"Behind the 'Modern' China"

As I was thinking about what else I could say about democracy I came across Robert Kagan's article in The Washington Post, "Behind the 'Modern' China". The article is about the lack of real democracy in China. Kagan emphasizes the word 'Modern' to emphasize the presumption of China's modernity. Just because it has embraced capitalism and free-market principles doesn't mean China is modern. Kagan says that without democracy China isn't real a modern country or living in the 21st century. In fact, he says, it is still living in the 19th century.

He has a point. A country has to be modern, more like postmodern, to deal with democracy. Nevertheless, there is a modernity to China in that it does accept capitalism and the free market. But capitalism generally comes easier to most nations because it appeals to the human predisposition for consumption and wealth. Democracy, though, requires a higher and more sophisticated level of modernity, or postmodernity, which China doesn't yet have. However, Kagan thinks that China will never become that sophisticated.

There are other things Kagan has been wrong about, likes the war in Iraq, the staying power of neoconservatism and America's hegemony. I think that eventually he will be proven wrong about the emergence of democracy in China. In his argument he forgets about all the historical baggage China has to deal with before its people can truly adjust and deal with democracy. (China’s autocracy is preparing its people for democracy.) Moreover, the Chinese people have more freedoms than they had a generation ago, in personal mobility, employment and consumption, freedoms that eventually will lead to democracy. And there is a parallel between China's fledging democracy and America's since economic freedoms also first came to America before full-blown political freedom. He also forgets that South Korea and Taiwan, countries with similar backgrounds to China, were once dictatorships. But as they industrialized and got richer they eventually evolved into democracies. Kagan should be more patient.

There is something naive about Kagan's analyses. In the past he showed his naivety in supporting the war in Iraq, the Bush administration, preemptive war and neoconservatism. Now he shows his naivety about democracy.

I don’t think he realizes that democracy can be very destabilizing for countries that have never practiced it before, hence their reluctance to embrace it. For instance, when Russia first attempted democracy in the 90's it was very destabilizing and ruinous for its people. Some people really took advantage of it for their own personal gain, at the expense of everybody else. As a result most people in Russia were in favor of some form of autocracy to stabilized thing, hence Putin and his strong-arm tactics. Similarly, the Chinese people are not ready for full-blown democracy, because they are not familiar with its ins and outs as we are in the West, where it has taken centuries to develop. Chinese leaders are aware of the instability democracy can bring if one is not versed in its nuances. That's why their cautious and leery approach to it.

Kagan points to a long held doctrine in the West that believes if autocracies are engaged economically they will eventually liberalize themselves politically. Well, he says, it hasn't happened in places like Russia or China. In fact, he adds, as these countries have gotten richer they have shunned the political liberalization that was supposed to have accompanied the liberalization of their economies. However, he doesn’t see to the underlying things that are occurring in both these countries that eventually will lead to more political freedom.

Trade with China has had its liberalizing effects in that it has encouraged a more open society there. Though Kagan knows this he hasn’t mention it. An 'open society' is a prerequisite for democracy. There was an instance recently where China was distributing tainted products throughout the world, products as diverse as toys, pet food and medical ones. People and pets have died from these tainted products. This has come back to China with demands from its trading partners that it cleanup its act and adopt stringent regulation to protect people from tainted products if it wants to continue to trade with the West. This ultimately has opened many aspects of China's economy to internal and external scrutiny. China, therefore, has had to become more transparent and accountable, in the process opening itself up and preparing itself for more liberalization and democratic procedures.

Another incident that has contributed to China becoming more open, because of it economic engaged with the rest of world, is SARS. SARS created quite a health scare around the world, as we know in Canada. Canada, like China, was negatively impacted by it, financially. Again, if China wanted to be part of the global community and prosper from world trade it had to clean up its act in regards to health because people were not willing to do business in or with a country that had contagious deceases. In the past, when China was more isolated, it could hide contagious deceases from the rest of the world and its people. However, now that it has integrated itself into the rest of the world in has to act more responsible and open about such matters. As a result every individual has had to become more responsible in order to insure a healthier China. This rise and expectation of individual responsibility is further preparation for the emergence of democracy.

With their newfound wealth and economic freedoms the Chinese are doing a lot of traveling, something they could not have done under communism. Travel has an incremental democratizing effect on people and a nation, especially when done on mass as the Chinese are doing. As Jeffery Sachs said, “ Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.” The removal of those negative attitudes bodes well for the development of democracy in that it also contributes to a more open society. And travel is also fatal to an autocracy because people who travel tend to get infected with new ideas and a sophistication that ultimately questions authority. The Olympics and trade have also incrementally opened China the other way, in that it has brought travelers into China who have also brought with them ideas and procedures that eventually challenge authority. Trade and travel are cotangents that unhinge autocracies.

One of the many institutions that have developed in Russia and China is that of private ownership. Under communism private ownership was forbidden. Private ownership is now a way of life in these countries and more and more protected by laws. Private ownership is a bedrock of capitalism and of eventual democracy. As the wise Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once said, "Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom". Both Russia and China have opened that Pandora's box, one that is unlikely to be closed by anyone.