Democracy Is Not The Obvious Option For China
Kate Sullivan challenges the benefits of democracy for China.
Democracy is the purported acme of governance. Democracy is hailed as the path to development and is used synonymously with equally vague but highly praised concepts like ‘freedom’ and ‘representation’. The Western media seems convinced that China should, and will, adopt a democratic system of government. Moreover, democracy is not the only way to attain development, nor is it necessarily more representative than authoritarian systems.
Sitting with locals along Wangfujing Street in Beijing, it is easy to forget the damning reports circulating through the Western media about the Chinese Community Party. These ‘Beijingers’ do not toe the line of Western democrats or scholars like Amartya Sen, philosopher and Nobel-prize winning economist, who claim that democracy is inextricably linked to economic success and political freedom. In fact, Western prescriptions for democracy are met with political apathy. To the question: ‘Does China need democracy?’, the standard, unhesitant response is: ‘Why fix what’s not broken?’
Democracy: The Path to Development?
Divorced from its ideological trimmings and academic palaver, democracy is merely a framework for group decision-making. Each member of the group has an equal say in those decisions that are equally binding. Though widely acclaimed in the West as conventional wisdom, the link between democracy and economic progress is not clear to the locals on Wangfujing Street.
With annual growth hovering around 10 per cent, these Chinese locals see authoritarianism as linked to economic success. Many scholars writing on the South East Asian Tigers would support their position. Robert Kaplan, an academic and journalist for The Atlantic, writes in ‘Was Democracy Just a Moment’ about the link between authoritarianism and growth in Singapore. The industrial policies employed by Lee Kuan Yew were the driving force of Singaporean growth until 1990. The necessary structural changes would have been impeded by democratic decision-making. Similarly, Ross Munro, an expert on Asia, compares the prospects for economic growth arising from China’s authoritarian system favourably against those produced by India’s rambling democracy. In short, democracy seems to be unnecessary for the process of economic development.
Beyond economic effects, universal suffrage is also associated with greater political and social freedoms. Amartya Sen claims that only democracy can provide citizens with the political rights and freedoms that foster and represent development.
“A time-poor public…can be easily persuaded by one-liners. Democracy encourages those politicians with skills in politicking, manipulation and mass appeal.”
However, numerous countries attempting to implement democracy have seen civil unrest far worse than that under the preceding authoritarian system. Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Mali, Albania, and Haiti are cases of note. In many of these cases, the newly introduced institutions of governance were too weak. Pre-existing tensions within communities were often further exacerbated by the introduction of democracy. Politicians often seek to mobilise support by exploiting existing cleavages within the community, such as ethnic difference.
Are democratic and authoritarian systems so different?
A time-poor public, with little interest in, or understanding of, the complexities of partisan politics can be easily persuaded by one-liners. Rational Ignorance Theory (RIT) explains such behaviour. RIT claims that it is irrational for the electorate to give much consideration to the campaigns of their potential leaders. The personal cost of attaining information is outweighed by the expected private benefits. Consequently, democracy encourages those politicians with skills in politicking, manipulation and mass appeal, not necessarily those with skills in governance. Therefore the acclaimed association of democracy and representation does not always hold.
The U.S. presidential election is an example of this breakdown in the link between democracy and representation. Capitalising on the indifference and rational ignorance of voters, the candidates have engaged in multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns to propagandise their platforms. This can be seen in McCain’s television advertisement associating Obama with the celebrity icons Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Elaborate and expensive advertising of this nature persuades voters not because it withstands analysis, but because it is quick, simple and induces a knee-jerk reaction. This is hardly an improvement on authoritarianism where an unelected government uses similar techniques to produce the same level of support.
The Chinese system is far from perfect – and it is quite possible that my newfound friends are more fortunate than others – but democracy should not be considered the obvious, or only, option for China. There is no clear and exclusive link between democracy and development, or political freedom. Furthermore, in a democratic system where voters are indifferent, uninformed and convinced by simple and arbitrary election campaigns, there is no guarantee of ‘freedom’ or ‘representation’. Authoritarianism, while unrepresentative by definition, may not necessarily be worse than democracy.
