To mark the hundredth birthday of the Communist Party of China, about 70 representatives of Hong Kong’s government, political parties, community organisations, business and professional sectors were invited to Beijing to join the celebrations. In addition to multiple coronavirus tests before and after arrival, invitees were quarantined in their hotel pending attendance in the mass cultural performance at the National Stadium in Beijing on June 28 and the grand gathering at Tiananmen Square on July 1. Once guests had arrived at the venues, the reasons for the exceptionally tight coronavirus and security screening requirements became apparent. At the performance of “Great Journey” at the National Stadium, 13,000-15,000 performers were estimated to be on stage, while another 20,000 spectators, including top leaders, were in the audience. At the grand gathering at Tiananmen Square, about 70,000 representatives from all over the nation were gathered together. That meant any lapse in anti-coronavirus precautions could risk infecting large numbers of people, and spreading the virus all over the country. China’s power of mass mobilisation and organisation was on full display at the spectacular “Great Journey” performances, and the impressive tributes to the Communist Party on July 1. Yet the way the party has succeeded in protecting the nation from the ravages of coronavirus, by dint of its massive mobilisation and organisational power, the willingness of the people to observe rules and make sacrifices for the greater good, does not stop Western media from continuing to mock China as “closed and authoritarian”. Nothing stands in sharper contrast to China’s “authoritarian” ways than Britain’s reopening plans , set to take place on its ‘freedom day” on July 19, which have been slammed by over 4,000 scientists and health-care professionals as a “dangerous and unethical experiment”. The very idea that Britain has seen fit to scrap most pandemic control measures even as its coronavirus cases are rising raises troubling questions about the moral calibre and sense of public responsibility of its leaders. By contrast, China chose a safe but much tougher course – mandatory mask-wearing, testing and lockdowns , deployment of a highly effective tracking “health code”, border closure and mass vaccination at breakneck pace. Such “draconian” measures (in the eyes of the Western media) would not have proved successful in combating the spread of coronavirus without the support of the people. China’s ability to mobilise and organise its people has deep historic roots. For the purpose of tax collection and extracting labour services, China had from early times developed a system of population registration based on the number of households and “mouths”. In the Ming dynasty (1368 – 1644), 110 households were organised into a li . Within each li, 10 people whose families had the largest number of taxpaying adult males, were chosen as the headmen. Similar systems of grass-roots organisation have survived through the ages, and there is a long tradition of cooperation between grass-roots representatives and local officials. This pattern of obedience and collaboration has served China well in times of crisis, such as the coronavirus outbreak. American democracy scholars, such as Larry Diamond and Francis Fukuyama, have long trumpeted democracy as the ultimate political system which should be adopted by the whole world. In a recent article published in Foreign Affairs , Diamond argues that democracy rests on three legs – popular sovereignty (rule by the people who get to choose their leaders through periodic, free and fair elections), freedom, and the rule of law. Diamond admits that free and fair elections are under assault in the United States, as Trumpist legislators across the US moved amendments to local laws to restrict minority voting rights. Diamond privileges the freedom of speech, the press, association and assembly above others, in keeping with American belief in the autonomy of the individual and the sanctity of individual rights and freedoms. Is democracy in decline, retreat or under siege? More a work in progress In China, because of its long history of frequent famines and upheavals arising from the scarcity of resources and economic inequality, freedom from hunger, freedom from physical harm, and freedom from foreign aggression are accorded the highest priority. As for the rule of law, the protection of individual rights and freedoms lie at the heart of the common law system and indeed the continental system. Yet a democratic system has not prevented supposedly independent courts from making political decisions, or democratically elected governments from making laws that seriously violate human rights. China does not hold periodic elections to select its top rulers by universal suffrage. But China has always understood that no regime can survive unless it has the support of the people. In the absence of universal suffrage-based elections or referendums (which have in modern times produced disastrous results on more than one occasion), the Communist Party has tried to represent the interests of the people through continuous self-correction and delivering what the people want – peace, stability, prosperity, technological progress, national pride and a better quality of life . It realises that its future will be on a knife’s edge if it ceases to continuously reinvent itself, and respond to the people’s needs. Has China’s Communist Party delivered what the people want? As China’s President Xi Jinping said recently in a virtual meeting with world political leaders, there is no one-size-fits-all model for modernisation. Every country needs to find a modernisation path which best fits its circumstances. Democracy comes in different shapes and forms. Whether a country should go down the democratic path should be decided by its people, not be by a handful (of outsiders). Assuming that all leaders want their countries to be prosperous and their people to be happy, China is no different from the democratic West. Liberal democracies have not flourished in all places that have held elections. China should be left to chart its own path, and countries that strive to export its democratic model to others, under the banner of freedom, are bound to fail, where the conditions are not right and true espousal of democratic values is absent. Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee is a lawmaker and chairwoman of the New People’s Party