2024 will be remembered as a year when liberal democracies worldwide grappled with unprecedented instability. France cycled through four governments in less than a year while the UK struggled with severe economic turbulence. Germany’s government collapsed, triggering early elections this coming February, and Canada’s ruling party faced a continuing decline in popularity precipitating Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation earlier this week. The U.S. saw the return of a divisive president, deepening domestic divides and raising global concerns about foreign policy. Meanwhile, in South Korea, President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law amidst widespread protests, sparking a political crisis that has yet to settle.
When reflecting on Western politics, and the increasingly volatile landscapes leaders must navigate, I can't help but consider the stark differences that emerge compared to its adversaries. Has there been a collapse of any kind in 21st century China? No. Leadership changes? Yes—but with strikingly smooth transitions: Hu Jintao took the reins of power from Jiang Zemin in 2003, and a decade later, Hu Jintao was succeeded by Xi Jinping in 2012-2013. Since 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has maintained a resolute grip. Compared to the “chaos” of democracies, which can be gridlocked, divided, and slow to act, China’s governance can appear as an alternative model of stability. But does this contrast reveal flaws in democratic systems or merely highlight the prize for suppressing dissent in a one-party state?
Nobody can deny the CCP’s ability to act decisively during moments of crisis. In a highly centralized system like China’s, responses are often swift and well-coordinated, a prime example being the country’s handling of the early days of the Covid-19 outbreak. Entire hospitals were constructed within weeks, strict lockdowns were enforced nationwide, and the Health Code system was introduced to regulate internal movement, restricting access to highly infected areas by assigning users a green, yellow, or red code based on their health status and travel history. These measures helped contain the virus within specific regions. In contrast, democracies faced delays as leaders struggled to reach consensus or encountered pushback from citizens opposing mandatory measures.
Aside from crisis management, which is often a high-stress challenge for any government, development is another area where Chinese efficiency stands out. If a massive infrastructure project like the Belt and Road Initiative was led by a democratic country, it would likely face delays due to public debate, legal challenges, and political turnover. For example, California's High-Speed Rail project is a much smaller endeavor and has been famously plagued by environmental lawsuits, funding disputes, and political opposition. Major sections of the project remain incomplete, despite its inception back in 2008.
However, the CCP’s efficiency and undisputed continuous control leave little room for transparency or public debate. While China was statistically successful against COVID-19, its harsh measures sparked protests such as the White Paper Movement in 2022 when citizens across major cities protested prolonged lockdowns. The Government responded by detaining protesters and using surveillance to identify participants. While the Chinese Government didn't directly acknowledge the protests as the reason for the policy change, the timing suggests they played a role in accelerating the shift. Public outrage can be the catalyst for much-needed reforms, turning moments of weakness into opportunities for growth. Take, for instance, the resignation of key leaders in European countries following scandals or public dissatisfaction such as Boris Johnson stepping down as UK Prime Minister in 2022 after the Partygate Scandal. While such events can temporarily destabilize governments, they ultimately reinforce democratic principles of accountability and trust.
This emphasis on accountability extends to development projects as well. For example, Greece has spent over 40 years attempting to complete a metro system in Thessaloniki, facing financial setbacks and frequent delays as archaeologists retrieved more than 300,000 ancient artifacts unearthed during construction—now part of the country’s cultural heritage. China, on the other hand, often prioritizes rapid development over preservation, resulting in the loss of thousands of historic sites. There are trade-offs inherent in every governance model and democracies are messy by design. They fumble, but they self-correct, a characteristic that positions them well for playing the long game in the current complex world. Whether China’s system, or any centralized governance model, can make the same claim remains an open question.
The turbulence of 2024 reveals both the vulnerabilities and the strengths of democratic governance. The question is not whether democracy can survive the challenges of the modern world, but whether it can innovate and strengthen public trust in time to meet them.
Image: Flickr/United Nations (Joao Araujo Pinto)
No image changes made.
Comentários