Prosperity - not democracy - comes first

An editorial in the New York Times this week denounced Russian President Vladimir Putin for rolling back Russia's democratic reforms. "Putin has so emasculated the democratic institutions that evolved in the 1990s that it is apparent he has little confidence in his people. The Kremlin controls the political process, deciding who can run for office and who gets access to national television coverage," the editorial complained.

It's a pertinent observation, one that often comes from western media outlets that criticize countries that don't give their citizens the same individual freedoms we enjoy in Canada. There's no doubt Putin and his United Russia party have a stranglehold on power. They exert a strong influence on Russian media and even disperse or ban opposition rallies.

But, chances are, if you ask a Russian which they prefer -- the chaotic, destabilizing and humiliating years after the Iron Curtain fell, or Putin's rising economic and political giant -- I think we can all guess the answer.

The New York Times admitted as much, "Buoyed by high oil revenues and a rising economy, he is credited with restoring national pride and stability," the editorial noted. People in Russia are better off, proud of their country again and mostly content.

The same is true in China, where discontented foreign voices grow louder as China's coming-out party, next year's Olympic Games, approaches. The Falun Gong, its Epoch Times newspaper and other pro-democracy groups have been rallying for democracy, improved human rights and a halt to the harvesting of organs.

But it's telling when those calling for such things are outside the country.

The Chinese are not a weak people. When they are unhappy, the government will hear about it. Revolutions have overthrown dynasties throughout China's history.

More recent demonstrations, such as the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989, show they aren't afraid to stand-up to a government abusing its power. Even shady land-grabs have resulted in full-blown protests -- some violent -- as Chinese citizens stand up for their rights, which are enshrined in the country's constitution.

But outside of ideological or political disputes, most people, especially in the urban centres, seem relatively happy with the Communist party and its government for one simple reason: The economy is growing, and has been, at an unprecedented pace, for almost 30 years.

China is not a democracy but that doesn't mean its government is any less attentive to the population. In fact, it knows it must continue with economic growth, rein in high pollution levels, keep a lid on inflation and ensure people are content, just like any government elected in a democratic environment. Failure to do so could result in a full-scale revolt and threaten the party's hold on power.

It's also not like the government here imposes its will on a weak and feeble populace: The new property law introduced this spring spent several years in various levels of consultations around the country. Steve Dickinson, a lawyer with the U.S. law firm Harris-Moure in Shanghai, told me, that "If the Chinese don't like a law, they'll just ignore it."

That makes China tough to govern. Its sphere for public discussion is also far larger than many people realize: More and more Chinese are publicly calling for stricter environmental standards, halts on rising property prices and improved public transport, among other things.

Democracy is still the preferred form of government. It safeguards human rights, ensures minority voices are heard and provides checks and balances on parties in power. But it can only work when the environment is ripe for it to thrive.

Democracy has been a failure when imposed on Iraq and Afghanistan, has struggled in Palestine, the Philippines and Thailand and might not even be suitable for India, which boasts a population and potential similar, if not equal, to China's.

India has been growing at a slower pace, its infrastructure is old and crippling and it is often mired in political infighting.

Conversely, China's infrastructure is new and expanding quickly (the gross domestic product expands by double-digits each year) and the government has a free hand to modernize the country.

But all politics are local and that's where the Chinese seem most content. More and more people here are buying apartments, new cars and luxury handbags. They are starting businesses, travelling overseas and putting their kids into good universities. They are becoming stakeholders in the system. Very few want to see their golden goose killed.

Despite its stewardship of the economy, however, China's Communist regime remains troubling. Taiwan is continually threatened, dissidents remain in prison, the Internet is censored, intellectual property rights infringement and corruption are rampant. China's military budget is growing by billions each year.

Many Russians and Chinese, I'm sure, would like to see democracy reach their shores someday -- but only if it works. Western organizations calling for the immediate implementation of democracy in these countries, without any proper evaluation of their history, development, economy, culture or political conditions, are naive.

This article originally appeared in the Victoria Times Colonist. It was published on Sunday December 2, 2007.