Democracy did well in the 20th Century in part because countries desired to emulate the world’s leading power of that time. But now both America and Europe, and hence their governance systems, are losing their appeal as role models because their economies have floundered; instead China’s economic influence has grown
On May 20, Taiwan’s new President Tsai Ing-wen was sworn in to office. In her inaugural speech, Taiwan’s first woman President vowed to use her position as the most powerful woman in the Chinese-speaking world to promote democracy and freedom.
Ing-wen’s words may seem redundant from the large posters I saw last week while I was visiting Guangzhou, capital of China’s Guangdong province, whose economy is larger than that of Indonesia. These posters positioned China to be a land of democracy, liberty, and equality.
A few years ago, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia, was also perplexed when Chinese President Xi Jinping told him that China had the goal of becoming “a modern socialist country that is prosperous, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious” by the middle of the century. Abbott responded in wonderment that he had never before heard of a Chinese leader promising full democracy by 2050.
Witnesses to the posters I saw in Guangzhou and Abott would all well benefit from an explanation that Chinese official language is full of liberal political terms which have meanings different from all that is familiar to the Western liberal ear. China claims it has a socialist democracy in the sense that the party believes itself to represent the people. But Chinese authorities crack down on intellectuals who have pushed for constitutional and democratic rights, and independent political parties are banned.
There is no consensus on one precise definition of democracy, but legal equality, political freedom, and rule of law are often regarded as important characteristics. The current form of Government in China clearly cannot be included within this framework. We can have a slightly less worrying acceptance of this fact if we agree that Western-style democracy is not the ultimate panacea to all the problems of the world.
After the fall of Athens where democracy was first developed around the 5th Century BC as a system in which participating citizens voted directly on legislation and executive Bills, democracy was dormant until the age of Enlightenment more than 2,000 years later. In the 18th Century, democracy was established in America, the rising economic world superpower of that time, providing for an elected Government as well as protected civil rights and liberties only for some.
Economic clout drives political influence. Democracy as a form of governance thereafter gained popularity, and then floundered during the early 19th Century. In 1941, there were only 11 democracies in the world, picking up again by the second half of the 20th Century as democracies were established in the most difficult circumstances possible — in Germany, India, South Africa.
Further, decolonisation created new democracies in Africa and Asia, and regimes became democratic in Greece (1974), Spain (1975), Argentina (1983), Brazil (1985), Chile (1989). The Soviet Union collapsed, creating many more democratic countries in central Europe. Democracy took on varying institutional forms based on the basic principle of a Government made of the people as opposed to be comprised of the elite, such that in 2000, American think tank Freedom House classified 120 countries, or 63 per cent of the world total, as democracies.
However, again since 2000, there have been many setbacks to the establishment of democracy.
I remember holding a placard ‘Indians for Egyptians’ at Cairo’s Tahrir Square during the 2011 revolutionary uprising against President Hosni Mubarak, who had ruled the country for over 30 years. The uprising was fuelled by great expectations of more jobs, prosperity, and also for freedom, after the much hoped fall of Mubarak. Despite being the only Indian amongst the masses of Egyptian revolutionaries at Tahrir Square, military tanks around, and fighter jets in the sky, I had felt safe in the euphoria of building a better future for Egypt.
It was on the 17th day of Egypt’s leaderless uprising that Mubarak was brought down, resulting in the Muslim Brotherhood briefly coming to power, before the military took over Egypt in 2013. Egyptians were disillusioned, mostly because the wealth from the coffers of Mubarak’s bank accounts was not distributed amongst them. They were still jobless, with kith and kin killed. Egyptians realised that it had been easier to bring Mubarak down than to establish democracy.
This pattern has been repeated in capital cities of the Middle East. People gather in the main square of the city. Thugs sent by the regime try to fight back but lose in the face of the power of the local masses and global news coverage. The world congratulates and offers to help build a democracy. But setting up a viable democratic Government turns out to be difficult. The economy of the new Government flounders, people are disillusioned, and the country is in at best the same condition as it was before.
Elsewhere, many Governments increasingly maintain an outward appearance of democracy through elections. I also feel that a truly democratic governance system is difficult to function in a fair manner if the country ranks low on the human development index. Even in established democracies, flaws in the governance system are associated with economic debt and political dysfunction.
The American Presidential elections are heading towards making a forced choice between the country’s two most disliked contestants, and the European elite has sacked elected leaders who got in the way of fiscal orthodoxy.
Democracy did well in the 20th Century in part because countries desired to emulate the world’s leading power of that time. But now both America and Europe, and hence their governance systems, are losing their appeal as role models.
In my opinion the reason for this has been largely economic. In particular, I feel that the two greatest catalysts for this have been the financial crisis of 2007 and the rise of China.
The financial crisis revealed fundamental weaknesses in Governments which had allowed dangerous levels of debt to develop. During that time I was working at the investment bank Goldman Sachs’s london office, and witnessed with surprise how peer banks were easily rescued by Governments. Indeed people across the world became disillusioned with the workings of their political system as the bailouts were done with taxpayers’ money.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party has taken over the democratic world’s monopoly on economic progress. When America was growing fastest, it doubled living standards almost every 30 years. China has been doubling living standards of its people every decade for the past 30 years. In just two years, China has also extended pension coverage to an extra 240 m rural dwellers.
On the other hand, China’s critics condemn the Government for controlling public opinion. This week, Harvard professor Gary King and two other researchers, Jennifer Pan and Margaret E Roberts, published on the sophisticated mechanisms that the Chinese Government uses to control social media. Their research showed that comments about the Chinese Government on social media are created by well-trained Government employees.
The Chinese elite argue that their model is more efficient than democracy. The political leadership in China changes every decade with a constant supply of fresh talent as party cadres are promoted based on their ability to hit targets. Common Chinese citizens seem satisfied with their governance system if it delivers economic growth. The Pew Survey of Global Attitudes (2013) showed that 85 per cent of Chinese were “very satisfied” with their country’s direction, compared with 31 per cent of Americans.
Taiwan’s Ing-Wen, however, regards Western style democracy as the ideal form of Government. Experiments in building the appropriate governance system for freshly minted nation states or countries struggling for independence have failed often because they put too much emphasis on completely emulating the political systems of the most economically powerful country of their time.
One size does not fit all. Building the ideal governance institution that can ensure economic prosperity, physical well-being, and spirit of freedom for its people is slow work acutely specific to each country. It must be free to take its own shape, once the seed is planted.
The writer is Chief Sustainability Officer for the group of companies, Jindal Steel and Power ltd. She is a Global leadership Alumna of the World Economic Forum. miniya.chatterji@jindalsteel.com