Five ways China could become a democracy
First, there is the logic of authoritarian decay. One-party regimes, however sophisticated, suffer from organizational ageing and decay. Leaders get progressively weaker (in terms of capabilities and ideological commitment); such regimes tend to attract careerists and opportunists who view their role in the regime from the perspective of an investor: they want to maximize their returns from their contribution to the regime’s maintenance and survival. The result is escalating corruption, deteriorating governance, and growing alienation of the masses. Empirically, the organizational decay of one-party regime can be measured by the limited longevity of such regimes. To date, the record longevity of a one-party regime is 74 years (held by the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union). One-party regimes in Mexico and Taiwan remained in power for 71 and 73 years respectively (although in the case of Taiwan, the accounting is complicated by the Kuomintang’s military defeat on the mainland). Moreover, all of the three longest-ruling one-party regimes began to experience system-threatening crisis roughly a decade before they exited political power. If the same historical experience should be repeated in China, where the Communist Party has ruled for 63 years, we may reasonably speculate that the probability of a regime transition is both real and high in the coming 10-15 years, when the CCP will reach the upper-limit of the longevity of one-party regimes.
Second, the effects of socioeconomic change –rising literacy, income, and urbanization rates, along with the improvement of communications technologies — greatly reduce the costs of collective action, de-legitimize autocratic rule, and foster demands for greater democracy. As a result, authoritarian regimes, which have a relatively easy time ruling poor and agrarian societies, find it increasingly difficult and ultimately impossible to maintain their rule once socioeconomic development reaches a certain level. Statistical analysis shows that authoritarian regimes become progressively more unstable (and democratic transitions more likely) once income rises above $1,000 (PPP) per capita. When per capita income goes above $4,000 (PPP), the likelihood of democratic transitions increases more dramatically. Few authoritarian regimes, unless they rule in oil-producing countries, can survive once per capita income hits more than $6,000 (PPP). If we apply this observation and take into account the probable effect of inflation (although the above PPP figures were calculated in constant terms), we will find that China is well into this “zone of democratic transition” because its per capita income is around $9,100 (PPP) today, comparable to the income level of South Korea and Taiwan in the mid-1980s on the eve of their democratic transitions. In another 10-15 years, its per capita income could exceed $15,000 and its urbanization rate will have risen to 60-65 percent. If the CCP has such a tough time today (in terms of deploying its manpower and financial resources) to maintain its rule, just imagine how impossible the task will become in 10-15 years’ time.











Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
China would be stupid to adopt American style democracy…
The United States is essentially a one-party state… but at least in communist china you can see the authoritarians… they act with a firm hand, our authoritarians whisper from academia, the media, and from our corporate and government elites who quite honestly want to control the entire world.
America is not a democracy… it’s a theatrocracy where the people only get to choose the extras.
Multi-party representative systems are too easy to hijack… it is too easy for powerful minorities to divide up the majority and turn it against itself. Multi-part representative governments are unstable… they amount to a long divorce where the side who cheats gets to keep everything.
George Washington was 100% right about political parties. They are poison.
ninjapirate on February 13, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Since 74 years not much younger than the oldest of the fully representative democracies, the supposed briefness of one-party rule might not be a good argument against it.
The UK’s present system of governance has, by way of example, existed for only 65 years, or 85 years if we disregard the changes made in 1948.
YiZhangZhe on February 13, 2013 at 5:11 PM
1. Premier Axl Rose
2. President Dick Cheney
3. A US company files a patent for democracy, China promptly steals it
4. Japan adopts communism, China reflexively adopts democracy
Combo #5. General Tso’s Mandarin Coup
Lawdawg86 on February 13, 2013 at 5:13 PM
And I should have added …
Many individual European states can only trace their present forms of government back to the end of WW2, but bring the EU into the equation and representative democracy in Europe in its present form is barely a decade old.
Which will last longest; the “democratic” EU or the “authoritarian” one party system of China?
In any case, are they actually that different? Is either of them really that much more accountable and transparent than the other? And if so, which is which?
YiZhangZhe on February 13, 2013 at 5:23 PM
#6 Martians come down and zap the Chinese with Democracy ray guns.
rbj on February 13, 2013 at 5:32 PM
This. So much win.
Atlas on February 13, 2013 at 5:40 PM
They’re quickly growing a large middle class. The first generation of that middle class would be for the lack of a better word “appreciative” of the system that improved their lives. The second generation however is naturally more distant and since food on the plate is not an issue they will have time to start looking at previously “undesirable” ideas like Democracy.
Not overnight but barring the unforeseen, they will morph into something more open eventually.
lester on February 13, 2013 at 5:45 PM
What’s wrong with a Constitutional Republic – a real one?
aryeung on February 13, 2013 at 5:49 PM
Tom Friedman not impress.
Christien on February 13, 2013 at 5:59 PM
We really do have the ODDEST agreements!
MelonCollie on February 13, 2013 at 8:17 PM