“One size fits all” doesn’t work with shoes, clothes or buildings. Yet there’s a widespread assumption that it does work with politics. People who believe there’s only one legitimate political system, which invariably coincides with their own preference, can have a very blinkered view of the world.
Given the diversity of what countries need at different stages of their evolution, it would be bizarre to assume that only one political system is universally appropriate. One would not expect, for example, that transplanting a political system from a highly developed country would be a panacea for an underdeveloped or rapidly developing country with very different needs and circumstances. China, for instance, would not have moved so rapidly from a largely agrarian economy to the world’s workshop under the constraints of a Western democratic structure. We should always be cautious of easy, cookie-cutter political solutions for complex and diverse needs. Political processes have a habit of evolving as needs change, but countries’ starting points are never the same. At different stages of development, more authoritarian or more democratic systems can both command legitimacy.
All countries are somewhere on the continuum between authoritarianism and democracy. Proponents of both extremes clearly see their own system as the ideal, with people living in Western-style democracies tending to be the most fervent in their missionary zeal. They are often inclined to claim the moral high ground when comparing their countries with those that practice other systems. Maybe it’s a human trait to justify one’s own situation and to see the rest of the world in terms of black and white: Democracies good; autocracies bad.
Reality, of course, is much more nuanced. The eccentricities of election arrangements in democracies such as the United Kingdom and the United States often give disproportional powers to party leaders who have secured only minority backing, a situation sometimes referred to as an “elected autocracy”. The continuum between authoritarianism and democracy is much more blurred than we might imagine. Furthermore, while some authoritarian regimes have indeed been oppressive, others have been beneficial, bringing peace and prosperity to their people. Equally, while some democratic regimes have been a force for good, others have inflicted war, suffering and even atrocities on the world. There are shades of gray everywhere.
The history of modern democracies is far more complex than the idealistic pursuit of liberty and human rights. There is undoubtedly a dark side to their evolution and their impact on the world. The US likes to pose as the great champion of democracy, ignoring the inconvenient truth that it was built on the most undemocratic foundations of genocide and slavery. The road to freedom there has been a long and winding one over the past 250 years. Back in 1776, the liberty promised in the Declaration of Independence did not apply to well over half the population: Native Americans, slaves and women. Progress has been made since then, but it has been a slow, difficult and, at times, traumatic process. Similarly, the UK was built on the exploitation of other countries through the very undemocratic pursuit of its imperial ambitions. The history of subjugation, exploitation and aggression on which many Western democracies are founded are still reflected in the worldview of those countries today. The US in particular sees itself as having the right to impose its values on other countries, by force if necessary and irrespective of the views of those countries.
We all need to recognize the importance of peaceful coexistence, accept that different political systems can be equally legitimate, and recognize that the continuum between the perceived “authoritarianism” and “democracy” isn’t as polarized as we may once have imagined
Equally, the narrative that “authoritarian” states are oppressive is far too simplistic. The West’s perception is that only democracies are legitimate states. This is because they operate through the consent of their citizens. However, China doesn’t fit into this black-and-white narrative. At the heart of the West’s condemnation of China is a fundamental misconception. This is the belief that the vast majority of Chinese people are desperate to throw off the yoke of the Communist Party of China and embrace Western liberal democracy. The reality, however, is that most Chinese people are not only skeptical about Western democracy, but also believe that China’s form of government is more effective and more in keeping with Chinese values. The results of a meticulous, long-term Harvard study into Chinese public opinion were published in 2020. Surveys had been conducted in eight waves over 13 years and captured opinion data from 32,000 individual respondents. The research found that there was consistently a very high level of satisfaction with China’s central government. In the final survey, 95.5 percent of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the central government. In contrast to these findings, Gallup polling in the United States at that time (January 2020) showed that only 38 percent of respondents were satisfied with the federal government.
Such findings turn on its head the Western assumption that only Western-style democracies operate through the consent of their people. It isn’t difficult to see why China’s government commands so much support. It has overseen 40 years of economic growth and technological development, unprecedented in world history. Chinese GDP per capita increased from $195 in 1980 to $12,556 in 2021, and over 800 million Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty. This has been accompanied by remarkable technological and scientific advances; infrastructure development, including airports, ports and high-speed railways; the rapid development of large, vibrant cities; and transformative social progress in areas such as education, housing and healthcare. This stellar performance has clearly had a major impact on public opinion and the perceived legitimacy of the government.
This legitimacy is also rooted in the ancient Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven. For centuries, this belief has obliged rulers to put the welfare of their people as their overriding priority. If the rulers became corrupt or mistreated the people, then the mandate disappeared, and the dynasty invariably collapsed. China’s modern leadership has inherited this ancient tradition, appreciating that its obligations to the people are the cornerstone of its power, authority and legitimacy.
Support for China’s system of government also reflects the differences in emphasis between Eastern and Western cultural and philosophical traditions. Chinese values have been strongly influenced by Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, which emphasize social harmony, cooperation, hierarchy and respect for authority. Western values, on the other hand, have been shaped by Christianity, Judaism and the Enlightenment, with a greater emphasis on individual rights and personal freedom. These cultural differences have undoubtedly had an impact on the different political values and governmental systems of China and the West. China’s collectivist model of government is firmly rooted in Chinese cultural traditions, just as the West’s libertarian model is rooted in Western traditions. This offers a further explanation of why Chinese people don’t regard Western-style democracy as an ideal fit for them.
So one size definitely doesn’t fit all. Nothing is black and white in politics. The only sensible conclusion we can reach is that we all need to be a little more tolerant, nonjudgmental and understanding of the different cultural backgrounds and stages of development of different nations. We all need to recognize the importance of peaceful coexistence, accept that different political systems can be equally legitimate, and recognize that the continuum between the perceived “authoritarianism” and “democracy” isn’t as polarized as we may once have imagined.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
