You're starting way far down the path here. The first questions should be more things like "Why are the current stakeholders willing to play along with the CCP

You're starting way far down the path here. The first questions should be more things like "Why are the current stakeholders willing to play along with the CCP system" or "How can a more 'western-norms' approach be packaged to appear less threatening and more compelling so it won't be instinctively rejected" and less "how do we invent MIND CONTROL NANOBOTS to make people change their political affiliation." Any political system survives because some core percentage of the population benefits from it and buys into it. The cartoonish stereotype examples tended to be the small third-world countries where it was clear the local leader was financing the army to keep him afloat to the detriment of other services. The CCP has a far broader buy-in. I'm sure some of that might be people trying to use the Party for personal economic or social gain, but right now it's still easy for them to say "you're better off today than your parents were 30 years ago" and trade on that. They also happen to be sitting around at a time where a lot of the original guardrails of good faith happen to be falling off of Western institutions. Situations like Brexit, runaway income inequality, the rise of fascist-adjacent leaders in Europe, and the non-function of the US legislature seem to scream "this nifty 'Capitalist Democracy' product we're selling? We can't even make it work on our machine!" If you want to win over China, you have to show them that your value system will provide better outcomes. You can't exactly trot out Liz Truss and Kevin McCarthy and say "this is the sort of stable, respected government that will preserve the progress you've made over the last century." It's also inherently antagonistic to present a message that's "we'd love if if you voted out your current leaders"-- just look at the glare Schumer is catching over that type of language to a country that already has a multi-party norm. I almost wonder if the way to sell democracy is less as a values-oriented Freedom(tm) message, and more pragmatic, like trying to apply the Toyota Process to government-- empower citizenry and look for ways that they can incorporate feedback at the ground level to root out performance and waste and enhance value for existing stakeholders. That could get to a government that's more responsive and respectful of its citizenry through an internal process it can own and see as "organic", rather than "foreigners insist we must have elections."