Autocracy: a dangerous idea?

Australia appears to be dialing up the language on “autocracies”. Autocracies are ‘seeking to create a “transactional world, devoid of principle, accountability and transparency”’.[i] Further, an “arc of autocracy” (presumably Russia and China) is threatening the Asia-Pacific and again a stronger defence force and particular alliances are required. Perhaps something akin to Boris Johnson’s “D10”- an alliance of the group of 10 democratic countries.[ii]

In the Economist for March 19, a number of articles addressed the “democracy vs autocracy” debate, particularly with respect to what this may mean in terms of the “economics vs politics” debate. The Economist’s conclusion: the answer is simple – democracies should seek to maximise trade without compromising national security … what the world does not need now is a dangerous lurch towards self-sufficiency… by walling themselves off, rich democracies would alienate countries that do not want to pick sides between the West, Russia and China – countries that account for a fifth of world GDP and two-thirds of its people.[iii]

And while Australia has made a choice – which John Howard said we would never need to do[iv] - this article isn’t so much about an “arc of autocracy”, nor at all about the shocking atrocities committed by the Russians in the Ukraine; this article is about Australia in the Asia-Pacific, what is this thing called “autocracy”, and given the region we are in, how should we be looking at our relationships in it.

Autocracy

The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Thought, notes that autocracy is literally "self-rule". And “most political theorists hold that true autocracy requires the concentration of power in a single person, and not, for example, in a party or caucus. Although parties may rule in a manner that admits no limitation by law, their multiple agency serves partly to restrict their power”.[v] It’s arguably therefore, the modern equivalent of a dictatorship. In fact, the Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary’s definition, of true autocracy – concentration of power in a single person – is the definition of dictatorship in David Robertson’s Dictionary of Modern Politics: “dictatorship is a form of government in which one person has sole and complete political power”.[vi] The dictionary goes on to note, in respect of the Soviet Union, that “more recent leaders of the Soviet Union (since Stalin), who have owed their eminence to their position within the party hierarchy and have had to contend with the rest of politburo, have probably not managed to become dictators”.

Is there autocracy in China?

The point here to note is, similar to the above point, is that China is run by the Communist Party, the founding and sole ruling party of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The PRC is not ruled by President Xi Jinping himself. In fact, Xi Jinping isn’t even president he is chairman.[vii] Chairman, or 国家主席, has remained unchanged in Chinese texts and titles since the days of Mao, but a loose interpretation of this has been adopted in the West since around the mid- 1980s as “president”. Clearly, the politics of China require some background and knowledge. Analogous to the very many countries and peoples in the world, that really would have no knowledge of the titles and politics in the West – and there are many countries in that particular camp (see below).

Xi Jinping, or 习主席 (Chairman Xi) actually holds three key titles: (1) the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party; (2) the Chairman of the Central Military Commission – the body that oversees the army; and (3) the head of the People’s Republic of China. The third title translates literally as chairman of the country: 国家主席. And that title is imbibed with all the cultural understandings of the PRC’s political system. That is, the politics of the Chinese Communist Party. A search of the Chinese word “President Xi Jinping” (习总统) retrieves a single webpage only![viii]

The Chinese word for president is 总统 or “zong tong”. The Chinese word for chairman is 主席 ?or “zhu xi”.

Less autocracy: and here’s where things get more interesting

Our World in Data, a research organisation, puts countries into four groups - ranging from most to least free in terms of choosing their leaders. "Liberal democracies", such as America and Japan; more flawed "electoral democracies" such as Poland and Sri Lanka; "electoral autocracies", such as Turkey and Hungary; and "closed autocracies", such as China and Vietnam. But again, those closed autocracies are countries in which, relatively speaking, citizens have no real choice or direct influence over their leader.

Closed autocracies, electoral autocracies, electoral democracies, and liberal democracies

In the Asia-Pacific, closed autocracies include: China, Vietnam, Myanmar, and Thailand. But it’s also important to note that most of the Middle East – where oil comes from – are also closed autocracies.

In the Asia-Pacific, electoral autocracies include: Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Malaysia, Cambodia, Russia and India.

In the Asia-Pacific, electoral democracies include: Indonesia, Mexico, and most of South America.

In the Asia-Pacific, liberal democracies include: Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, the United States, and Canada.

Clearly, if Australia wants to deal only with countries with "democracy" in the classification our free trade agreements need to be ripped up. And, if Australia doesn’t want to trade or deal with closed autocracies then there goes most of the strong trade relationships we have with China, Vietnam, Myanmar and Thailand. And our oil imports.

These points aren’t new, James Laurenceson in the Asia and the Pacific Policy Society noted that "arc of autocracies" is a stretch and likely to be a cynical fear campaign.[ix] And the Independent Australia also noted that – perhaps harshly – that “Morrison’s ‘arc of autocracy’ speech is foreign policy tripe”.[x]

Conclusion: Focus on interests not values

As the Economist notes “today the autocratic world accounts for over 30% of global GDP, more than double its share at the end of the Cold War” and the “more countries (including Australia) draw the lesson that less integration is the best way to protect from economic pain, the more the world will become fractured and mutually suspicious – not to mention poorer than it could have been”.

I’ll add that the more Australia talks about “values” as the key determinant of our international relationships – economic and political – rather than “interests”, the more fractured and mutually suspicious and poorer Australia will be. A values-based diplomacy and trading regime is not an option for Australia, because the majority of countries in our region just simply do not share “our values”. And expecting those countries to have those values is – being generous – demonstrating a lack of cultural and political understanding of other countries in our region; or – being unkind – imposing a type of cultural imperialism to justify a more dangerous narrative. A narrative that will make Australia poorer – both culturally and economically in the future.

[i] The Australian, ‘Arc of autocracy’ warrants strengthening our defences, March 7, 2022 (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/editorials/arc-of-autocracy-warrants-strengthening-our-defences/news-story/f31a3061e6dd5462e80480e35cbf7837).

[ii] Foreign Policy, Forget the G-7, Build the D-10, June 10, 2020 (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/10/g7-d10-democracy-trump-europe/)

[iii] The Economist, Trading with the enemy, March 19, 2022, p. 8 (https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2022-03-19).

[iv] SBS News, Don’t have to choose US or China: Howard, 28 February 2016 (https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/dont-have-to-choose-us-or-china-howard/6dt0sgdxd)

[v] Roger Scruton, Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought, 2007, pp.48-49.

[vi] David Robertson, A Dictionary of Modern Politics, 2002, pp. 145-146.

[vii] Slate, Stop Calling Xi Jinping ‘President’, 8 August 2019 (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/xi-jinping-president-chairman-title.html).

[viii] Slate, Stop Calling Xi Jinping ‘President’, 8 August 2019 (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/xi-jinping-president-chairman-title.html).

[ix] Asia and the Policy Society, Why an ‘arc of autocracies’ is a stretch, 7 March 2022 (https://www.policyforum.net/why-an-arc-of-autocracies-is-a-stretch/)

[x] Independent Australia, Morrison’s ‘arc of autocracy’ speech is foreign policy tripe, 11 March 2022 (https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/morrisons-arc-of-autocracy-speech-is-foreign-policy-tripe,16140)

Australian Institute of International Affairs,?