China vs. Democracy - Does There Have to Be a Winner?

This week has been pivotal for global democracies. In the United States, the process to elect the next president appears chaotic, with President Biden potentially facing a round-robin emergency primary due to diminishing support within his party. Concurrently, a Republican candidate suggests authoritarian reforms that could skew the nation towards a one-party system under the guise of unwavering electoral success.

Across the Atlantic, recent elections have significantly shifted political landscapes. In France, voters granted a majority to a notably conservative government for the first time since the 1940s. In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party achieved its most significant victory in over half a century. These changes signify major shifts in power and priorities within some of the world's oldest democracies.

Meanwhile, China is gradually moving towards more authoritarian governance, intensifying control over its economy and citizenry. After more than two decades living in China, it's clear that the era of pragmatic governance is being replaced by one that increasingly fears both its people and external influences.

The rivalry between China and the transatlantic alliance is often framed as democracy versus authoritarianism. However, this is a mischaracterization. Western nations view democracy as an intrinsic goal, whereas China regards its governance model as a means to achieve broader national objectives.

Reflecting on the history of democracy, from ancient Athens to the modern Western world, it's evident that these democratic experiments are relatively brief. American democracy, if measured from the implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is just 59 years old—a stark contrast to the longevity of several Chinese dynasties.

The roots of current democratic ideologies stem from the European Enlightenment, emphasizing rational individualism and inherent rights. These ideals catalyzed the Industrial Revolution, bringing economic growth and military prowess. Yet, the founders of American democracy— the Federalists—anticipated the potential perils of unbridled democracy, implementing safeguards to temper the popular will. However, as democratic participation expanded, so did the influence of money and special interests, leading to policy paralysis and governance by plebiscite.

Today, the West's confrontation with China is not merely ideological but reflects fundamentally different visions of political organization. The West champions democracy and human rights as the zenith of societal progress, a stance rooted in deep-seated beliefs.

Conversely, China is open to adapting its political processes if such changes benefit economic growth and national interests. Yet, it remains cautious, curtailing freedoms when deemed necessary, as evidenced by the crackdown following the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. This event, while tragic, underscored the government's readiness to enforce stability, catalyzing economic advancements that vaulted China to its current global standing.

Ultimately, the distinction lies in whether political rights are seen as divine and immutable or as privileges contingent upon national circumstances.

In China, governance prioritizes collective well-being, managed through the Communist Party. This approach, while effective for a nation of 1.4 billion, might not be suitable in a Western context, where such centralization could exacerbate political fractures.

So, who wins in this global comparison of governance models? According to this analysis, there is no clear victor. Similar to driving on different sides of the road, each governance model has its merits and drawbacks, contingent on adherence to systemic rules and regulations. Both approaches aim to reach the same destination: a stable, prosperous society.

From Shanghai,

Alexander Glos