I actually agree with Chinese people for this one. The problem with having a big populous diverse country while being a democracy is that you cannot possibly represent everyone with only two or three parties. In the USA this is particularly the case. Two parties representing 320+ million people. How is that possible? No wonder they bicker and argue all the time – and as a result nothing really gets done.
The US government is currently under a shut-down due to the inability of the politicians to compromise. That’s what happens when you have a few parties that tries to represent a large mass of people.
India’s population is on par with China’s now and they are also a democracy – but I would say China’s leadership has been more efficient than India’s as well.
One party leadership is undoubtedly more efficient: you don’t have to deal with lobbyists or corporations trying to influence your party, and you don’t have to deal with trying to compromise with the other party, and you don’t have to worry about being voted out by your constituents if they don’t like your plans (in a country of 1.3 billion it would be pretty much impossible to get a plan going that satisfies everyone), meaning the party can put forth their plan with little to no opposition. That’s why China can do things relatively quickly while the US might take years and years to do the same thing.
Now granted I’m not a big fan of the CCP or anything, I really hate how they have to censor things “for the sake of the country” when really its just limiting people’s freedoms, but I can’t disagree with how efficient the CCP is at getting stuff done.