THE TEST OF DEMOCRACY: USA vs CHINA vs MALAYSIA

 

 

A democracy is a political order in which political power is exercised equitably and translated into social welfare and broad-based prosperity. Political voice alone, without equitable power, welfare, and prosperity, does not constitute democracy. Elections, free speech, and formal rights are therefore necessary but insufficient. What ultimately matters is whether political authority is fairly exercised and whether it improves the material and social conditions of the people.

In this article, we use a set of practical yardsticks to examine how democracy functions in reality rather than in theory. These yardsticks are then applied comparatively to three countries: the United States, China, and Malaysia. At the end, we offer an overall rating for each on a scale of one to ten, based on substance rather than form.

The Six Yardsticks of Substantive Democracy

1. Equitable Exercise of Power: Is power genuinely shared, autonomous, and accountable, or is it captured by elite families, wealth networks, or foreign interests?
2. Political Equality in Practice: Does each citizen’s voice carry comparable weight in practice, or is it diluted by structural bias and malapportionment?
3. Social Welfare: Does the system protect citizens from avoidable hardship through universal healthcare, education, and a "dignity floor"?
4. Economic Equity and Upward Mobility: Do effort and ability matter more than birth? Are there clear pathways from lower-income brackets to the middle class?
5. Broad-Based Prosperity: Does the majority of the population benefit from economic growth, or are gains concentrated at the top?
6. Execution Capacity: Can the state effectively translate political mandates into real-world outcomes and infrastructure?

The United States: High Form, Fragmented Substance

In the United States, political power is formally decentralized, but in practice, it is heavily filtered by wealth. Access to leadership is gated by donor networks, and institutional checks are increasingly strained by hyper-polarization. While elections are procedurally robust, the dominance of corporate lobbying and campaign finance suggests that real decision-making is often captured.

Political equality is uneven. While universal suffrage exists, the impact of a vote varies significantly due to gerrymandering and the Electoral College. Furthermore, the fragmented information ecosystem—saturated with algorithmic misinformation—makes it difficult for the average citizen to exercise an "informed" voice.

Socially, the US performs poorly for a high-income nation. It remains the only major advanced economy without universal healthcare; as of 2024, approximately 26 million Americans remain uninsured. Economic mobility has also stalled. The "American Dream" is increasingly a factor of birth; the top 1% now hold nearly 30% of household wealth, while the bottom 50% hold just 2.5%.

Consequently, US execution capacity is hampered by gridlock. While the US possesses immense national wealth, its inability to convert that wealth into a secure social safety net for the majority results in a system that is loud on rights but quiet on results.

China: High Execution, Limited Voice

China presents the inverse profile. On political equality and participatory power, it scores very low. Leadership selection is a closed loop, and independent organization is strictly managed. Citizens lack a formal mechanism to contest power, meaning "voice" is replaced by "petitioning" within a state-controlled framework.

However, China’s "Social Welfare" and "Execution" metrics are remarkably high. Over the last four decades, China has executed the largest poverty reduction program in human history, lifting over 800 million people out of extreme poverty. While its "dignity floor" is lower in absolute dollar terms than the US, its trajectory of improvement is steeper.

The state’s ability to translate power into outcomes is its defining strength. Whether it is the rapid expansion of high-speed rail or the recent 2025–2026 initiatives to remove "Hukou" (household registration) restrictions for migrant workers' social security, the Chinese system converts policy into reality with a speed that Western democracies cannot match. The trade-off is absolute: material security is provided in exchange for the surrender of political contestation.

Malaysia: The Balanced Performer

Malaysia occupies a unique middle ground. Unlike the US, it has retained a robust public social safety net. Unlike China, it maintains a competitive (if messy) electoral democracy.

Political equality in Malaysia, however, remains a structural challenge. While voting rights are inclusive, malapportionment significantly distorts the "one person, one vote" principle. In the most recent data (2024-2025), disparities in constituency size have reached extreme levels; for instance, the voter-to-representative ratio in urban Bangi exceeds 300,000, whereas rural Igan has fewer than 30,000. This results in a weightage where one rural vote can carry the power of ten urban votes.

Information access is relatively open, but it is heavily shaped by politically connected conglomerates. In the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, Malaysia rose to 88th place, a significant improvement from 107th in 2024, yet Reporters Without Borders (RSF) remains concerned about the "problematic" concentration of media ownership.

Socially, Malaysia is a standout. Its dual healthcare system provides nearly universal access at a nominal cost (RM1 for outpatient care), a model frequently cited by the WHO for its efficiency. Education remains highly subsidized, and the "dignity floor" is supported by a culture of subsidies for fuel and food, though these are currently undergoing rationalization to ensure fiscal sustainability. Malaysia’s strength lies in its balance: it offers more political voice than China and better social protection than the US.

Final Rankings and Scores

When all six yardsticks are weighted equally, the results challenge the assumption that procedural rights are the sole measure of a successful society.

Metric (Scale 1-10)	USA	China	Malaysia
Equitable Power	5.0	2.5	6.0
Political Equality	5.0	2.0	6.0
Social Welfare	4.0	7.0	7.5
Economic Mobility	4.0	6.5	6.0
Broad Prosperity	5.0	7.0	6.0
Execution Capacity	5.0	8.5	6.0
Total Weighted Score	4.7	5.5	6.3

 

1. Malaysia (~6.3/10)

Malaysia ranks first because it avoids the "catastrophic failures" of the other two. It provides a functional level of political competition without abandoning the poor to market forces. Its healthcare and education systems deliver high "substance" relative to its GDP.

2. China (~5.5/10)

China ranks second. While it fails the test of political "voice," its performance in delivering material dignity, infrastructure, and poverty reduction is so superior to the US that it offsets its lack of formal democracy in a substantive framework.

3. United States (~4.7/10)

The US ranks last. While it is the "freest" on paper, that freedom is increasingly hollow for the millions who lack healthcare, face stagnant wages, and see their political system paralyzed by wealth and gridlock.

Conclusion

This comparison underscores a deeper truth: Democratic legitimacy ultimately rests on what systems deliver to the lives of ordinary people. A system that offers the right to vote but not the right to a dignified life is a performance, not a democracy.

Malaysia’s lead suggests that the future of governance may lie not in the extremes of liberal individualism or authoritarian collectivism, but in a balanced, state-led commitment to shared welfare and political inclusion.

Malaysia Boleh! Hidup Malaysia.

Peace, anas