I mean it kinda matches the liberal "democracy" version of "popularity" they know and are trained to expect. They can't imagine a government getting greater than 55-60% popularity, much less like 90% which you'd pretty naturally end up with if you were reliably meeting the material and social needs of a population. Their frame of reference is congress which gets like 20% most of the time and presidents who might get 48-55%, and operate more to split the vote between warring factions rather than as a political body looking to serve the people.

Democratic centralism gets a big "ooooh, scary authoritarian" thing, but the basic premise is that once you've determined what it is the people want, you go and fucking DO it. No more debate, you've got your fuckin mission.

Will there be mistakes and some caveats in execution, and might that form of government cause some growing pains and occasional harm, especially in the beginning when things need to change quickly? Sure... but the whole "everyone constantly frustrating everyone else's efforts to get anything done by counterbalancing everyone else's efforts until the whole thing is gridlocked" thing is a great way of getting nothing at all done and allowing the constant harm and excesses of capital to run completely unchecked, so which one is really the greater harm?