This is a very vague definition that anyone can mold to essentially fit any country they don’t like. Then they just dismiss those as authoritarian and that’s a good enough argument in their mind.

Pluralism is either lobbies or trade unions – trade unions being a symptom of the class struggle. Since the state is a tool of oppression of one class over another (usually the exploiters over the exploited), I’m going to venture a guess and say pluralism is a bad thing in liberal societies. So reject it all you want lol.

Strong central power to preserve the political status quo: again, no state will let itself be overthrown. Louis 16th didn’t say “okay, take my title away and I’ll just go”. Batista didn’t say “okay, communism is actually right, I’ll step down and you can do whatever you want”.

Reductions in the rule of law: again a meaningless term. In my so-called democratic country, I can count labour violations every day I go to work. Bringing them up with your employer is useless, bringing them up with a higher power (a trade union because the government doesn’t give a shit, thanks pluralism) will stall and get into this huge thing that takes months or years to resolve. Is that a reduction in the rule of law, when laws exist but are not applied?

Separation of powers: look, separation of powers is pretty cool. But it’s also not a universal truth; they were theorized by an Enlightenment philosopher at the end of the 18th century. If I’m talking about the separation of powers specifically when analysing a government, I would use more precise terms such as a junta (in the case of a military coup), a comprador government (in the case of a state working alongside their imperialist masters), etc.

Democratic voting: so… no country ever? Let’s not pretend republics where you get to vote for the same politician just in a different shade of paint every 4 or 5 years is democracy. Sometimes you can’t even vote for your politicians, they are elected by other politicians you elected! Can’t vote on laws directly in most countries, can’t vote on everyone in government (some people are just appointed, like the prime minister and their cabinet in France). Can’t recall your officials - in liberal republics only the president or head of state has the power to dissolve the assembly and hold elections again. You don’t participate in politics, you suffer politics.

Coming back to my previous comment, a government forcing legislation promoting LGBT rights (such as marriage) against popular support can fit your definition. An absolute king declaring that gay marriage is now legal (a progressive thing) without consulting anyone, still makes him fit this definition of authoritarianism.

In any case, China does not even fit this definition of authoritarianism. Again, it’s a meaningless definition that means whatever someone wants it to so they can disparage countries they don’t want to take the time to understand. Just call it authoritarian and that means it’s a bad country and why would I want to learn about bad things?