A video recently went viral, featuring former Singaporean foreign minister George Yeo defining “democracy”. Yeo put forward a narrative that deserves serious consideration: If we trace the word “democracy” back to its Greek origins, its essence is often understood in terms of government “of the people, by the people and for the people”. He argued that by this standard, a society should not be judged by how many billionaires it produces but by how the poorest 10 percent of its population live; by this measure, the living conditions of China’s bottom 10 percent are better than those of the bottom 10 percent in other major countries.
To understand Yeo’s assessment, one must first look at what China has done for its poorest citizens over the past decade. At the end of 2012, China had 98.99 million rural residents living below the poverty line. After eight years of sustained efforts, China achieved its goal of eradicating absolute rural poverty by the end of 2020. All 98.99 million registered rural poor had been lifted out of poverty, all 832 designated poor counties had been removed from the poverty list, and all 128,000 impoverished villages had been lifted out of poverty. It was the largest and most intensive poverty-reduction campaign in human history.
One reason China was able to reach such a vast population within a relatively short period was the establishment of a comprehensive policy framework ranging from precise identification of poor households and targeted assistance to industrial development, employment support and social-security safeguards. More importantly, China did not simply declare victory and walk away once the poverty-alleviation efforts were done. Instead, it established a five-year transition period to continue supporting those who had escaped poverty while monitoring households at risk of falling back into it.
Rural incomes in former poor counties have continued to rise, suggesting that some areas are gradually moving from a model of direct income support — essentially “transfusing” resources into poorer communities — toward more sustainable forms of development through industries and employment. All 832 formerly impoverished counties have developed two or three distinctive industries, with combined output exceeding 2 trillion yuan ($298 billion). The significance of this is not merely economic. It means that people at the bottom of income distribution are increasingly integrated into local production and supply chains rather than remaining dependent on welfare or government assistance.
Then there is the social safety net. Among families lifted out of poverty, compulsory-education dropout rates have been brought to zero. Basic medical insurance coverage has remained above 99 percent, while access to tap water in rural areas has reached 96 percent. These and other relevant figures represent more than statistics. They reflect the State’s commitment to serving as the ultimate safety net. The “for the people” dimension of democracy, in the Chinese context, means that a poor family should not have to face medical treatment as a choice between debt and death; that a child should not have to leave school because the family cannot afford an education; and that villagers should not have to walk for hours to obtain potable water.
Such certainty of basic protection is precisely what many people at the bottom of the social ladder in many developed countries still struggle to obtain. Take the United States for example. The Guardian has pointed out that over the past several decades, institutional choices in the US have contributed to a situation in which poverty has not only persisted but, by some measures, expanded. Citing World Bank data, the newspaper noted that in 1990, 943 million people in China were living on less than $3 a day, measured in 2021 dollars. By 2019, that figure had fallen to zero. In the US, more than 4 million Americans — about 1.25 percent of the population — are estimated to live on less than $3 a day, a figure more than three times the level recorded 35 years ago. The term “kill line” has entered discussions in America, which captures the precarious existence of many working-class and lower-income American households. These families are not necessarily unemployed. Rather, their incomes are often just enough to cover day-to-day expenses. In many cases, institutional arrangements create barriers that are extraordinarily difficult to overcome. For example, among advanced economies, the US remains the only country without a universal healthcare system. Medical bills have consequently become one of the financial burdens that many Americans fear most.
The deeper problem is that America’s approach to poverty has never been fundamentally structured around the interests of the poor. Studies have suggested that candidates backed by the most campaign funding win the overwhelming majority of US congressional seats. If so, who truly represents the public interest? Large corporations, wealthy donors and organized interest groups possess far greater political influence than ordinary people. This is the context behind the idea of “two Americas”: an increasingly divided society. The richest 10 percent of households own around 67 percent of household wealth, while the bottom 50 percent own only about 2.5 percent. Such inequality deepens social fragmentation and reinforces social immobility. The consequences can ultimately be seen in broader measures of social well-being: declining life expectancy, unequal access to education, and more than 770,000 homeless people in 2024 — a historic high.
If democracy means only having a ballot in one’s hand on Election Day, then democracy can be defined primarily as a matter of political procedure. People should therefore resist the temptation to judge a society solely by its headline economic figures or facade of prosperity. The more important question is whether every citizen — especially those at the bottom of the social ladder — is genuinely sharing in the fruits of development. That is where the meaning of “government of the people, by the people and for the people” ultimately becomes tangible.
The author is a member of the Legislative Council and the UN Association of China.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
