It is very possible that China is going to continue the economic development without a democratic system. But, it is also possible that its political system will move to some type of democracy when its economy reaches a high-income stage.

This is a very interesting question. Thank you.

The usual line in the West is, as you suggest, that you can't have one without the other. I think this may largely be propaganda. But it's not wholly untrue. There's things liberal-democracy does provide that authoritarian regimes cannot: secure private property, free movement, free workers, private investment, and so on and on....

China (like many other developing countries) can achieve impressive growth figures, but not for reasons of freedom or democracy. State managed "capitalism" isn't really capitalism at all. China might have an impressive balance sheet for now, but this is partly achieved by keeping workers in their place, being allowed-for political reasons-to sell cheap goods abroad, by ignoring human rights claiming they're inappropriate etc etc....

This will all change over time as more and more workers leave the farms and crowd the cities. When America and Europe disallow cheap goods. When right are demanded. Tiannamen Square may have been crushed, but those concerns will be back stronger each time....

China currently relies on unsustainable personal and geographical inequalities that will become increasingly unsustainable as more and more wealth is created and the poor demand a better deal, and the middle classes demand their rights. Rights cost money. Proto-capitalism generates liberal-democracy, not vice versa.

Christopher NOCK

Dear Christopher,

Thank you for your keen insight. I agree that there will be demand for democracy by Chinese people given the economic inequality, which may lead to democratization of China.

Dear Don

Thank you for using the phrase "keen insight." The finest compliment I've had in a while!

NOCK

From the geopolitical point of view, the advances of recent years are evident, especially when considering diplomatic initiatives with neighbours and existing projects. First, China has been seeking to meet its strategic supply needs and establishing access to the sea on the western side. In fact, the relative emptiness left by Russia in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) has made room for a number of investments in the region, with a focus on the oil and gas sector. Chinese companies have acquired corporations from these countries in recent years and a broad pipeline and pipeline network - directing these inputs to China - is already in place. At the same time, the supply of local credit has been guaranteed through established Chinese banks and infrastructure development has been advancing, especially in the transportation and electric power segments. In addition to this, strengthening relations with Pakistan highlights the Kashgar corridor project in China to the port of Gwadar in Pakistan (operated by China Overseas Port Holding Company).

Research Proposal Chine new Geopolitics-One Belt-One Road

I see that China will not only lead in Economic growth, but will be the engine for the economic growth of the world. On democracy, I wish it happens, but do not foresee much change. When Democracies such as US & India are seeing in some ways distortions in the way democracy operates, I feel even a middle path can work for a while.

I think that an economy can function well without democracy. It is even easier to keep wages low and international competition high. However in china there is not only economic success over decades. This also have implications on people's living standards and people's political awareness. From these changes and expectations political change surely will result, although slowly. Another aspect is China's role in the Global South. Here countries with lesser economic success will look at China and wait, if it turns out to become a huge capitalist superpower, or if its leadership among G77+China also has positive impacts. One important aspect e.g. is its development bank: does it become another WB, ADB, etc with the conditionalities it applies when countries take loans, or does it become a bank of the South,..... whatever this might mean in detail....

I suggest that we tread softly here. Democracy is above all a cultural expression, not an organizational framework for growth. It is also constantly changing. Could any one today ascribe democracy to the US during the years of slavery or to the European countries during colonialism? Mean time they all practiced capitalism and rather successfully. Yes, affluence has already changed China in fundamental ways--but China is also changing the rest of the world through its work ethic, tourists and investments. Do not expect pure democracy (what is it any way?) in China anytime soon, but it will not return to the Maoist enclave of the past either. Skm

Well, it certainly isn't democracy you need to ascribe, it's liberalism. Two main universal aims: peace and prosperity. Only needs to include those who can afford to upset the applecart. Start with an elite few, end up with liberal-democracy centuries later. It was the increasing wealth that enabled that. Proto-capitalism spawns political liberalism, spawns moral liberalism, spawns liberal-democracy.

NOCK

Yes, China's economy will continue to develop at a good pace. But China's system of governance will develop according to its own traditions, which do not include John Locke and Montaigne. For that matter, our 'dollarocracy' would do well to resurrect democracy here.

Well, I can see the point, but...

They'll have to find ways of satisfying the core liberal principles: peace and prosperity-- you can call them what you want in Chinese.

They'll have find ways of promoting peace through a liberal notion of a "fair" distribution, ie one that avoids widedpread violence--call it what you want.

Opponents of the state use "liberal" rights language--I guess we don't need a Chinese phrase there.

To avoid its own long term violent demise, the state will have to come to act "as if" it is liberal. It can call it what it wants.

They don't need Locke. They just need common sense. And that's the beautiful universality of fundamental liberal principles.

NOCK

I think you'll find Chinese 'common sense' a bit different from ours. For one thing, it's had over 4000 years to take shape. Elders and teachers are due respect that would seem weird over here, as would the social self over the individual self.

I don't in this regard. It's a pure political card, not a Chinese one. Don't behave properly over the long run, your people will try to finish you before you finish them in a civil war. Didn't Confusious enlighten Mao on that?

NOCK

Right, I'll give this one last go for the sake of clarity. It's not a common understanding. It's one that just happens to be correct. The fact that you don't believe it, doesn't make it incorrect. It makes you wrong.

It doesn't matter what or how the Chinese regime thinks on matters political. What matters is what it does, how it acts. It will increasingly confront a better educated, increasingly wealthy, increasingly connected population, increasingly urban. Does that sound like anywhere we know of?

As that happens, more and more people and groups will have ability to upset the applecart and challenge the state, violently if necessary. If it doesn't respond properly, and enough oppose it, the state will either need to go to war against its own people, or seek accommodation with them. Does that sound like anywhere we know of?

Some of these people will actually frame their concerns in liberal terms. That's unimportant either way. What matters is how they behave. All rather like the English, American, and French, revolutions. Thomas Hobbes didn't write for the masses, they couldn't read! Nor Locke, nor Condorcet, not Rousseau. These revolutions weren't generated by people reading the same damn books! They were generated by disgruntled elements in the elite harnessing the power of the downtrodden. In China, if the state doesn't behave as if it were liberal--even though it's not--the same type of process will occur, even if it does not know what a liberal idea looks like!

NOCK

Response to Sabine on democracy and development:

Democracy doesn't guarantee economic development. But it is a process for hearing public concerns. In a liberal-democracy, unequal distribution is ONLY okay it promotes mutually beneficial outcomes. The main judges of which must be the least we'll off, then upwards-- bottom up.

Reference? The American New Deal.

NOCK