There’s a difference between recognising a fundamental right and not recognising it at all in my opinion. China breaks from the “norm” drastically in a lot of

There’s a difference between recognising a fundamental right and not recognising it at all in my opinion. China breaks from the “norm” drastically in a lot of ways. It doesn’t recognise the right of the public to elect officials, for example. There are lost of countries with flawed/fake democracies but most have democratic constitutions, officially. China is different. 20-30 years ago, liberal democracy was the only game in town. All new states formed on this basis. None of the ex-soviet states opted for official one-party constitutions, because it wasn’t one of the options. There are many one party states, in practice. They don’t make it official. For example Egypt & Syria (also Iraq & Libya, formerly) have been one-party republics for 3 generations. Officially, they’re democracies because it was considered the only legitimate way. They rely on fake elections, emergency laws or some other theatre to get around their own official norms. My point is that if arab revolutions of the 60s or post soviet revolutions of the 90s had happened today, they may have opted for the “Chinese Model” instead. But, constitutions aren’t written every day. Laws are. Regulations are written every minute. I’m trying not to be normative or negative about China. Just noting that China as an example, has an impact. It’s now a superpower and acts as a role model. A moderate position on internet censorship is now someplace between “uncensored” and “china.” Anything in between is within the “normal” range.