[Warning: the post below wanders into the organization of the Catholic Church before returning to the subject at hand.]
At 07:56 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't think so, not a lot of elections held in the Catholic Church,
How did you think they select popes, then?
In the jargon of political science, the Roman Catholic Church (or, more specifically for this purpose, the Vatican City) is an elective monarchy.
and while there is a lot of discussion, a priest or bishop who deviates on certain points is soon in serious trouble.
For values of "trouble" that, to a nonbeliever, translate as "may lose his job if he continues to disagree publicly with his employer." I realize that this is a serious matter to a believer--but nobody is required to belong to this organization, and the pope has no prisons. Yes, there's an official newspaper, but the church does not have the authority to stop the publication of dissenting publications: L'Osservatore Romano has the same status as Ari Fleischer's public statements, not as Pravda in the bad old days [1].
Whatever the defects of the United States the situation differs markedly.
If George Bush decides I am a threat to US security, I can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. If Karol Wojtyla decides I am a threat to the Catholic Church, he can say so publicly, and I can go about my normal occasions. Yes, the situation differs markedly, but maybe not in the way you're trying to suggest.
Bottom line, words have established meanings to most of us. Everything isn't the same, some institutions are relatively democratic, some are relatively authorititarian and may fairly be so described.
And now you're saying "relatively"; are you proposing an article that describes China as "relatively authoritarian", and if so, do you plan to give a scale from 0 to 100, with notes of where other nations fall on that scale?