This strict split is also one of the central theme of Poppers "The Open Society And Its Enemies".
"For we may distinguish two main types of government. The first type consists of governments of which we can get rid without bloodshed — for example, by way of general elections; that is to say, the social institutions
provide means by which the rulers may be dismissed by the ruled, and the social traditions- ensure that these i nstitutions will not easily be destroyed by those who are in power. The second type consists of governments which the ruled cannot get rid of except by way of a successful revolution — that is to say, in most cases, not at all"
...
"the criterion of a
democracy is this: In a democracy, the rulers — that is to say, the government — can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny. We need only distinguish between two forms of government, viz. such as possess institutions of this kind, and all others"
Doesn't this presume that the structures which prop up the government are already an intrinsic good? Consider the frequently seen sentiment that no matter who is in office, it is the office itself that does not serve the people, the government is not for the people, and the foundations of the government work against the people and will continue to do so even if a ruler is dismissed and another brought in. To use a more crude example, a slave does not cease to be a slave just because he can vote out his old master - rather it is the institution of slavery that must change, not merely adding the ability to choose.
This is frequently found in political philosophy that goes well beyond Popper's liberal egalitarianism. It's very strange to see this in the context of a country which is ostensibly (but not actually) democratic, such as China.
"For we may distinguish two main types of government. The first type consists of governments of which we can get rid without bloodshed — for example, by way of general elections; that is to say, the social institutions provide means by which the rulers may be dismissed by the ruled, and the social traditions- ensure that these i nstitutions will not easily be destroyed by those who are in power. The second type consists of governments which the ruled cannot get rid of except by way of a successful revolution — that is to say, in most cases, not at all" ... "the criterion of a democracy is this: In a democracy, the rulers — that is to say, the government — can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny. We need only distinguish between two forms of government, viz. such as possess institutions of this kind, and all others"
https://archive.org/stream/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPopper...