PiX

The Economist inadvertently says something interesting about the difference between capitalist and socialist democracy. “India’s political class should consider itself lucky. In next-door China, the Communist Party has to do something much more difficult than winning elections. China’s social contract requires the state to consistently raise living standards, the quality of life and national power in exchange for which citizens keep their noses out of politics. All Indian politicians have to do is to feign interest in their constituents once every five years. Yet instead of accepting this sweetheart deal, Mr Modi’s government is doubling down by suppressing protests that are attempting to enforce it.” Having studied the Chinese political system and having travelled to China many times, I can say with some confidence that “citizens keeping their noses out of politics” is very much not an ambition of the CPC. There are extensive, growing networks of grassroots democracy. What is true, however, is that the government is expected to deliver for the needs of the people. Meanwhile, the right to elect people who “feign interest in their constituents” is not actually that important to the hundreds of millions of Indians who live in desperate poverty. I am in New Delhi right now. It’s in many ways a delightful city, but the levels of poverty and inequality – along with the general dysfunction, political repression and religious/caste prejudice – are heartbreaking. It may be tough to swallow, but the fact is that China is substantially more democratic than the capitalist countries. economist.com/asia/2026/10/1…