> As to select policy maker/politician , Chinese system evolved to a very different systematic procedure with some democracy factors (i.e. selected by vote, but not by average people)
What you are describing is some kind of collegial governance, but absolutely not a democratic government. Contrary to what you are saying, voting systems that exclude the "average people" are literally undemocratic.
Now, you can very well argue that democracy isn't the best or most efficient system, but the Chinese system just isn't democratic, and is not really leaning towards it either.
Well that's somewhat of a moving goal post. Was the US not a democracy at it's inception because only land owners were allowed to vote? What about before black people and women were allowed to vote? Were Britain and Germany not democracies at the outbreak of WW2?
Most importantly of all, were the ancient Athenians not democratic? The average person was a slave, but the did define what democracy meant.
China is a classic communist dictatorship with a few Democratic elements.
China actually has several other parties than Communist party, for example Chinese Kuomintang, China Democratic League etc. But they are small meritocratic ally selected (only 100,000 members and must be intellectual) support parties. Communist party still rules.
In principle people outside the system can be elected. If I remember only one person has been able to get trough in 20 years and all independent candidates are harassed ruthlessly.
The Chinese people work wonders because they believe they can work wonders if they work hard. This is pretty much the American Dream as I understood it. That's why I always imagined that the Chinese government has much in common, and thus can work well with a GOP government. People are urged to work hard for a better life, not relying (too much) on social securities.
It's hard to tell if democracy is fundamentally better than whatever its alternative is. You know, no offense, DT can be elected. With enough manipulation, all Chinese government heads can be elected as well, even under a democratic system.
Contrary to most western audience's belief, Democracy is also a value promoted by CPP , at least literally. But the meaning of democracy is quite different. The one in India focus on equal voting from everybody , in China such practice is only gradually implemented in some area recently, but what CPP emphasize more is collective decision making by a group of participants not a dominant chief officer.
As to select policy maker/politician , Chinese system evolved to a very different systematic procedure with some democracy factors (i.e. selected by vote, but not by average people). See a TED speech:
https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_...
The consequence of the difference is "democratically elected" policy makers are good story tellers finally win the voters . Usually they are former Lawyer, Journalist who are very good at articulating and performing to gain higher votes, live in their own alternative reality sometime lead to war. As a comparison, typical Chinese officials are usually not so good looking , even can not speak fluently without a speech note, more likely trained as engineers with better understanding facts , less influenced by ideology. But they are in that position for a better reason: They have some track record of accomplishment.
From Machine learning point of view, India democracy looks like a simple one layer Perceptron with equal weights on all inputs, Chinese "democracy" is a forward feed neural network with a very small hidden layer with the weights somehow adjusted.
Good luck to India people.