Accidental Blogger

Ross Terrill in the New York Times today gives an overwiew of the changing nature of China, both politically and economically:

China’s new economy will surely experience setbacks. But eventually,
with its emerging middle-class society, it will refashion the old
politics. In that sense China’s economic boom will both fail and
succeed. As Leninism-plus-consumerism it will reach its limit. But as a
base for a post-communist political system, it seems destined to run
well into the future.

Unfortunately, the reason for this level of optimism is unclear to me.  Before this (hopeful?) conclusion, Terrill tells us that we are going to see "a tussle between politics and economics," and the story he tells seems to point towards another possible outcome: political authoritarianism crippling the economy.  Certainly we’d like to see economic liberalization instead lead to greater social and political freedom.

Ruchira has previously discussed the process of democratization here at A.B.; indeed, I think that democracy will eventually win out in China (I just don’t think the substance of Terrill’s op-ed supports that), and am firmly of the opinion that promoting economic growth and liberalization in the Middle East would have been a much safer and more effective solution than invading Iraq.  Given the failed state that we’ve created, it’s safe to say we couldn’t have done any worse!

Ethan Leib, meanwhile, finds reason for optimism in the political process — essentially, the rise of small-scale Chinese democracy at the local level (hopefully I’ve characterized that argument correctly).  I should add, if we consider that these two distinct processes are occuring concurrently, that has to be even more encouraging, right?