Replies

Recorded history is 5,000 years old. Modern democracy is but a little over 200 years old. Democratic ancient Athens lasted only 80 years. So it's too early to say that authoritarian China can't last a long time. Authoritarianism is the historical norm more than democracy. It's democracy which is more of a new "experiment" in the historical scheme of things than authoritarianism.

In addition, in contrast to about 7 years ago when some Americans were more insistent about China's becoming a democracy overnight, America's elite these days realizes more and more that an authoritarian China is more in their own interest. If China became a democracy tomorrow, it would not become a mirror image of America overnight but much more likely another dysfunctional, chaotic Third World republic along the lines of Indonesia, Russia, India, Brazil, Argentina, S. Africa, Turkey, and other newly democraticized Third World countries. These young democracies all have several things in common: a gridlock-plagued legislature that delays much-needed economic reforms, a need for IMF bailouts, and capital flight. On the other hand, China's authoritarian government passes economic reforms much more expeditiously, so China attracts the vast bulk of foreign investment.

Western Europe and America didn't adopt democracy until about 200 years ago, which is the time in their histories that they developed politically powerful middle-classes or "bourgeoisie." The merchant-class bourgeoisie, in fact, led the French and American Revolutions, ushering in modern democracy. Americans were particularly disturbed by the issue of King George's imposition of irrational taxes on their bourgeois international trading activities -- "No taxes without representation!" Half the signers of the Declaration of Independence were in the business of international trade. China hasn't gotten to that point yet, but China's only had 20 years of capitalism, so one needs to be patient.

It's important also to note that prior to middle-classes developing in the West about 200 years ago, it was the work of "enlightened despots" between 1700 and 1800 who set the stage for middle-classes to grow by codifying the laws, establishing uniform private property rights, and other important economic reforms that set the stage for middle-classes to come into being (the Industrial Revolution also helped). China's leaders today can be thought of as pro-capitalist "enlightened despots" like the European enlightened despots of the 18th century.

Similarly, the one-party governments of the Asian tiger governments like Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. over the past 50 years can also be thought of as pro-capitalist "enlightened despots" who made important economic reforms that set the stage for middle classes in those countries to develop. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew even wrote a book about how under one-party rule, the Asian tigers were able to leap from Third World to First World status in just one generation.

The common feature of Europe's enlightened despots, one-party Asian tiger governments, and China's leadership today is that they can all expeditiously pass much-needed economic reforms without the hassle of slow-moving, gridlock-plagued democratic legislative processes constanty thwarting economic reform efforts. Such delays have been the story of democratic India which, after 50 years of democracy, STILL hasn't become a mirror image of America yet. China has a much better shot of developing its country rapidly if its follows its current course rather than adopt democracy prematurely and become the latest Third World democratic economic basketcase requiring IMF bailouts.