>Can you explain which values you're referring to and why you don't agree with them?
I can imagine that personal property rights and freedom of speech are not included in that list of disagreeable values.
I can imagine that personal property rights and freedom of speech are not included in that list of disagreeable values.
Sure, a revolution that ends in democracy would be extremely dangerous right now (the aftermath of Arab Spring comes to mind).
But if Xi's CCP keeps repeating that the Chinese should feel deeply humiliated by the West, and that conquering Taiwan (and the South China Sea, etc...) is the only way out, then the situation will become increasingly dangerous no matter the form of government.
It's fine if Chinese culture values stability, the problem is that ignoring politics leads to anything but.
NPC has thousands of members, and I'd expect them to be much more educated and rational than general public overall (again, if the system actually works). They could be elected for various reasons and do not need majority vote of the entire population to become a member of NPC. Their opinions would be a lot more diverse.
However, if that actually work as designed, it's not entirely non-democratic, and it's a form I think would be a better fit for China at least in foreseeable future.
The vulnerability of a democracy to a demagogue who would do things like run on a platform of "elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force", has been known since the Ancient Greeks. At least in the American system, the solution has been to "separate" those powers so no one individual or small group can exercise them, forcing a consensus. You see this still working even today, with Trump, whose the most demagogue-like president in memory. He's mostly foolish talk, since most of his actions have been held in check by the courts or his inability to get legislation passed.
A tendency towards deadlock has been the major failing and problem of American democracy (at least in recent memory), as I see it. I don't really see a good democratic solution to it either, besides reversing course back towards a more decentralized republic with a weaker central government.
We also don't want anything like the deadlocks in American government for sure.
I think the real problem in America is too much centralization. If more policy was made locally, it could be adapted to match diverse local conditions and attitudes, and the preferences of other regions wouldn't be as threatening. Unfortunately the winner-take-all aspect of centralized politics makes the sides more entrenched.
Do you think the current Chinese government is helping or hurting with the attitudes that lead to the appeal of "elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force"? Seems to me there's some danger of things going badly if they don't prep the ground for democracy and lose control somehow.
This is definitely the way things are moving towards in the US. We had gotten accustomed to a strong federal government during the 20th century as it had necessarily become extremely built up from world wars, massive infrastructure works, the cold war, etc. But as that whole world has faded away in the 21st century, we are seeing states assert their rights again. I'm talking specifically of California, where elected officials are openly defying federal authorities on certain issues like immigration and drug enforcement. The feds seem powerless to do anything since their is such overwhelming local support for these policies, and California is an economic powerhouse.