[cedws]

I can’t remember where I heard this from but I once heard that the ideal political system isn’t democracy, it’s a benevolent autocracy. While the CCP may have some corruption, I do get the impression that it is mostly benevolent and serves China’s best interests. Relative to autocracy, democracy is slow and pulls in different directions due to party politics and elections. I went to a museum in Hong Kong recently. It had a very obvious Chinese bias, but it clarified some things for me about how China sees itself. The CCP sees social cohesion as critical to the security of the state. If we look at Western countries like the US and UK, social cohesion is weakening, we’re extremely divided and addicted to bickering amongst ourselves.

Take the Charlie Kirk murder as a recent example which has sparked heated infighting between the left and right in the US. You’re all part of the same country but you pull in completely different directions and hate each other. Driving wedges like this is a tool adversaries can use to dismantle democracy.

[pjc50]

The question is always how much violence is required to suppress dissent. Especially given the recent history of Hong Kong.

Some influencer called Matt Forney was calling for a ban on the Democrat party in the wake of the Charlie Kirk murder. I can see how a one-party state might be achieved with popular support in the US.

[legacynl]

> I can’t remember where I heard this from but I once heard that the ideal political system isn’t democracy, it’s a benevolent autocracy.

I don't think this is true. An autocracy is like a super weapon. Even if the power was held by a 'benevolent' group/individual, there's no guarantee that they will keep being 'benevolent', or that someone else doesn't take over, either diplomatically or by coup.

Democracy isn't perfect, but it does protect against autocrats taking your rights away, and you having no way of defending yourself.

[meekaaku]

Most people think democracy is necessary for economic development. Taiwan/Singapore/South Korea, were pretty much authoritarian yet developed economically immensely. Democratization came much later.

Well the idea was, adoption of capitalism and economic freedom will eventually lead to political freedom. It did happen that way in many countries, but China is still yet to happen.

[crazybonkersai]

The thing is that you almost need strong authoritarian control to transition society from agrarian to industrial state. You don't achieve that with globalization and open markets, but instead you nurture and develop your industry (which of course developed democratic countries find uncompetitive and undemocratic). Once you get your industry going, you can start opening up both markets and society.

[TheCoelacanth]

I don't think that's at all accurate. Most of the early countries to make that transition had relatively high levels of economic freedom.

[legacynl]

You forget that it was ultimately the people themselves that made those countries have political freedom because they wanted it themselves right.

People knew what autocratic government was like, and couldn't get rid of it soon enough.

If any of you are playing with the idea that autocracy might actually be good for a country; do this thought experiment: instead of thinking your favorite group would wield that power, what if your least favorite group would have that power? Wouldn't you be thankful for the protections that the law gives you in that situation? Taking away the protections of people, means that there's nothing you can do when you get targeted. And in an autocratic society that's just up to a single opinion which you don't control.