The possibilities in the long-term for countries such as China and Vietnam to pursue economic liberalization while still maintaining tight one party political control are likely very good. Unlike other single party, authoritarian states that were not able to meet the primary needs of their constituents, like East Germany and the Soviet Union, today’s authoritarian regimes have learned from the past, in effect becoming sustainable authoritarian regimes.
China has been able to maintain political control while restricting freedom of expression and other political dissent because it has been able to use economic liberalization to its advantage. By providing education, a higher quality of life, and a reliable flow of modern consumer goods to the market, there is a diverse marketplace and educated workforce that is able to sustain the market. If material needs are being met and a professional middle class is able to work, then the state may be able to garner support for the system apparently responsible for creating that opportunity and political dissidents may be marginalized as antisocial deviants who threaten the very state that created the prosperity. In the case of China and Vietnam, one may observe how financial liberalization does not necessarily create democratic conditions.
The infrastructure of dissent, like the press, internet, independent political parties, student organizations, independent labor organizations, religious groups, and other outlets – not markets – may be more responsible for bringing an end to single party rule. If China and Vietnam insist on suppressing the infrastructure of dissent while providing policies that create more jobs and a limited welfare system, there is a high probability, in my opinion that single party rule will continue.
If you have a generation of people who have transformed from peasants to the middle class as a direct result of state policies, it is difficult to imagine the new middle class becoming belligerent towards the master government. If the state can use international trade to its favor to sustain growth, authoritarianism will continued to be sustained as well. Instead of the heavy industrialization, Leninist policies of the past, China and Vietnam today are market savvy and know that if they keep the people happy and consumer oriented, there will be less demand for political discussion. Indeed, while they may liberalize economic policies, it would be very surprising to see liberalization in media, religious, and private social organization. As long as there is economic opportunity, the Chinese and Vietnamese model of sustainable authoritarianism will continue to support single party rule. However, once the middle class have tasted consumerism and become embedded in it, economic misfortune resulting in a reduction of social services and quality of life could spell trouble in those regimes. The question is whether or not they will concede some power in a compromise to the people, or seek a militant suppression of dissent if economic hard times fall on them. In any case, I believe China and Vietnam have proven, at least in the short term, that democracy and the market do not necessarily and inextricably complement each other. If anything, just as democracies have the capacity to perfect and reform themselves, so too have authoritarian regimes savvy enough to turn their weaknesses into their strengths.
Abonnieren
Kommentare zum Post (Atom)
I have found this week's reading very difficult to me because I am not an economic major. Most of the economic terminology required me to do much more internet research to keep up with the book. So I hope my conclusion and response to your post is as intelligent as I can make it.
AntwortenLöschenFrom your post and the reading this week, my primary take away is this: I am not sure how much the "type" of government plays in the economic success of the country.
If an INDIVIDUAL is content, then the national system works. Whether communism in China or Vietnam or democracy in the United States, it doesn't matter. If an individual believes they are getting what they deserve, it works.
Now the trick is to mold a society into determining what it is they think they deserve. In China and Vietnam, the general populus is taught in government controlled curriculum that anything above absolute poverty is acceptable because it is for the collective good that you exist. So if a conglomerate of people are low-income, but able to survive and they see that people all around them are in the same situation, they will remain content and China and Vietnam will likely succeed.
In the United States, everyone sees the Bill Gates and Ted Turners and is told from preschool that if they want to be like that, then they can! Furthermore, the education system teaches our individuals that if they don't reach that level of financial success, it is most likely the fault of someone else. The result, a "free society" and a "free market" in a TWO-PARTY DEMOCRATIC government in total chaos. America's answer this go around - to get the government as close to a ONE-PARTY system as it can: Executive and Legislative branch both owned by a single party.
Maybe China and Vietnam, have it right or maybe this is just the right time for ONE-PARTY governments to take over as the world braces for another economic dip. The answer will be on the other side of the valley. I am sure we will analyze this the way the 1997 Asian economic crisis was. Back in 1997, I remember reading how this was the end of civilization for the Asian Pacific countries and no relief was possible. Yet a decade later, those same Asian Pacific countries are doing quite well while the United States spirals.
I believe, historically, there is a danger of single party, nationalist governments taking power during economic duress. They appear to offer quick wins, cohesion, and external focus when looking at the sources of problems. If you look at Brazil, Germany, Japan, and now China, authoritarian governments in the past have acted to quickly and decisively pull together national resources under a motto or battle call, delivering a level of industrialization, and then handing over power, or falling on their own sword (Japan and Germany). In some cases, it seems like authoritarianism or single party rule does have a constructive role to play at certain points in history when rapid development is needed. Bismarck softened his authoritarian approach with a generous social system, but authoritarian tradition also eventually led to excesses when “missions” extended beyond the usual calls of development and entered utopian-like dimensions (the extermination of the Jews, settlement of the pure race, and national socialism on a global scale). I suggest this has happened in North Korea, too, where the leadership has taken on supernatural personas and myths, promises a utopian society, and has fallen victim to narcissistic character flaws in the national leadership. Hugo Chavez is another example of a leader on a mission, but how far will he go? He is the Robin Hood of Venezuela, but at what point will he become a villain, if at all, and would a democratic system be better?
AntwortenLöschenI believe that there is a big difference between single party rule and democratic rule. Single party rule has a role to play in developing countries that lack consensus, little administrative experience, and intellectual base – but it only plays a constructive role if those leading the movement do so in a sense of selfless, loyal service to the nation and the wellbeing of fellow citizens. Obviously, the Baath Party rule of Saddam Hussein, while it made significant developments in infrastructure and other areas, became erratic and irrational with the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. Unlike in Brazil, where power was ceded to the people, Saddam held on, carried on adventures, and drained his nation at the expense of the people. In any case, it is often easy to fall into cynicism concerning democracy when we see economic hardship and political wrangling in the press. However, at our (US) level of sophistication, wrangling within the democratic system is a healthy expression of political ownership, where the citizens, through their representatives, are both the executors and owners of policy. Should the policy fail, the executors may be held accountable, and the democracy decides to take a new path. In sum, if the people own the government, then the people steer their destiny – instead of the great communist party no one voted for. I’m not convinced our system is failing yet, it is simply working through stress and learning some very important lessons in the process. The US has based its policy on the assumption that the free market is a rational actor (whereas Japan, China, and Germany do not), however, we have seen that it is not a rational actor and requires instruments of control and regulation to protect the security of the state (it’s a national security issue if the very banks we are so reliant on are acting irrationally). American democracy is acting to change old policies that led to this crisis, and only we will be responsible for its outcome, not a party boss.
Of course, being responsible for ourselves is noble, but are we capable of making the right decisions in the first place? When it comes down to it, I think we can fix it. China is going to have to fix their own economic crisis as well, and a team of economists (I would guess some of them will be western educated) will be working to solve the problem. But, it won’t be a body directly selected by a newly selected elected leader. I think our American way of suggestion and pressure and incentives will work over the next few years, and our society will be smarter for it, and democratic change will remain preferable to dictates, propaganda, and fear. Even though some would suggest this is happening in the U.S. anyways as in communist China, such a position obviously ignores the role of the free electorate, media variety, and politically-minded middle class.