A distinction between "democratic" and "authoritarian" state has lost its significance in the XXI century. Two main characteristics of the dictatorships of old, the control over movement of people and the control over dissemination of information have been obviated by modern technology and lifestyle--only the North Korea and, to a much lesser degree, Cuba and Belarus, retain some degree of information and migration control.
One of the reasons of democracy's demise in this century is a simple population growth. In mid-XIX century USA, a congressional representative was elected by several thousand voters who received their political information mainly from local broadsheets and the congressman's personal acolytes. Currently, an average member of the US House of Representatives is delegated by approximately 700,000 people who get most of their information from the national media.
Because of ever-finessed techniques of quantitative analysis and gerrymandering, only ~10% of congressional districts are truly competitive. I am sure that the proportion of truly competitive election in Russia, which is viewed by the US media as epitomizing oppression, is higher. In Upstate New York, not to speak about the "reddest" states, some State Senate districts live under what effectively amounts to one-party system.
How then one could imagine China ruling its 1,400 million people by a carbon copy of American system? If one imagines ~700 as the limit for a number of representatives of an elected lower house (currently, Chinese legislature has more than ~2,000 largely ceremonial members, for instance, congratulating members of the ruling Politburo on national holidays, similarly to the Bill Frist Senate of the Bush Era), each delegate will represent more than two million people. Hence, under this system, for instance, no UK city other than London would have a unique representative. A mid-size Chinese province would hypothetically send two senators to Beijing, who would be only technically answerable to diverse population larger than Belgium and Holland combined. Such legislature will hardly be different or more democratic in populace's minds than a current European Commission not representing anybody but the American NATO generals and the German bankers.
With Russia one has another problem--the extremely unequal territorial distribution of the populace. Not only the Russian Federation is the largest, by territory, country in the world, but also most of this territory is empty or uninhabitable. Current Russian Duma member represents ~300,000 people similar to the golden era of American Congress in 1950-60s. Yet, with 300,000 being a census of a small borough in the city of Moscow, in Krasnoyarsk Krai this is the number of the people outside of Krasnoyarsk and its suburbs. They are spread over the territory roughly equal to Western Europe without Scandinavia. Constituencies of these "people's deputies" include miners, fishermen, sailors, workers of giant aluminum smelters, teachers, doctors, religious sectarians living "off the grid" and other people with similarly congruent economic and cultural interests. Obviously, the legislators, no matter, how liberal the electoral law is, and how well it is enforced, would always tend to respond only to concerns of Moscow bankers, at best, and, at worst, an organized crime.
Not that democracy is flourishing in its traditional centers. In the countries like Sweden, Denmark or Holland, the elections of American President or the German Chancellor are more meaningful in indicating future policy changes than the elections of national "leaders." Even in larger Western countries, such as the UK, defense and intelligence policy is largely out of national control. The famed British Navy simply cannot operate without US communication and reconnaissance satellites, logistical support, airlift and weapons codes. Without them the masterpieces of British engineering, the Astute submarines are just the steel boxes plodding under the waves.
In Germany, not only national defense but also media establishment labors under a heavy American thumb. Nazi leader of the Deutsche Welle and a son of the notorious war criminal, Peter Limbourg and his Goebbelsian crew (I do not mince these words lightly), invented two words:
rechtspopilist and
Der Putinversteher. I.e., if the Euro-Atlanticist (Amer. neocon) media labels you these terms, there is no need for a substantive discussion. Later it moved to America with the term "fake news." It works like that: if you are a German worker upset with high utility prices because of multi-billion euro subsidization of the alternative energy, you are rechtspopulist. If you also question, why, for all its clinging to alternative energy, German Government gives Poland billions in subventions to keep its poor-quality coal mines open, you are also Putinversteher. No debate.
I do not want to mention Eastern European NATO protectorates, where American generals tell their governments what their foreign policy will be and the German bankers inform them about their domestic policies. The governments of the Eastern European NATO members--with exception of Poland with extremely powerful Polish US lobby in a classic tale of tail wagging the dog and recalcitrant Hungary--only decide such fascinating issues as the color of postal stamps or the contents of textbooks in the public schools.
This does not have to be understood as the author's rejection of electoral democracy; vice versa, this author is saddened by its demise. But the hard fact is that most modern nations are ruled by unelected oligarchies, either locally procured or prescribed by "international" bodies, such as IMF or NATO.
