By Stefan Sigfried
The Western concept of democracy is often reduced to a single principle: the right to vote in free and fair elections.
In Sweden, for example, citizens vote at three political levels—national (parliament), regional (county council), and local (municipality). I as a Swedish citizen can participate in all these levels.
This system is rooted in the belief, famously articulated by Winston Churchill in 1947, that "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Yet, growing dissatisfaction across Europe suggests this model is failing to deliver on its promise of prioritizing citizens' welfare. By contrast, China's "whole-process people's democracy" seem to deliver better results, raising questions about whether the West's fixation on ballots oversimplifies good governance.
In Sweden, the vision of the "folkhem" (people's home), championed by former Prime Minister Olof Palme, was designed to empower citizens. It promised universal welfare as the foundation for freedom:
"Universal welfare provides independence and freedom of movement. It lifts away the fear of unexpected events that can shatter our lives and dreams. We can breathe easier. We can look around. The desire awakens to conquer the world, to harness our energies to shape and transform it... Secure and freed from the paralysis of fear and worry, we can let our zest for life grow and flourish."
But today many feel neglected and this dream feels distant as public services like healthcare and education face cuts. For instance, Sweden recently reduced free dental care for young adults, signaling shifting priorities.
Across Europe, trust in leaders is waning. In France, Germany, Belgium, UK and other places, citizens protest against leaders with low approval ratings who insist on staying in power. The European Union (EU), originally focused on free trade and travel, now pushes military spending, such as billions in aid to Ukraine, a nation plagued by corruption. Many Europeans question whether their votes align with these decisions, as power shifts from national governments to Brussels.
In Sweden, concerns grow over rising military budgets said not to affect welfare because the rise would be funded by loans. And how will the loans be paid? Paid by the citizens of course. Such contradictory Orwellian talk erode trust in the democratic system.
Free speech, a cornerstone of Western democracy, is also under strain. Media restrictions, such as bans on Russian news outlets, raises questions about censorship. Meanwhile, the EU's actions against leaders like Romania's Călin Georgescu or France's Marine Le Pen, and scrutiny of Germany's AfD, suggest intolerance for dissenting voices. Democracy, it seems, struggles to accommodate those who vote "wrong."
At the heart of this disillusionment lies the unchecked power of a wealthy elite.
In Sweden, the labor movement once held elites accountable, but its influence has faded and history repeats itself as we can read in The Communist Manifesto:
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight."
The elite—through control of media, finance, and narratives—grows richer while ordinary citizens face longer work hours and declining living standards. EU fears an aging population and "considers withholding funds from countries that don't fix pension systems" ignorant of the promise of AI to reduce our workweeks and lower pension ages.
The labour movement that once held the elite in check has been captured, and consequently unrest in the West is growing. It all makes one wonder if we are again close to "a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."
In contrast China's system ties governance to measurable progress. The results are striking: 800 million people lifted out of poverty, the world's largest high-speed rail network, expanded infrastructure in remote areas, and massive investments in education, broadband, and 5G.
Countless videos, both by Westerns and Chinese citizens, show people living secure, fulfilling lives—prompting the question: perhaps voting does not ensure a good society.
China's blend of market tools and state-driven goals echoes Sweden's social democratic past which gave us a Swedish welfare state admired in the whole world. In China a similar blend now delivers safety, healthcare, income stability, and peace where Western systems falter.
The conclusion seems to be that the Western belief that "democracy = voting = the best system" is dangerously simplistic. Voting is fine, but it's not a panacea. A few ballots every four years doesn't guarantee security, justice, or prosperity.
Instead, we need nuanced metrics to evaluate governance: Are citizens healthy, safe, and educated? Do they feel empowered to shape their society? Can elite greed be restrained? A scoring system—say, from 0 to 1000—could measure these outcomes, forcing leaders to prioritize results over excuses.
A few ballot envelopes every four years is nice, but clearly, it does not guarantee us security, justice, or freedom from crises. By measuring the true quality of society, leaders would be forced to deliver real results — they could no longer hide behind the label of "democracy."
A system that measures outcomes would create real accountability and expose the excuses of politicians—especially if Sweden were to score lower than China.
More on the author
The author is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and worked as a journalist and with modeling of complex systems, software testing, quality assurance, and programming including military applications. He has written several books including China: Unbeatable? Why Creating True Wealth Brings Success.
