That's an individualist perspective. China is a collectivist culture and society. The Chinese believe what is good for the country is more important than what is good for a particular town, and that what is good for the town is more important than what is good for a particular family, and that what is good for the family is more important than what is good for an individual. It's core Chinese culture. It's why they put their family names first, and their personal names second, a good chunk of Chinese culture is based on this concept.
Western society is both democratic AND individualist. China is non-democratic AND collectivist.
There is no doubt that that the non-democratic aspects of China have hurt he country in the past. The present leaders of the Communist Party of China will all agree with you that rule under the Gang of Four was a disastrous setback for the country. No doubt.
But you will not find much agreement in China for the view that moving to a more inclusive system means moving to an individual rights perspective. They still prefer a collectivist perspective, and they are trying to arrive at some sort of government that is inherently collectivist. That's what they value. How to reconcile that with democracy is an interesting and hard problem -- but a democratic government, if China were to adopt one, could presumably STILL be a collectivist government that STILL has the authority to kick families around for the sake of the town, and move towns around for the sake of the country.
I have been to the Three Gorges Dam area, and spoken with people who were relocated. They didn't have a choice about being relocated, they were simply forced to move. But you know what? Most of them were happy about that, because they were forced to move from dilapidated cramped uninsulated mud floor homes without electricity or running water, to new modern construction insulated apartments with more floor space, electricity, and indoor plumbing. They got their own bathrooms for the first time EVER. And they got phones. And they got internet. They got the ability to heat their homes in the winter--all stuff that they never had before. There was a lot of bickering about, "my home was worth more, you should give me a bigger apartment", but almost no one really preferred to stay in their old homes.
So were their rights violated? They were denied any choice, but in almost every case, they were made better off by the change. To the extent that some of them valued their personal attachment to their ancestral shack over modern convenience, there are probably a few who were made worse off.
But then ask the question -- does the community have rights too? In a collectivist society, there is a perception that the society itself has rights. In the West we are familiar with the concept of trading off the rights of one individual against another. In China, they trade off the rights of the society against the rights of the individual. Is that a violation? Or just a tradeoff?
To me there are two SEPARATE issues here:
-- A different conception of rights in a collectivist society, where society itself is perceived as having rights, and being more important to the individual
-- The lack of democratic oversight in the Chinese system, which creates the possibility that officials in power may abuse their position for their own benefit, to the detriment of BOTH society AND indivdiduals
So I think China has work to do on the second point, but you are mixing in the first -- and I don't think very many Chinese would agree with you even if you put that question to them in a free and fair election.
