Memes

No, you can't just rewrite the definition of democracy

Interestingly, not even the ancient greeks would consider what modern-day western states are, as democracies. Both Aristotle and Plato considered any system based on elections to be undemocratic oligarchies, since only the wealthy have the money to finance campaigns or the prestige to win the popularity contest.

They rightly considered democracy as meaning rule by the poor, which is the opposite of modern day bourgeois democracy.

• Is China a democracy?
• Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
• What kind of democracy does China have, and how is it different from the west?
• In contrast to low US political approval ratings, 96% of Chinese are satisfied with the national government (Edelmans 2016). World Values Surveys says that 83% think the country is run for their benefit rather than for the benefit of special groups. A Harvard research center study of long-term public opinion survey finds that > 95% of Chinese citizens approved their government. How is this possible in a one-party state? (TED talk by Eric X Li)
• How does China’s political system work?
• How are Chinese leaders elected / chosen? How meristocratic is the system? How do elections differ from those in western bourgeois democracies?
• Who runs China? Makeup of the national people's congress.

This is a childish response. Democracy is not simply limited to "choosing the party in power." China ticks all the boxes of democracy even in the Wikipedia article on democracy, elections are held for representatives and policy is guided by what the people themselves want. Here's a good article comparing the US system with the PRC's system.

Furthermore, you just assert without basis that the people of China "have no rights" and that they are "constantly repressed," repeating verbatim US State Department talking points without genuinely engaging with Chinese people and how they view their system. You even contradict yourself, you say that Chinese people support their system because it works for them, but also that they are scared of it and in constant fear, yet support it anyways. It's a non-falsifiable orthodoxy describwd by Michael Parenti, in Blackshirts and Reds,:

In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

The article is written by a generally anti-China group, hence why they tried to spin it as being unpolular locally, rather than just less popular. The central government being more popular makes sense, as its the one that tends to enact the most major changes that have uplifted the living standards of Chinese citizens.

Further, the Cambridge examination is biased. If you read the paper, they state that at the outset, their desire is to prove that Chinese citizens are in constant fear of the CPC in order to discredit the Ash study. Even then, we can see that approval rate for the CPC is overwhelmingly positive, while party approval rarely exceeds 50% in western countries.

In the end, you have a hypothesis that is non-falsifiable: if the CPC's approval is high, it's because the citizens are in fear and are brainwashed, if the CPC's approval is lower (though we will see it's somehow never negative), then this must be "truly accurate" and indicative of fear and brainwashing. You set out from the beginning to prove your hypothesis, not to understand why China is constantly improving and why the public supports their system, when both surveys tell you: it's because the system works, and the people have dramatically improving conditions year over year.

Finally, repression of speech most directly applies to businesses and wealthy individuals, not to random citizens. China is Socialist, it oppresses the bourgeoisie and restricts their speech, so that the US and hostile powers don't try to use their heavy financial Capital to fund misinformation campaigns and foment political instability in order to get China to open up its markets for total foreign plundering, like what the US did to the USSR.

"Brainwashing" doesn't exist. It's a theory pushed by the United States during the Cold War to offer an explanation for why citizens in Socialist countries supported their systems. Read Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing" if you want to learn more about the subject.