So you yourself are insinuating, you believe that without the control-oppression-censorship systems of the CCP, that the Chinese people are weak, weak-minded, and incapable of re-organizing on their own? I disagree with that wholly. I believe the Chinese people could thrive even more greatly than the status quo that the CCP is controlling for - especially the Uighurs. The CCP is keeping people in check, in line, forcing them to support the current system - they don't have a choice to not support it - so there's no choice of "not wanting it." It's forced consensus, where you if you don't agree with the current system then you're sent to "re-education camps." I don't understand how you're able to conclude what you do if you know of these control-oppression-censorship systems of the CCP - unless you've been brainwashed/indoctrinated to believe they do not exist - and the failsafe to preventing these types of actions of a potential tyrant/tyranny from forming, is to prevent the government from controlling and suppressing free speech - because then they have the ability to speak the truth.

If you truly believed the Chinese people were strong, capable, if you truly believed the CCP system would be what the majority of Chinese people would want (once their fear is diminished) the CCP's control in place, then the CCP should become a Democratic nation where people can vote - where you trust your people, and the current government not have fear or fear their people. In fact the reason there isn't a voting system is the CCP knows that their citizens wouldn't vote the CCP in, and whatever truths they're trying to keep hidden will be able to come to light - whether the majority of those truths are relatively benign or malicious in nature, I don't know - whether the CCP keeps records of all of their behaviours or not, I don't know either.

Tyranny of majority? That's not tyranny. If the majority of people vote in a legitimate, fair polling with adequate systems in place to make sure there isn't cheating/fraud - then the direction of who they voted for is what the majority want and policy will be changed/evolve based on whomever is currently in power. This is in fact a feature of Democracy, not a bug. Voting is literally polling to see the state of the union and what people's current beliefs and understanding of everything is, to understand how they're doing personally - are they suffering, are they thriving, etc; it's like a Litmus test to see where on the spectrum of abundance vs. scarcity mindset they are, state of health vs. dis-ease state.

Re: "So unless democratic system can really save its minority they can’t be on higher ground" - Yes, yes they can be on higher ground - and that happens because ultimately the government, party - the group of people/politicians who's policy and policy proposals align with the benefit of EVERYONE in the population - not just those who voted them into power will result in a higher quality of life for EVERYONE; the party who wins power, gets into government, and who attempts to punish or suffocate their non-voters (Republicans/Trump and party who clearly, multiple times attempted to harm Democratic voting states) is the opposite of this, and will cause non-voters and other citizens to start voting, the impetus will exist and strengthen because their suffering and ability to survive is lessening to a degree that they realize the system needs change, a course correction for the ship called America.

"Also if one needs over a billon dollar to fight election and win top positions" - Indeed, you're correct but Democracy is evolving and the duopoly that has formed due to current policy can be EASILY broken apart with the correct policies; Andrew Yang, who was a Presidential candidate, and his core policies are what will lead to the duopoly to break apart - along with disempowering the few mainstream media channels the majority of Americans watch: Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, and Freedom Dividend/Universal Basic Income - I'd urge you to research those policy proposals and read his book, if you're genuinely interested in understanding how Democracy is a better system; it's highly unlikely I'd be able to even have this discussion with you in China, or at least once I gain a large enough following to worry the CCP then I'd be punished God only knows how. Andrew Yang's book is called The War On Normal People.

The problem with your final paragraph is that the CCP will prevent/ban/block ideas and efforts, say in book form, that would present and provide a better solution than what the CCP is allowing. I don't know if you're arguing in bad faith or gaslighting, or you just haven't thought this through fully to include into your thinking how the CCP would influence such things to prevent change? Can you at minimum agree the CCP does ban/suppress certain speech and ideas - and I can easily be blocked if I was to try to present to the Chinese people a better system than their existing one? Do you actually believe the CCP would allow this?

I'd really love to continue this conversation after you've read Andrew Yang's policy proposals. I'm curious what resistance you may have with them, and I'd be happy to make clarifications or correct misunderstands of the policies if I see that you're misinterpreting something in them.