by Stefan Sigfried

In the West, freedom of expression is widely regarded as essential for revealing mistakes, exposing wrongdoing, and holding leaders accountable. It has become a sacrosanct principle, often accompanied by the assumption that societies without near-unlimited freedom of speech are inferior.

By this logic, a country with robust protections — such as the United States and its First Amendment to the Constitution — ought to work remarkably well. But what do we see? The United States has repeatedly been drawn into wars, has consistently sponsored colour revolutions abroad, and has failed to deliver broad-based prosperity for most citizens over recent decades. Freedom of expression, viewed as a guarantee of societal well-being, is clearly flawed: It may illuminate problems, but in a market-driven media environment, it often fails to do so, drowned out by wealthy elites. Professor Robert Cialdini calls simplified reasoning about something a "shortcut": a quick, superficial judgment that substitutes for comprehensive reasoning. The Western-held understanding of freedom of expression is such a shortcut.

As an engineer, it is natural for me to view a society as a system, and engineers build systems in two basic ways: closed-loop (with feedback) or open-loop (without feedback). Open-loop systems respond quickly but can't self-correct, lacking a feedback signal to realign them. Closed-loop systems, by contrast, achieve greater accuracy through feedback. This latter type is what we need in a society, but it is worth noting that success hinges on the quality of the feedback signal itself. In system design, we know that if feedback signals are flawed, they can harm a system, for example, by causing instability.

Healthy feedback signals in a society deliver verifiable facts, expose corruption and waste, and offer constructive solutions, strengthening societal resilience and harmony. That kind of feedback signal is indispensable if a society is to thrive. But signals that spread fear, undermine security and ignore facts soon become poisonous. No society needs to tolerate such distortions. Think about the common rule that you can't falsely yell "fire" in a theatre because it could create a catastrophe, especially if the theatre is crowded and people panic, but if a fire is starting, yelling "fire" is most appropriate. Nor do we allow defamatory speech. A signal sent must thus be rooted in facts and be sent to make a society work, not to destroy it.

In an earlier article, "How is our democracy really doing?" I argued that democracy cannot be reduced to Western-style elections; the true test is whether citizens feel they live in a good society. A similar approach must be used when assessing the feedback signals a country provides: Does a society equip citizens with effective ways to voice their concerns and have them addressed by authorities? Thus, the test "Do we have freedom of expression?" is superficial, especially if a country is faltering. A meaningful test is rather: "Are there healthy feedback signals?"

The Chinese whole-process people's democracy operates through an integrated ecosystem of feedback mechanisms, creating a closed-loop form of governance. A good example is the massive public consultation for the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030), which collected over three million suggestions. By embedding consultation links and QR codes across widely used digital platforms, authorities sought to maximize reach and encourage mass participation. Each such suggestion is a feedback signal.

Other examples include the national 12345 government service hotline, the interactive "Leader's Message Board," where officials must publicly reply to citizens, and the Xinfang petition system, created in 1949 to allow citizens to petition over grievances and official misconduct. Together, these mechanisms operate within a broader governance framework that integrates public opinion into policy formation.

But what do healthy feedback signals mainly depend on? Forty years ago, I became convinced that the answer is leadership. During a quality-assurance course, two elderly, seasoned British instructors opened a session by stating: "Seventy percent of an organisation's problems are caused by management." After a pause — just long enough for us to assume the remaining thirty percent must be ours — they added, "And the other thirty percent are indirectly caused by management." Everything depends on leadership. For me, this truth has only been reinforced over the years.

As author and leadership expert Simon Sinek observes, "Leadership is not about being in charge. It's about taking care of those in your charge," and taking care starts with listening. As when Chinese President Xi Jinping instructed the government and the Party to "investigate broadly and deeply the people's conditions, listen to the voices of the people, and gather the wisdom of the masses to ... push forward Chinese-style modernization and continuously realize the people's aspirations for a better life." Good leaders encourage and listen to healthy feedback signals, and this determines everything.

To sum up, invoking "democracy" and "freedom of expression" easily blinds us to what truly matters. We must look beyond the rhetoric, dig deeper, and judge by outcomes. If we evaluate societies by their fruits — stability, poverty reduction, infrastructure, social cohesion — it becomes evident which societies currently enjoy a higher-calibre of leadership. And it is not in Europe. With the Western system faltering, it is high time to look for inspiration about better feedback signals in places like China.

Editor's note: The author is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and worked as a journalist and with modeling of complex systems, software testing, quality assurance, and programming, including military applications. He has written several books, including China Unbeatable?: Why Creating True Wealth Brings Success.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Xinhua News Agency. ■