I have an impression that the Free World, in principle, is opposed to any system of government other than the Western form of democracy. At least the leader of the free world, the USA, likes to portray that routinely. Whenever there is a crisis of democracy, they impose sanctions.
The Western form of democracy is also known as liberal democracy.
According to Wikipedia --
Liberal democracy is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under an indirect democratic form of government. It is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people.
Let us, for the sake of argument, ignore the fact that the Free World apply this principle selectively. Yet, arguments against this policy would be --
Sure, China is using a custom-made version of communism. I.e., they borrowed an idea from Europe and then modified it according to their needs. However, would the West agreed if China adopted something else which was not western democracy? I very much doubt that.
- e.g., Afghanistan has a traditional system called Jirga.
Secondly, why shouldn't a country have the liberty to choose its own system of governance for its own people, should the people approve it through either a referendum or a revolution?
- According to the West, Iran is a theocracy. Yet, according to Iran themselves, they have a functioning presidential democracy. I.e., they are using a custom-made version of democtracy.
So, why does the Free World oppose any system other than the western form of democracy?