A love letter to authoritarianism
I can’t wait for this essay to be taken completely out of context and for my eventual crucifixion. If I end up having the honour of being cancelled, I welcome it. However, if the environment for political discourse in the West continues to be singular and illiberal at that time, then it would be unfortunate, or I have become famous too soon.
The dominant narrative in the West continues to be the pre-9/11 naivete à la Fukashima that liberal market democracy is the end state of human governance, despite the sustained growth and success of alternatives systems and economies around the world. Anything economically or politically varied is scrutinized and vilified, particularly when it is in opposition to the West. I am of the school that this narrative is flawed and exists to serve interests of the Western hegemony.
I believe that almost all government rules by the will of its people, with very few exceptions (North Korea perhaps), despite the improvement in surveillance and propaganda programs. History has shown time and time again, that unlikeable systems and leaders are overthrown, whether with the help of the CIA or because they are the CIA themselves. Though I agree with many of the arguments against cultural relativism, (FGM is wrong, yes), I disagree that a Western-style democracy is what all societies eventually develop into. In fact, some countries that have previously been held up as the paradigm of liberalism have shown a penchant for strongmen leaders with a total disregard for rule of law. To say that all societies develop into liberal democracies is to ignore the current trend of them developing further into populist regimes.
The conventional wisdom is that authoritarianism emerges from negative situations: fear, anger, or historical insecurity. I would take this further and suggest that it is within those times that authoritarianism has shown itself to be the most practical and effective. Churchill is a traditional Western hero. But even those who unabashedly support him will agree that he was an effective leader in wartime only. However, the Second World War only lasted half a decade, whereas some countries have been battling economic starvation and the Western hegemony for half a century. In those countries, namely Russia, China, and a few of their allies, an authoritarian system is necessary. Within the oppressive paradigm of this New World Order, those outside the fold often benefit from a cohesiveness not found in liberal democracy.
Just like advocates for economic reform in America who point to Northern European countries as exemplars of wealth redistribution, and are rightly refuted by those who attribute their systems to excess wealth, and small homogeneous populations, the successes of Western market democracies are often founded on the gains of colonialism and the global free markets underpinned by military strength. Its no secret that the developed Western nations which plead for personal freedoms now are the ones who blatantly took freedoms from the countries whom they criticize now. As per Isaiah Berlin, there are two concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty, or “freedom to” and “freedom from”. The first type is what is generally referred to in the West when they speak of rights: fundamentally, the right to do as one pleases: speak, act, believe, and carry weapons. The second they generally don’t even consider, and refers the ability to exist unhindered: the freedom from starvation and threats on livelihood. For most of those in the West debating freedoms in authoritarian states, negative freedoms aren’t a personal consideration, and those experiencing threats to their livelihood likely aren’t considering how Xi’s third term affects Chinese minorities.
One of my favourite examples to illustrate the benefits of an authoritarian government is to compare the development of India and China after the Second World War. Both former colonies, both eventual nuclear powers. But China clears India on every development index and is considered a rival system to the West, whereas India commands nowhere near the same fear or respect. China has reduced its poverty rate from 91% in 1980 to virtually nothing today, whereas India went from 50% to around 10% in the same time frame. Indian literacy rates are still below Chinese levels in 1990. Of course, I don’t attribute the entirety of the cause to governance style, but it is undeniable that an authoritarian government in China has simply permitted it to get things done, more effectively and at a faster rate than India, or anywhere else in the world. Forcibly unifying the population by enforcing one central language saddens me greatly, but is an economic tool which is much more efficient than India’s purported hundreds of languages. In fact, many of the Asian miracle economies in the latter half of the last century were autocratic successes that ended up transitioning into democracies: Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong all exemplify this.
Of course, there are many shortcomings of an authoritarian system. As a believer in the efficiency of free markets, the risk of state misallocation of resources is simply too high. There are many examples of centrally planned economy failure: the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward come to mind. Even seemingly beneficial decisions have long-term unforeseen consequences: the One-Child policy has led to a warping of China’s population pyramid, and a dearth of working-aged adults. Of course, these failures are present in a free-market system as well, but the responsibility for those who starve under liberal systems is diluted somewhat. The possibility of a leader who isn’t a benevolent dictator is far greater than in a democracy, but I would like to hold the state of American politics since Obama as a counterpoint.
Would I like to live under an authoritarian government? Certainly not. As someone who was raised in the West, I have become accustomed to not only the negative freedoms but also the positive freedoms granted to me. I love living in a country whose position in the global political and economic framework pays me dividends. I won the lottery at birth, and I have come to expect freedom of speech and safety from bodily harm. But still, I think to dismiss any sort of authoritarian government outright is simply ignorant. Most of the time, they’re not poor because they have an authoritarian government, they have an authoritarian government because they’re poor, and perhaps that is the only way out as we’ve examples of across the world. Or perhaps I’m naive, contrarian, and unwise in the ways of the world. Time shall tell.