I'll make a slightly off-topic diatribe, following the out of place, strongly opinionated remark in the article that should be in an editorial and not in a factual article.
Note that the perceived democracy is not equal to actual democracy - thus why France is in the red in that report, when it is an actual democracy where China isn't (and the US, not exactly).
However, while the central government in Beijing isn't elected democratically (far from it), actual local administrators often are named by consensus - and THEY are the people that are perceived as impacting people's day to day life. So, while the PCC has an iron grip on people's lives, their representatives have quite a lot of power while remaining somewhat close to the people.
In France, it's the opposite and it's getting worse : the government is elected democratically, but they are perceived (and prove themselves daily) as being completely disconnected from the country, especially outside Paris - thus, a perception that political leaders are completely unconcerned by the people they're supposed to administer.
In the article, a quick shortcut is taken to indicate a model has to be PCC approved to be used so as to control the population - mainly, that the model won't say anything bad about the PCC. Well, the exact same thing can be said about censoring models in the West, they're all based on US "decency" standards - when those don't apply to the rest of the world (e.g., kicking a picture out because there's a NIPPLE on it?! Come ON !!!)
Two weights, two measures. Who's to say which one is right ?