Whenever people bring up human rights abuses in China, that China is a totalitarian country, there are always people bring up that democracy isn't that much better, it's chaotic, there are special interests, there are ways to abuse human rights in a democracy too etc.
Here's my take: people living in democratic societies have this powerful weapon called free and fair election. Furthermore, independent judiciary and the rule of law. All of their constitutions have some kind of bill of rights built in, and the governments, by and large dare not cross the legal boundaries or it's almost certain that there will be consequences. If these checks and balances are not enough due to prosecutors stacking their deck with heavily financed teams of lawyers, enacting or reviving controversial laws, the civil societies are fully able to demand change, and action it during elections. While we should not pretend that democracies are perfect, let's also not pretend they are totally useless. Change can happen quickly if enough people want it to. On the hand, China after Tiananmen, has expanded its state power so much, its control of information so effective, its surveillance system so encompassing, and its civil resistance so shattered, its policies has bribed so many people, it's almost impossible to effect any substantial change without a total collapse of the regime.
Saying or implying democracies are just as bad as totalitarian regimes like the PRC risks spreading hopelessness that the people in democratic countries cannot change things. So I hope the next time people bring up this comparison, have some proportion, some perspectives in mind, and think about what they can do to better their governments, instead of just conveniently dismissing the value of democracies.
I completely agree. My aim was simply to point out that Assange's case is so bad, that one really shouldn't use it as a point of superiority of this or that system.
Here's my take: people living in democratic societies have this powerful weapon called free and fair election. Furthermore, independent judiciary and the rule of law. All of their constitutions have some kind of bill of rights built in, and the governments, by and large dare not cross the legal boundaries or it's almost certain that there will be consequences. If these checks and balances are not enough due to prosecutors stacking their deck with heavily financed teams of lawyers, enacting or reviving controversial laws, the civil societies are fully able to demand change, and action it during elections. While we should not pretend that democracies are perfect, let's also not pretend they are totally useless. Change can happen quickly if enough people want it to. On the hand, China after Tiananmen, has expanded its state power so much, its control of information so effective, its surveillance system so encompassing, and its civil resistance so shattered, its policies has bribed so many people, it's almost impossible to effect any substantial change without a total collapse of the regime.
Saying or implying democracies are just as bad as totalitarian regimes like the PRC risks spreading hopelessness that the people in democratic countries cannot change things. So I hope the next time people bring up this comparison, have some proportion, some perspectives in mind, and think about what they can do to better their governments, instead of just conveniently dismissing the value of democracies.