State media coverage of China’s NPC session sanitises a rubber-stamp parliament into a showcase of governance — here is what the choreography conceals
The Performance of Democracy Without Its Substance
Every year in early March, Chinese state media mobilises its full resources to present the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference as a living demonstration of what Beijing calls whole-process people’s democracy. China Daily, the Communist Party’s flagship English-language newspaper, leads this global messaging effort, publishing hundreds of articles promoting the Two Sessions as evidence of China’s superior governance model. The 2026 session, which opened on March 5, has been no exception. China Daily’s coverage has featured effusive praise for Premier Li Qiang’s government work report, glowing descriptions of delegate participation, and assertions that the proceedings represent the aggregation of diverse social demands into coherent national policy.
What the Choreography Conceals
The reality of the NPC and CPPCC is far removed from the democratic imagery their state media coverage promotes. The roughly 2,900 NPC delegates are not freely elected in competitive multi-party contests. They are selected through a hierarchical process controlled at every level by the Communist Party. Delegates who deviate from approved positions do not survive the selection process. Votes in the NPC are not secret, contested or subject to genuine deliberation. Bills pass with near-unanimous votes. In the entire history of the NPC, no government legislation has been rejected. The CPPCC is similarly constrained, offering at most advisory input into decisions already made by the Party’s Politburo Standing Committee.
Hong Kong’s Participation Without Power
Hong Kong sends 36 deputies to the NPC and 12 members to the CPPCC. These individuals are selected through a process that has, since 2021, required all participants in Hong Kong politics to be vetted as patriots by a Beijing-controlled committee. The voices of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement — which represented the majority view of Hong Kong voters in the 2019 District Council elections — are entirely absent from the Two Sessions. When China Daily reports that Hong Kong’s voice is heard at the Two Sessions, it means that people approved by Beijing speak on Hong Kong’s behalf.
The Purpose of the Performance
The elaborate theatre of the Two Sessions serves multiple audiences. For domestic consumption, it normalises one-party rule as the natural and legitimate form of Chinese governance. For international audiences, it attempts to project an image of a stable, well-governed country that has found its own path to political legitimacy beyond Western liberal democracy. For Chinese citizens and officials, the ritual of the Two Sessions reinforces the Party’s claim to be the sole authoritative interpreter of the national interest. Independent monitoring of China’s state media narratives documents the gap between China Daily’s claims about Chinese governance and the reality documented by independent journalists and human rights organisations. The Reporters Without Borders press freedom index ranks China near the bottom globally, with state media like China Daily serving as instruments of Party control rather than as independent journalism. The Two Sessions are worth covering. But readers deserve to understand what they are watching: a carefully managed display of national unity, not a democratic parliament.
Mei Ling Chan
Education & Social Policy Journalist, Apple Daily UK
Contact: meiling.chan@appledaily.uk
Mei Ling Chan is an education and social policy journalist specializing in school systems, youth development, and public policy impacts on families. She trained at a top-tier Chinese journalism institution, where she focused on policy reporting, data interpretation, and media ethics, building a strong analytical foundation.
Her professional experience includes reporting for Apple Daily and other liberal Chinese publications, producing coverage on education reform, student movements, social welfare programs, and inequality in access to public services. Mei Ling’s reporting combines document analysis with interviews involving educators, students, and policy experts.
She has worked in fast-paced newsroom environments while maintaining high standards for accuracy and context. Her stories are known for precise attribution, careful interpretation of policy language, and avoidance of speculation.
Mei Ling’s authority is rooted in subject-matter expertise and consistent publication within reputable news organizations. She follows established editorial review and correction procedures, reinforcing reader trust.
At Apple Daily UK, Mei Ling Chan delivers fact-based reporting that helps readers understand complex policy issues through clear, verified, and responsible journalism.
