Thankfully, the Empire's Jihadists made a 'timely' decision to turn on and bite the hand that fed them shoulder fired missiles, and the Western voices that were raised against Globalism before 9/11 were no more. (Interestingly enough, if one speculates that the terror events in this period are false flag state terrorism, there is a straight line between the application of violence and intended consequences in the target, per "old school" terrorism.)
> What do you think would happen in either of those countries if there were demonstrations like the ones that have been going on in the US (e.g. because of police brutality and greedy banks)?
Apples and oranges.
Every state will react forcefully and violently when its power basis, or vulnerabilities, are challenged. The specimens that you are referencing have not yet advanced to the level of Western states and still rely on fairly traditional means of maintaining their grip on power. Further, in many of these nations, the general urban population is far more politically literate than their Western counterparts.
(If you are insinuating that my views are formed by InfoWars.com, permit me to disabuse you of entertaining such thoughts regarding my readings and reflections.)
It is important to look at what the phrase "1-party state" means. By its literal definition, you are right. But generally, it may not be used in a literal sense and one has to be open to it. In this case, it meant that side effects bought from a 1 party state such as issues with civil rights etc. This is the reason you have an index to measure it. It brings together different facets and creates a score.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades
or
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B5%D0%B1-%D0%B1%D1%8...
(Though I do find it poetic that the Russian language page about the web brigades is proposed for deletion.)
The thing about the US is that there isn't an apparent law forbidding the forming of 3rd+ parties like there is in other countries.
Nit: in the US, there are dozens of parties. Most don't get the votes to win, but they exist: Greens, Independent, Libertarian, etc. etc. Bernie Sanders was of neither party.
[p.s. edit]:
Undoing Democracy:
Neoliberalism's Remaking of State and Subject
This book is a theoretical consideration of the ways that
neoliberalism, a peculiar form of reason that configures all
aspects of existence in economic terms, is quietly undoing basic
elements of democracy. These elements include vocabularies,
principles of justice, political cultures, habits of citizenship,
practices of rule, and above all, democratic imaginaries.
My argument is not merely that markets and money are corrupting
or degrading democracy, that political institutions and outcomes
are increasingly dominated by finance and corporate capital, or
that democracy is being replaced by plutocracy -- rule by and for
the rich. Rather, neoliberal reason, ubiquitous today in statecraft
and the workplace, in jurisprudence, education, culture, and a vast
range of quotidian activity, is converting the distinctly /political/
character, meaning, and operation of democracy's constituent elements
into /economic/ ones. Liberal democratic institutions, practices,
and habits may not survive this conversion. Radical democratic dreams
may not either.
Thus. this book charts both a disturbing contemporary condition and
the potential barrenness for future democratic projects contained in
this troubled present. The institutions and principles aimed at
securing democracy, the cultures required to nourish it, the energies
needed to animate it, and the citizens practicing, caring for, or
desiring it -- all these are challenged by neoliberalism's
"economization" of political life and other heretofore noneconomic
spheres and activities.
- Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution, Ch. 1
/emphasis/ in the original.
But going meta on pabloski's question, who decides which countries are dictatorships and which are bastions of liberty?
Russia was added recently, according to the twitter stream in question.
Meanwhile the rest of the world does business as usual with what some prefer to name as "political leaders". That's why I posted the image of Zuck doing business.
Do you really think that Xi Jinping is a "dictator"?
The Economist Intelligent Unit does not randomly sit around and tag countries as authoritarian regimes not. They have a systematic method that brings about those scores. You can argue with the method but it would be wise not to dismiss the rankings because "some journos do it". That would be ad hominem fallacy.
Anyway, regarding Xi: yes, he is behaving more and more like one, actually. There's a reason why people nicknamed him "Xitler".
>"In practice, only one political party, the CPC, holds effective power at the national level. Its dominance is such that China is effectively a one-party state. Eight minor parties also participate in the political system. However, they have limited power on a national level and are almost completely subservient to the CPC"