Edward Steinfeld, a professor of political economy at MIT (I wish my school had offered political economy!), wrote a fascinating article entitled China's Other Revolution. In a nutshell he argues by comparison that the experiences of authoritarian breakdown in Taiwan and South Korea make it "not just possible but likely" that the recent crackdowns on free speech in China are a sign of the "last vestiges of authoritarian rule."
3 words: I totally disagree.
Don't get me wrong, Steinfeld's analysis of the rapidly evolving nature of the Chinese government and social norms/expectations are entirely correct, especially his breakdown of the inclusion of foreign educated experts into high levels of the Communist Party. His conclusions that the government of today is not the same as the government of the 1950's or even the 1980's are obvious to even the most casual viewer. He is also correct that we should not base public policy on the assumption that the CCP is a static entity. It is not. It has never been, and we should do our best to anticipate current trends and potential future trends.
Steinfeld's analysis of the history, the modernization, and the flexibility of the CCP are excellent and an invigorating read...but his conclusion that authoritarianism has already begun to end, and that we are "likely" seeing the last throes of a dying authoritarian system, is a baseless stretch. In one breath, he admits that it is impossible to "fully appreciate the range of possible outcomes", and in the next breath predicts a drastic change in a particular direction that is likely to happen soon.
With a nod to the fact that is impossible to understand the true range of possible outcomes, I believe fundamental democratic change is not on the brink of happening in China. With all due respect to the Professor, he ignores the principal differences between the experiences of Taiwan and S. Korea and the experience of China. There are many key differences, but I will touch on a primary few.
1. At the time of their democratization, Taiwan and S. Korea were both fully dependent upon American protection to stay independent from the Chinese. The implications here are numerous, including: America was in a particularly strong position to encourage a particular type of change (which it did!). China is obviously in a much stronger position to resist American arm-twisting than either of these states ever were. The reason the dictatorships in TW and SK did not fight the democratization process was because it would have meant the end of their crucial support from Washington, not because the elites had changed their opinions about the desirability of absolute power. People in power want to stay that way, and the elites in SK and TW could only stay in power if they bowed to the pressure from Washington and permitted some level of democratization. It goes without saying that the Chinese will not be subjected to that decision (since the U.S-China relationship is one of mutual and not asymmetric dependence). The CCP (like all who are in power) wants to stay in power and has no compelling reason to surrender it.
2. The concept of democracy was viewed much differently by the masses in SK and TW during the period of democratization than democracy is viewed by the masses in China today. Sure, there are Chinese citizens who like the idea of democracy and would like to see the CCP take steps to democratize...but there are many, many more (especially among the educated elite whom Steinfeld relies upon for his "likely" changes) who have seen the limitations of democracies in the U.S. and Europe and believe that democracy is a fundamentally flawed system. I have personally spoken to such people, many of whom believe that democracies are essentially run by the easily deceived masses (who are short-sighted and reactionary). Many others believe that the rhetoric of democracy and human rights from the U.S. is merely cover for a secret agenda of regime change in China. They point to rights being violated in the U.S. and wars being fought without popular support to bolster these positions. The CCP propaganda machine works tirelessly at undermining democracy and that effort has been successful to a large degree. I have no evidence for this, but I would guess that the people in SK and TW had not been subjected a lifetime of propaganda undermining the concept of democracy. This argues strongly that there is and will be no groundswell of support for democracy in China in the short-term.
3. Steinfeld makes the assumption that almost all Western intellectuals make, i.e. there is no future for a modern thriving economy except a liberal, democratic political system. I totally disagree with this and point him to my article on Singapore in which I argue that a modern economy can be run hand in hand with an authoritarian political system. While I dismiss the possibility that China can be run in the same neat, clean way that Singapore can (based primarily on the scope of China and the differences in property law), Singapore's example is a clear and vibrant demonstration that liberal democracy is not the only path forward for a modern economy.
In the end, I liked the Steinfeld article, but I believe it to be wrong.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Siren Song of 'People Power'
Reading an article today about the newest middle east protests, Bahrain this time, I was drawn into the author's obvious emotional bias in favor of the protesters. When I read about the Bahraini King going on TV to apologize for the deaths at the hands of his security forces, I felt that rush of blood to my head, that welling of liquid in my tear ducts, that strength of conviction that comes only to the ideologue whose cause is invoked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021500617.html?hpid=topnews
Here's the problem: My emotional response to these kinds of demands is a product of socialization and indoctrination. I know, I know, for somebody who calls himself a lover of liberty, I am wandering way off the reservation right now. I can't help it. The situation demands some self-reflection.
You see, the protesters aren't just demanding less restrictions on internet, TV, and who can run for parliament. Those I agree with, at least to the extent that the civil society in Bahrain is able to cope with those kinds of freedoms without collapsing into an anarchic madhouse. But they are also demanding social justice. More precisely, "I demand that every Bahraini have a job and a house," said one protester.
The best interests of society are served by economic freedom because the rules of functioning capitalism encourage everyone to earn a profit from their contributions to society. Capitalism succeeds by providing the correct incentives to maximize each individual's contribution to society. However, since human beings are evolutionarily programmed to seek individual gain and most individuals are too stupid, too uneducated, or simply unwilling to perform the serious introspection required to understand the benefits of property rights and minimalist government, the masses often do not seek the system that is beneficial in the aggregate and conducive to progress (capitalism), instead seeking a simple payoff.
Having no unifying ideology other than anger, anti-government mobs are rarely vehicles for sustainable economic reforms. Instead, because they are protesting poverty and have no positive goal other than expressing anger, anti-government mobs have a strong tendency to turn into socialist or religious zealots. Hence the government response in Bahrain, offering $2700 dollars to every Bahrain family. This smacks of the political payoffs that keep psuedo-socialist governments in power (and debt) across the Western world. In case you are wondering, the U.S. is a primary offender...Bush's Medicare Part D (a buy-off for senior votes) comes to mind.
If the results of popular uprisings across the Mid-East are new or 'reformed' governments that buy loyalty through socialist-style payoffs, then the popular uprisings will not result in a better world. Just because the masses want something doesn't mean that they should get it. What they need is an independent judiciary, a rule of law, a respect for property rights, and the easing of media restrictions. What they want is an immediate end to poverty. In other words they want a payoff.
But their leaders have been confiscating wealth, manipulating the rules, and giving opportunity only to cronies...what's wrong with the people demanding they get some money back? There's nothing wrong with it per se. I do believe that the criminals who are running these dictatorships should be forced to make whole everyone whom they have wronged (which is likely every citizen without government connections). But what happens after the government makes this payoff? The protesters go home, and guess who stays in charge, rewarded for their years of corruption and incompetence? That's right, the dictators. If not these, then whoever runs to the front of the protests and screams the loudest, thereby earning himself the right to be the next corrupt regime who will then pay the citizens to hold their tongue. The cycle continues. The problems are not solved.
Only systemic pro-market reforms can solve the underlying problems. These mobs are not demanding those kinds of reforms. In fact, as we've seen in China, India, Brazil, and many other formerly communist governments, incremental pro-market reforms are often most successfully implemented by reforming the existing government without popular uprising. So why I am getting emotional when reading about the small successes of these protesters?
Simple, I've been indoctrinated into a worldview that always roots for the 'little guy', even when the little guy shuts down the economy, gets people killed, and at best installs a government of equal incompetence, at worst leaving the same people in charge with a slightly lighter checkbook. The message here: Check your emotions at the door, and hope against hope that whoever hijacks the next protest is one of the few people in the world who understands the importance of market forces in the march of history. Without the uplifting market growth enabled by economic freedoms, the seemingly noble goals of these protesters are nothing but the tempting song of tens of thousands of sirens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021500617.html?hpid=topnews
Here's the problem: My emotional response to these kinds of demands is a product of socialization and indoctrination. I know, I know, for somebody who calls himself a lover of liberty, I am wandering way off the reservation right now. I can't help it. The situation demands some self-reflection.
You see, the protesters aren't just demanding less restrictions on internet, TV, and who can run for parliament. Those I agree with, at least to the extent that the civil society in Bahrain is able to cope with those kinds of freedoms without collapsing into an anarchic madhouse. But they are also demanding social justice. More precisely, "I demand that every Bahraini have a job and a house," said one protester.
The best interests of society are served by economic freedom because the rules of functioning capitalism encourage everyone to earn a profit from their contributions to society. Capitalism succeeds by providing the correct incentives to maximize each individual's contribution to society. However, since human beings are evolutionarily programmed to seek individual gain and most individuals are too stupid, too uneducated, or simply unwilling to perform the serious introspection required to understand the benefits of property rights and minimalist government, the masses often do not seek the system that is beneficial in the aggregate and conducive to progress (capitalism), instead seeking a simple payoff.
Having no unifying ideology other than anger, anti-government mobs are rarely vehicles for sustainable economic reforms. Instead, because they are protesting poverty and have no positive goal other than expressing anger, anti-government mobs have a strong tendency to turn into socialist or religious zealots. Hence the government response in Bahrain, offering $2700 dollars to every Bahrain family. This smacks of the political payoffs that keep psuedo-socialist governments in power (and debt) across the Western world. In case you are wondering, the U.S. is a primary offender...Bush's Medicare Part D (a buy-off for senior votes) comes to mind.
If the results of popular uprisings across the Mid-East are new or 'reformed' governments that buy loyalty through socialist-style payoffs, then the popular uprisings will not result in a better world. Just because the masses want something doesn't mean that they should get it. What they need is an independent judiciary, a rule of law, a respect for property rights, and the easing of media restrictions. What they want is an immediate end to poverty. In other words they want a payoff.
But their leaders have been confiscating wealth, manipulating the rules, and giving opportunity only to cronies...what's wrong with the people demanding they get some money back? There's nothing wrong with it per se. I do believe that the criminals who are running these dictatorships should be forced to make whole everyone whom they have wronged (which is likely every citizen without government connections). But what happens after the government makes this payoff? The protesters go home, and guess who stays in charge, rewarded for their years of corruption and incompetence? That's right, the dictators. If not these, then whoever runs to the front of the protests and screams the loudest, thereby earning himself the right to be the next corrupt regime who will then pay the citizens to hold their tongue. The cycle continues. The problems are not solved.
Only systemic pro-market reforms can solve the underlying problems. These mobs are not demanding those kinds of reforms. In fact, as we've seen in China, India, Brazil, and many other formerly communist governments, incremental pro-market reforms are often most successfully implemented by reforming the existing government without popular uprising. So why I am getting emotional when reading about the small successes of these protesters?
Simple, I've been indoctrinated into a worldview that always roots for the 'little guy', even when the little guy shuts down the economy, gets people killed, and at best installs a government of equal incompetence, at worst leaving the same people in charge with a slightly lighter checkbook. The message here: Check your emotions at the door, and hope against hope that whoever hijacks the next protest is one of the few people in the world who understands the importance of market forces in the march of history. Without the uplifting market growth enabled by economic freedoms, the seemingly noble goals of these protesters are nothing but the tempting song of tens of thousands of sirens.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Egypt: Conspiracy Alert!
A Chinese friend asked me what I thought about Egypt, and I told him that I was worried by the potential instability and simultaneously hopeful for a better government. Clearly unsatisfied with my answer, he asked me what was the cause? I said I don't know, bad economy, no jobs, everyone was unhappy.
That's when he asked me what was really on his mind...Was this started by the CIA?
That took me by surprise. Not because I hadn't considered it, I had, and quickly dismissed the thought. After all, the CIA was seemingly caught flat footed by the fast pace of the events on the ground and Bambi's reaction to the crisis always seemed like he was one step behind. Also, Mubarak was on U.S. payroll and conciliatory toward Israel, so why topple him. After the question, I paused to reconsider, and told him no. I have spent some more time considering, and now I would like to change my answer to maybe, but hopefully not.
We all know that Bush was a vocal proponent of a so-called freedom agenda. The post-hoc justification for the misadventure in Iraq was some sort of convoluted theory about how we would demonstrate that Arab culture was compatible with democracy and inspire other governments in the region to follow suit. Then Hezoballah won elections in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank. The freedom agenda was quietly shelved except for a few speeches by Condi Rice which seemed to indicate that the State Department still believed the idea had legs.
Is it possible that the Obama administration, which did little to publicly support the protests in Iran last year, and has said nothing to indicate that it was continuing the once-dead Bush policy has actually been pushing a covert freedom agenda since his administration took over? The question is intriguing if you consider the number of uprisings and protests during Bambi's administration. There was Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, and now numerous copycats throughout the Muslim world. Even Xinjiang China was hit by protests during the Obama administration. It is far-fetched to believe that this apparent surge in Muslim unrest is quietly being instigated by intelligence forces under Obama's control?
I have no evidence (beyond the apparent frequency of these events) indicating that Bambi is playing a role in this. Still it is an intriguing possibility, and something worth researching. I will work more on it when I have time.
I certainly hope China does not come to the conclusion that Obama is behind these uprisings. That would introduce a very dangerous and volatile issue into the already tense relationship between the two countries. It is my hope that Obama is considering the complications that would arise if he is indeed playing instigator in foreign nations that are ostensibly U.S. allies, or at least mildly friendly to the U.S. This could make many important geopolitical actors nervous, and could potentially polarize the globe as countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, numerous central Asian dictators, North African dictators and others could come to the conclusion that they have a common enemy...The U.S. That block has the potential to unite and sink the world into another Cold War.
Scary stuff...
That's when he asked me what was really on his mind...Was this started by the CIA?
That took me by surprise. Not because I hadn't considered it, I had, and quickly dismissed the thought. After all, the CIA was seemingly caught flat footed by the fast pace of the events on the ground and Bambi's reaction to the crisis always seemed like he was one step behind. Also, Mubarak was on U.S. payroll and conciliatory toward Israel, so why topple him. After the question, I paused to reconsider, and told him no. I have spent some more time considering, and now I would like to change my answer to maybe, but hopefully not.
We all know that Bush was a vocal proponent of a so-called freedom agenda. The post-hoc justification for the misadventure in Iraq was some sort of convoluted theory about how we would demonstrate that Arab culture was compatible with democracy and inspire other governments in the region to follow suit. Then Hezoballah won elections in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank. The freedom agenda was quietly shelved except for a few speeches by Condi Rice which seemed to indicate that the State Department still believed the idea had legs.
Is it possible that the Obama administration, which did little to publicly support the protests in Iran last year, and has said nothing to indicate that it was continuing the once-dead Bush policy has actually been pushing a covert freedom agenda since his administration took over? The question is intriguing if you consider the number of uprisings and protests during Bambi's administration. There was Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, and now numerous copycats throughout the Muslim world. Even Xinjiang China was hit by protests during the Obama administration. It is far-fetched to believe that this apparent surge in Muslim unrest is quietly being instigated by intelligence forces under Obama's control?
I have no evidence (beyond the apparent frequency of these events) indicating that Bambi is playing a role in this. Still it is an intriguing possibility, and something worth researching. I will work more on it when I have time.
I certainly hope China does not come to the conclusion that Obama is behind these uprisings. That would introduce a very dangerous and volatile issue into the already tense relationship between the two countries. It is my hope that Obama is considering the complications that would arise if he is indeed playing instigator in foreign nations that are ostensibly U.S. allies, or at least mildly friendly to the U.S. This could make many important geopolitical actors nervous, and could potentially polarize the globe as countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, numerous central Asian dictators, North African dictators and others could come to the conclusion that they have a common enemy...The U.S. That block has the potential to unite and sink the world into another Cold War.
Scary stuff...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)