China Has Solved Democracy’s Problem

Ideas for America | Series 48 #1 | Monday’s Edition

China has solved a problem that almost destroyed American democracy. The solution is something Americans should seriously consider.

Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), described democracy’s paradox: a majority of voters can democratically elect a tyrant who then destroys democracy. (Cambridge University Press)

If a democratic society allows political movements to use democratic institutions to abolish democracy, it loses its democracy.

Many of today’s democracies are inclusive, which means everyone gets a voice, including those who want to end democracy. The far right, fascists, and dictators all get to be choices in an inclusive democracy, but those choices are, by definition, anti-democratic.

So this is what China has done. China permits some criticism of government policies and officials just like democracies do. However, it restricts organized political opposition that challenges Communist Party rule. (UK Home Office)

That’s the solution.

Article 41 of China’s Constitution explicitly protects the right to criticize government officials. (Constitution of China, Article 41) In 2013, Harvard researchers Gary King, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts examined millions of Chinese social media posts and published in the peer-reviewed American Political Science Review that censorship primarily targeted posts that could encourage collective political action, not criticism of government policies and officials alone. (American Political Science Review, 2013)

This means that, in China, you can disagree with government decisions. You can argue that a policy isn’t working. But you cannot organize a competing political movement to take power from the Communist Party. (Freedom House)

And this is what’s needed in inclusive democracies. Keep everything the same, but ban organized political parties whose goal is to eliminate or restrict democracy. This is called defensive democracy. Germany already incorporates it into Article 21 of its Basic Law. (German Basic Law, Article 21)

However, a prohibition must distinguish between parties seeking to abolish democratic institutions and parties just advocating unpopular policies. Germany’s Constitutional Court demonstrated that distinction in 2017. It determined that the National Democratic Party sought to abolish the democratic constitutional order, but refused to ban it because there was insufficient evidence that it could succeed. (Federal Constitutional Court) In 2024, the court instead excluded the party, renamed Die Heimat, from state funding for six years. (Federal Constitutional Court, 2024)

So Germany has more than one way to defend its democracy. It can prohibit a party under strict conditions, or impose a lesser restriction. And an independent constitutional court, not the governing political party, makes that decision. (Federal Constitutional Court)

Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz in Hungary was democratically elected and then became dictatorial over time. (Journal of Democracy) The same happened with the Republican Party in the United States. So the law needs to include a mechanism to hold leaders accountable and remove them from office through constitutional procedures if they violate democratic rules once in power.

Is this possible? Yes, many nations have laws like this, but those laws need to be strengthened and enforced. Political scientists Angela Bourne and Fernando Casal Bértoa examined 37 European democracies between 1945 and 2015. They documented 52 party-ban cases across 20 countries. (European Constitutional Law Review, 2017)

But their research also revealed a warning: some governments used party bans against political opponents, not simply against parties seeking to destroy democracy. (European Constitutional Law Review, 2017)

That is why the standards must be strict, the evidence must be substantial, and the decision must be subject to independent judicial review.

Critically, America needs to enact such a law.

If you enjoyed this article, help support my work by becoming a paid subscriber or “Buy me a coffee.”

Get a solid understanding of Trompenaars’ cultural dimensions by purchasing the guide or subscribing to Cultural Perspective (free or paid) and receiving the guide for free.

---

Germany. Basic Law Article 21(2). The Federal Constitutional Court decides. The court banned the Socialist Reich Party, a Nazi successor organisation, in 1952, and the Stalinist Communist Party of Germany in 1956. bund

South Korea. Constitution Article 8(4). The government files a petition, and the Constitutional Court decides. In December 2014, in an 8-1 decision, the court dissolved the Unified Progressive Party, which held five of 300 seats. Amnesty International said the ruling could have chilling consequences for freedom of expression and association. cm.asiae.co.kr +2

Taiwan. Additional Articles of the Constitution. A party is unconstitutional if its goals or activities jeopardize the existence of the Republic of China or the free, democratic constitutional order. On 7 August 2026, the Interior Ministry petitioned the Constitutional Court to dissolve the pro-China Chinese Unification Promotion Party. unibefocustaiwan

Israel. Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset. A list or candidate can be barred for negating Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, incitement to racism, or support for armed struggle against Israel. The Supreme Court upheld the bans on Kach in 1988 and 1992, and has blocked most other disqualifications since. idiidi

Spain. Organic Law 6/2002 on Political Parties. A special chamber of the Supreme Court rules on dissolving parties. In 2003 the Supreme Court dissolved Batasuna and Herri Batasuna. On 30 June 2009, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the ban. ferenda.lagen.nu +2

Czech Republic. The Supreme Administrative Court dissolved the Workers’ Party on 17 February 2010. The Czech Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision. mvcrromea

Turkey. The Constitutional Court has banned 24 parties, including the Welfare Party, whose ban the European Court of Human Rights upheld on 13 February 2003 because its program sought a state based on sharia. Many other Turkish bans targeted parties emphasizing Kurdish identity or holding a communist agenda, so scholars dispute whether Turkey fits the “defensive democracy” label. turkey party case shows need reform +2

Poland. Constitution Article 13 prohibits parties whose programs are based on the totalitarian methods of Nazism, fascism and communism, or which sanction racial or national hatred. leidenuniv

Italy. Transitional and Final Provision XII forbids reorganizing the dissolved Fascist party in any form. The implementing Scelba Law was applied against small neo-fascist groups, while the larger Italian Social Movement remained unaffected. leidenunivverfassungsblog

Ukraine. A court banned the Communist Party in December 2015. After Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine banned 11 pro-Russian parties. These are wartime bans with a national-security rationale. wikiwandkyivindependent