If their governance model was so good, they wouldn't have to oppress their population so much. The fact that Western governments are adopting some of the same techniques is a sign that either technology makes it too easy/cheap to implement these systems without thinking, or that Western governments are becoming less representative and thus need to rely on systems of oppression more to maintain their grip on power.
To give some possible examples of what I mean by "less representative", let me suggest that growing wealth inequality makes the poor realise they are not being heard by the rich; that communication technology allow niche ideas to spread causing the balkanisation of reality (which causes cracks that governments can't easily paper over); and that in some countries the voting system doesn't allow the healthy evolution of parties to respond to the new realities (exacerbating "future shock").
But zooming out, I think a society/government's job is preventing destruction and growing. That may not be in a way that's dangerous to other governments, but high relative growth can make other governments irrelevant. I'm claiming that the value from unabashed large scale data surveillance that CCP gathers is very large, and that might be a significant enough factor moving forward that privacy-first countries might simply not be able to keep up with it, and become irrelevant.
From this viewpoint, if the EU is doing this, we have no large diverse conglomerate that can serve as an experimental control any more. We can't even tell if privacy "is a good thing", for the final metric of growth. Not US, not EU, not India. Africa is still not in the same league.
Every single one of them have basically succumbed to privacy vs. security false dichotomy (https://signal.org/blog/private-contact-discovery/). Every single one thinks the way forward (at least for now) is mass surveillance.
Maybe they think the gain from not having public crime is big enough to justify the cost. In which case CCP was "right" - convergent evolution means something (for now).
You mistake the way western governments are structured with "governance of a society". The CCP is far more than the traditional there branches of the western democratic government.
Societies self-govern and create structures. Some of those structures are companies, some are government. Sometimes the government regulates companies, and sometimes companies regulate the government.
Edit: even in the US for example, ONLY the judiciary is concerned with defending individual liberties. If that's all that's necessary then we wouldn't need elections, just a military and that's that.
You seem to heavily discount the amount of work it takes to become post-scarcity - most societies in the world fail to achieve this, even for simple things like cell phones in 2021.
That the CCP is far more is clear indication that it is too much.
(In the US) The judiciary is very obviously not the only branch concerned with protecting individual liberties. Law makers pass laws with the intent to do so and the President can command the military to do so if necessary.
The world is on track to completely eliminate starvation and abject poverty in a few years, maybe a decade or two.
Projected life span and quality of life is at an all time high on average, and crime is overall down which is another indicator of plenty rather than lack. It is utopian minded idealism that everyone should have everything they want (including cell phones) and the world should become 'post-scarcity' (whatever that means). I have found utopian minded idealists to be the least experienced with regards work.
To give some possible examples of what I mean by "less representative", let me suggest that growing wealth inequality makes the poor realise they are not being heard by the rich; that communication technology allow niche ideas to spread causing the balkanisation of reality (which causes cracks that governments can't easily paper over); and that in some countries the voting system doesn't allow the healthy evolution of parties to respond to the new realities (exacerbating "future shock").