If we look at Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Malaysia, etc, it becomes clear that economic growth has nothing to do with the political system. If the system provides stability, comes up with sensible economic policies and adheres to the rule of law, then it leads the nation toward the path of prosperity and to a greater degree of liberty. Taiwan and South Korea became democracies in the 1980s once they developed economically. Singapore, a country with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, is still a People´s Action Party-led benevolent dictatorship that stages the drama of holding elections every four years to satisfy Western critics.
Since China´s impressive and sustained growth cannot be denied, it becomes necessary for the West (and some of the rest) to make sure that others do not get too fascinated with the Chinese model and question what it promotes as the most sacrosanct of all political systems, democracy. Hence, the argument that only Western-style multi-party democracy leads to economic growth and that democracies keep on prospering whereas others will eventually go on a decline, totally eschewing the fact that democracy like communism is not a monolith, and that it has different interpretations across cultures. People may not be so fascinated with the idea of who governs them, but how they are governed. Pan Wei, a professor at China´s elite Peking University´s School of International Studies believes "the pressing issue for most people is not ´who should run the government but how should the government be run’? He further adds, "political reforms should flow from social problems rather than universal or Western principles" (Please see, What does China think? (2008), Mark Leonard).
Another flaw in the argument that China´s growth will be stalled or unsustainable in the long run is that it does not include the factors that cannot be quantified but are very important in understanding and analyzing any given country thoroughly. Feeling of patriotism, changing relations between the state and the people, culture and traditions, and historical continuity, etc are impossible to quantify, but nonetheless are very important in deciding a country´s future course of action. It is not to state that economic and other indicators and data are unnecessary or irrelevant, but they have their own limitations and do not present a complete picture. If the numbers alone could tell everything about a particular region, country or a phenomenon, then all of us would probably be studying mathematics and economics, not history, anthropology and sociology. Numbers cannot tell what makes a person think the way s/he thinks and behaves the way s/he does.
Since China´s impressive and sustained growth cannot be denied, it becomes necessary for the West (and some of the rest) to make sure that others do not get too fascinated with the Chinese model.Hence, the argument that only Western-style multi-party democracy leads to economic growth and that democracies keep on prospering whereas others will eventually go on a decline.
In China´s case, it was one of the world´s most civilized and powerful countries some 1,400 years ago during the reign of Tang dynasty. It traded with other countries, and immigrants from as far as Africa came to study and work in China. Its downfall began with the Ming Dynasty (1420-1644) when the state decided that it will look inwards, or in the words of a distinguished Harvard Sinologist, Robert MacFarquhar, Yellow River (huang he) over blue water (ocean). By the late 1970s, the Chinese leaders realized that blue water presented more economic opportunities than the Yellow River alone, and made the necessary reforms to trade with everyone, and welcome everyone.
And perhaps this is the reason that within a very short span of three decades of economic reforms, it became one of the largest economies, and today the world’s second-largest economy. It appears highly unlikely as of today of any Chinese ruler opting yet again for the Yellow River over blue water and stalling its economic growth and or being happy to be taken over by India or any other country of the region for that matter as the biggest Asian economy. If we, the laymen in Kathmandu are talking about this in our casual conversations, then surely, the Chinese policymakers are talking about it too, and are brainstorming over what policies to implement to continue with the economic growth.
Then there is Chinese nationalism. Nationalism, too, is not a monolith as we are led to believe. Like democracy and communism, nationalism too has many variants. Unless it is militant nationalism that wants to conquer all nations, it is quite a strong factor that binds the population with the country. Chinese nationalism is definitely not militant as Chinese leaders harbor no dreams of conquering the world like Hitler and Hirohito during the Second World War. The sole feature of Chinese nationalism, an important factor in all of China´s revolutions and reforms, be it the 1911 Republican revolution or Deng Xiaoping´s reforms of 1978, is that it aspires to regain its past glory of the imperial times, and instead of being the "sick man of Asia", it aspires to be the "fit man of Asia". And today´s leaders realize that to be the fit man of Asia and restore China´s glory of the Tang days, they have to make sure that the economy keeps on growing.
It is about time that we stopped looking at China and its growth through the narrow prism of democracy and compare it with the proverbial hare that lost the race. Instead let us think what would have happened if China had followed the Western model of democracy. As Robert D Kaplan wrote in 1997 for the Atlantic Monthly, "Had the student demonstrations in 1989 in Tiananmen Square led to democracy, would the astoundingly high economic growth rates of the 1990s still obtain? I am not certain, because democracy in China would have ignited turmoil not just in the Muslim west of the country but elsewhere, too; order would have decreased but corruption would not have." (See, Was Democracy Just A Moment, December 1997). Perhaps it is already late to develop a new understanding of China not based on political system and numbers but based on what it actually is: A proud nation that wants to chart its own course based on its history, traditions and societal expectations.
Writer is a Republica staff. He holds a BA degree in Chinese Studies from a US college and MA in International Relations from a Chinese university
trailokyaa@yahoo.com
Related story
Two Chinas
