Sorry but I find this just mindblowing.
Since when people just want to live comfortable lives and leave their collective fate to be decided by a minority whose interests do not necessarily align with the people's interests (otherwise, they would just allow fair elections).
Small example: of course, country-wide surveillance à la China would lead to "economic success", do you think it's criticized because it would lead to mass poverty ?
It would lead to a perfectly stable future for the population, with ever improving quality of life and security. The problem, as you may guess, lies elsewhere.
In other words, if China can give their people what they want without fair elections or due process or freedom from corruption then our democratic system which ostensibly includes those things must be seriously broken. That does not mean authoritarianism is better. At least that's how I read the comment.
The "they" cannot be referring the people of China, or the majority because China is just not a democracy.
This is the main difference between a country which holds free elections every 4 years, and a single-party country.