Professor Yuen Yuen Ang has a solid lesson to give, but it is not apparent who the audience might be. You'll find her words in the article that came under the title: “The False Dichotomy of Autocracy and Democracy,” published on October 28, 2020 in Project Syndicate.
If you want democracy, she
says, don't look up to Donald Trump's America because it has become a distorted
example of a true democracy. But if you want autocracy, she goes on to say,
don't look up to Xi Jinping's China either because it has become a distorted
example of a true autocracy.
Yuen Ang explains that the
true face of autocracy has been the one reflected by Mao Zedong who launched
the Cultural Revolution that was followed by a “de facto” civil war. As to the
true face of democracy, it is a system based on “bureaucratic autonomy, the
separation of private interests and public office, and respect for peaceful
protest,” all of which were violated by Donald Trump, she goes on to say.
Well then, if Mao Zedong's
brand of autocracy was bad, what's wrong with Xi Jinping's brand of autocracy?
After all, the man, “lifted 93 million rural residents out of poverty in seven
years.” That's true on the face of it, says the professor, but it's not the
full story. The truth, according to her, is that the Chinese economy grew
rapidly because Deng Xiaoping before Xi Jinping, injected the bureaucracy with
accountability, competition and limits on power. He also rejected personality
cults. That's what did it for China, not Jinping, she insists.
Whatever the case, does this
not show a virtuous continuity going from Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution that
was centered on the farm to Deng Xiaoping to Xi Jinping who lifted 93 million farmers
out of poverty in record time? How could Jinping have accomplished what he did
without Xiaoping, she asks? And how could the latter have accomplished what he
did without Mao Zedong?
The lesson to retain from this
history is that in the same way it would be difficult to explain the Chinese
economic miracle without tracing the history of the phenomenon to the Cultural
Revolution, it would be impossible to explain Sputnik without tracing the
history to the Bolshevik Revolution. It would also be impossible to explain the
Fifth Republic without tracing the history to the French Revolution. And it
would be impossible to explain the Federalist Papers without tracing the
history to the Revolutionary War.
For similar reasons, it would
be difficult to see how any developing country would try to copy China's march
into modernity, riding a system of Chinese-style autocracy without taking into
account the country's history that will make it impossible to duplicate China’s
accomplishment. As well, it will be difficult to see how any county will want
to recreate America's ascent to the pinnacle of achievement riding a system of
laissez faire that's beginning to crack at the seams.
Yuen Ang is conscious of those
difficulties, which is why she chose to end her discussion with a cautionary
note. Here is her closing argument, presented in a condensed form:
“The idea that we can choose
only between freedom in an American-style democracy and order in a
Chinese-style autocracy is false. Countries everywhere must find their own path
to this goal. We must also avoid the fallacy of rushing to emulate whichever
national model is fashionable, whether that of Japan in the 1980s, post-Cold
War America, or China today. When you consider buying a car, you want to know
its pros and its cons. This is the kind of common sense we should apply in
assessing a political system. It is also an essential intellectual skill for
navigating today's new cold war climate”.
The evidence is that since the
advent of globalization, most countries have been forced to experiment with new
economic systems, which got them to also consider experimenting with new
political systems. What's certain is that practically no one in the Third World
will listen to an American professor telling them to be wary of strangers,
something they knew all about since they were toddlers. Yuen Ang must also know
how true this is, which begs the question: What was her purpose in writing that
article to begin with?
It can only be that she was
addressing the politicians inside the Washington Beltway. Her goal was not to
dissuade leaders of the emerging nations from adopting a system that may not
suit them. Her goal was to dissuade America's politicians from pressuring the
emerging nations to adopt a system of governance and economics that will cause
them more harm than good.
Given that every pundit who
wrote something about foreign policy, has advised what America must do to other
countries while stressing that this will serve the interests of America or
Israel or both, the need is clearly shown for a lesson such as that of
professor Yuen Ang, to be given to America's political elites.
Just look at the irony in America's posture, and you'll not fail to reach that same conclusion: You have an American system that's floundering at every level, and you see those running it going to other countries, telling them how to do the things that America cannot do for itself.