Editor's note: The so-called Summit for Democracy, being held in Seoul from Monday to Wednesday, will create divisions in the global community because, instead of advancing the principles of democracy and working for the emancipation of humankind, it aims to build power blocs against certain countries. Three experts share their views on the issue with China Daily.

China a true upholder of freedom

By Muhammad Asif Noor

Seoul will host the third Summit for Democracy, themed "Democracy for Future Generations", from Monday to Wednesday where political leaders, including US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and civil society and youth organizations from across the world are expected to participate.

This Summit for Democracy which was launched by Biden in 2021 is considered a strategic maneuver within a larger geopolitical game being played out in the Asia-Pacific region where the US' primary focus has been to expand its influence and engage with China on the sub-regional level. The summit is being held to consolidate the historical premise that major powers will continue to export democracy to less-powerful nations, often under the banner of freedom and human rights protection, in order to exert their influence on the latter.

In contrast, China advocates that developing countries have the right to choose a development path and follow a political system that best suit their national interests. "Whole-process people's democracy" is a form of democracy which, despite being different from Western-style democracy, suits China's national conditions. And even in the existing world order, a country has the right to have a governance structure that is good for its people and conducive to its socioeconomic development.

The Summit for Democracy, while apparently aimed at strengthening democratic norms across the world, in reality serves as a platform for the United States to expand its influence, and rally its allies against perceived rivals. The summit therefore is not an advocacy for democracy but a strategic tool in the broader geopolitical contestation which allows the US to maintain its global hegemony. The global narrative of democracy has been weaponized by the US and its Western allies to further their geopolitical interests instead of fostering genuine democracy around the world and improving the world order in which at present chaos reigns supreme.

China's governance model is different from that of the West's in that it approaches democracy holistically and, hence, is called whole-process people's democracy. This governance model is marked by extensive public participation in all facets of governance, and therein lies its difference with the Western model, which lays emphasis on electoral democracy. Whole-process people's democracy reflects China's commitment to socialism with Chinese characteristics and challenges the universality claim of Western-style democracy. Whole-process people's democracy embodies China's endeavor to chart its unique development path, different from the prescriptive norms of Western liberalism.

China's governance model, predicated on whole-process people's democracy, emphasizes people's comprehensive engagement in governance, transcending mere electoral participation. It is an approach to governance that responds to the needs and aspirations of China's population, which comprises 56 ethnic groups, through mechanisms that ensure broad public participation in the decision-making process. The Chinese governance model challenges the notion that Western-style democracy is the sole legitimate form of governance, and advocates for a pluralistic understanding of democracy that respects the sovereignty and different development paths of different countries.

The hosting of the Summit for Democracy by Seoul will have profound implications on regional dynamics, particularly in the context of the competition between the US and China. It places the Republic of Korea at the intersection of competing global powers, and gives it the opportunity to assert its democratic identity while navigating the complexities of its ties with both the US and China.

This delicate diplomatic balancing act, which the ROK is expected to perform, shows how less-powerful countries are caught in the crossfire of major power competition while trying to safeguard their sovereignty and strategic autonomy in a rapidly changing global landscape. Seoul's engagement with NATO and the likelihood of its joining QUAD(a diplomatic, strategic partnership among the US, India, Japan and Australia), which Chinese people view as a clique formed to contain China.

The Summit for Democracy has raised Beijing's concerns also because the Taiwan island has been "strengthening cooperation" with the US under this framework. By ignoring the fact that the Taiwan island cannot be invited to attend any regional or international meeting as a separate entity, as it is an integral part of China, the US and the ROK have in fact interfered in China's internal affairs and violated the one-China principle.

Therefore, the summit not only reflects the global competition among different governance models but also demonstrates the intricate and delicate ways in which the US and its allies trigger rivalries with other countries and heighten geopolitical tensions.

With the world grappling with many serious challenges, including ongoing military conflicts that have claimed tens of thousands of lives and left many more homeless, the US and its allies are not helping matters by adopting such a confrontational approach toward countries like China.

This is the time to work together and resolve bilateral differences and regional and global disputes, and overcome common challenges.

The Summit for Democracy glorifies the democratic ideals and governance models but the essence of true democracy is in respecting each other's points of view and working together for the betterment of the world.

If the US and its allies are serious about restoring lasting peace and promoting development across the world, they should prioritize constructive engagement with other countries and build a future where diversity would be the norm and development the rule.

The writer is founder of Friends of Belt and Road Initiative Forum. The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

US pursuit of 'democracy' puts world at risk

By Jasna Plevnik

Democracy, in different forms, is the most followed political system in the world. But there are contrasting views on democracy, with the difference being like those between the two major world powers, China and the United States. The two sides strongly differ on key points of democracy related to social organizations and international relations.

However, no matter how big and worrying these differences are, we should not ignore the fact that the most valuable aspect of democracy is diversity and the right to differ.

For China, democracy belongs to all; it is not the property of any one country, and is related to human values. China's fast-paced economic development and the eradication of extreme poverty show the Chinese government works for the common good of the people. According to an Open Society Barometer survey, published six months ago, many respondents said they believe China's growing global influence would be "a force for good".

Beijing has never been interested in imposing its political system or form of government on other countries, neither by using its soft power nor by triggering a war. China has been reiterating that the world should not be dominated by one country, though.

The United Nations, according to China, should act as a central pole of international democracy, especially when it comes to global decision-making and enforcing international law. In contrast, the United States sees itself in the pole position, not the UN. Washington even wants Beijing to become a neoliberal democracy and pursue the values in which the US believes.

The US thinks the type of neoliberal democracy it follows has proved to be best for governance, both in theory and praxis, even though many of its important allies think US-style neoliberal democracy is going through a crisis in the US as well as globally.

In the US' foreign policy "democracy" is as significant as military or ecological security. The US' expanded approach to safeguard its national interests and national security, and the balance of power politics, mean Washington could force its model of democracy globally. The US has been pushing in different directions, while desperately pursuing neoliberal policies, which have resulted in economic and geostrategic gains for Washington.

In the interest of neoliberal democracy, the US has taken many anti-democratic actions, and triggered and/or fought wars, in order to engineer regime change in different countries. The results have been a devastated, unstable Iraq, a shambolic Libyan society and economy, and a war-ravaged Afghanistan now ruled by the Taliban, whose eradication the US had promised while invading the country in 2001. Yet the US does not see the chaotic and tragic developments as a defeat or debacle of its "global democracy spreading" campaign.

Under the excuse of spreading "democracy", the US in the "Indo-Pacific" region has established new political and military alliances and is even flirting with idea of expanding NATO in the Asia-Pacific, so as to make the region an "open, democratic, peaceful" place governed by rule of law.

Now the US' top geostrategic interest is to shield the values of "democracy" in Eastern Europe. That expansive ideology behind protecting "democracy" in Ukraine began 10 years ago when the US supported a coup in that country and decided to make Ukraine a NATO member. The problem for the US is that Russia immediately understood it as casus belli.

The US leadership has been sending weapons to Ukraine on the pretext of helping it defend itself against Russia, which has cost the lives of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian people, and billions of dollars in damages. It's another matter that the combined efforts of the US, the European Union and NATO have had no impact on Russia, let alone weaken it.

It seems that no cost for the Russia-Ukraine conflict is too high for them. The conflict has not only forced the civilian population in a life-threatening crisis, and destroyed the economy, cultural institutions and political democracy in Ukraine but also made the EU less democratic and a more propaganda-loving narrative generator.

In many parts of Europe, democracy has been under constant attack. Russian opera singers, conductors, writers, actors and athletes have been banned in much of the West, and historical monuments connected with Russia demolished. In the political sphere, former German chancellor Gerhard Schroder was almost expelled from Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party over his close ties with Russia. Anybody who does not see the Ukraine-Russia conflict as a way of protecting "democracy" has been called pro-Russia and/or morally corrupt, which perfectly reflects the hypocritical attitude of the US towards democracy in Europe.

In Europe, it is no longer possible to support peace even for Pope Francis and peace organizations, let alone ordinary people, without being attacked as traitors of democracy.

An additional blow to democracy and peace in Europe came when the Swedish government announced that it was ending the peace fund that had provided financial support to peace organizations since the 1920s.

It is strange that to strengthen democracy in Europe, the US decided to invest more than €1 billion in Germany to build the largest American military hospital abroad.

With the Russia-Ukraine conflict entering its third year, the situation has become increasingly different for the EU. What is evident now is that the US has spread the battlefield from Ukraine to the whole of Europe, all in the name of spreading "democracy" while a nuclear Armageddon seems to be looming. The whole world is at risk, and that is a serious threat to the future of democracy. The question is: Can democracy survive without the people?

The author is president of the Geoeconomic Forum, Croatia. The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

The complexities of a political system cannot be simplified

By Liu Dongchao

The political world seems to be caught in an intense debate on the forms and practices of democracy. The debate, largely based on the different viewpoints on and attitude toward democracy, is often characterized by political descriptions, utilitarian considerations, biases and strong emotions.

To begin with, it is necessary to uphold democracy while remaining vigilant against the pitfalls of what can be termed as "democratic idolatry". Democracy can also be described as a fundamental political system and power architecture that ensures the participation of different social groups in a country's political and social affairs, and creates space for individuals and collectives to voice their opinions. Despite its historical significance and positive social characteristics, however, no one form of democracy should be deified as the ultimate political system.

Yet "democratic idolatry" exists, both at the domestic and global level, because democracy is worshipped as an infallible deity, immune to scrutiny and criticism. This approach, often based on Western democratic standards, undermines the exploration of alternative democratic paths by countries, and perpetuates narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness.

Furthermore, a nuanced understanding of the dual nature and contradictions inherent in Western-style democracy is essential. While Western developed countries have mature democratic institutions, these institutions are not without flaws. Despite their logical coherence, institutional integrity and commendable performance, they still exhibit aspects of injustice and hypocrisy. And the manipulation of these institutions and the political system they represent by elite groups to serve their own interests, coupled with the disengagement of marginalized social groups, often results in operational inefficiency and wrong decisions.

Western-style democracy also manifests profound contradictions in its domestic and global practices, oscillating between democratic practices at home and autocratic acts internationally. This inconsistency has become even more evident in recent events, including in the Summit for Democracy that US President Joe Biden launched in 2021, with its latest edition being held in Seoul, the Republic of Korea, from March 18 to 20. The summit delineates alliances based on self-interests instead of genuine democratic principles. The invitation to countries with poor democratic records to attend such summits exposes the superficiality of the organizer's claimed democratic values.

That Western-style democracy has built a democratic facade domestically and exhibits autocratic, even tyrannical, tendencies globally becomes clear when analyzing the Summit for Democracy. The summit, which Biden orchestrated, is based on dividing camps and building walls to serve the US' interests. As such, its democratic narrative is nothing but mere rhetoric.

When it comes to China, while recognizing the achievements of its democratic practices, it is essential to approach the subject carefully. China's journey toward democracy is marked by resilience and adaptation to the changing times, which allowed the country to gradually align with global trends since the launch of reform and opening-up.

The Communist Party of China's endorsement of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the emphasis on universal human values, including democracy, signify the country's commitment to nurture and uphold democratic values, and advocate their adoption globally.

China practices a form of democracy, from the top to the grassroots level, which best suits its national conditions. It is called "whole-process people's democracy" and is characterized by people's participation in deliberations and decision-making, as well as supervision of the government.

For instance, deputies to the National People's Congress are elected through democratic votes and are accountable to the people. In China, individuals of any ethnic group, profession, gender or social status can be elected to any political post, and entrusted with the power bestowed by the people to serve the country. All 56 ethnic groups in China elect their deputies to the NPC and members to the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

Whole-process people's democracy covers all aspects and stages of the political process, including democratic elections, consultations, decision-making, administration and supervision, with each step closely linked with the rest. Institutions and organizations at all levels practice whole-process people's democracy, yielding significant results in different fields. Although whole-process people's democracy is still evolving, it signifies China's democratic exploration of a governance path distinct from Western-style democracy.

While different people may interpret these fundamental realities differently, only the rabidly biased will deny their existence. By identifying ideological debates on democracy for what they are and exposing political rhetoric masquerading as democratic narrative, we can gain a clearer understanding of the essence of democratic discourse.

As we navigate the complexities of democracy, it is essential to foster an environment conducive to promoting open dialogue, constructive criticism and mutual respect. For that, we need to transcend ideological barriers, embrace diversity of thought, and ensure democratic principles are upheld without falling into the trap of "democratic idolatry". Only through genuine engagement and collaboration can we strive toward a more inclusive and effective democratic framework which would address the needs and aspirations of diverse social groups worldwide.

The author is a professor in the department of literature and history research at the Party School of the CPC Central Committee. The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.