stroopwafel said:
China and Russia might be better at suppressing social discontent and unrest so it appears less divided but it comes at the cost of a corrupted justice system and nepotism, which rule of law and transparancy is a democracy's biggest strength. It's why well-to-do Russians stash all their rubles in European real estate and why China won't subjugate Hong Kong militarily despite serious protests(independent courts + insurance companies). International business values transparency and the law state above all else so democracies will always have the competitive edge. You don't want a dictatorial regime confiscate all your possessions when you fall out of grace and have no independent court or justice system to fall back on.
Maybe suppressing social discontent and unrest will turn out to be more advantageous.
I would think of governance systems to an extent as a "horses for courses" issue. A liberal democracy might be most advantageous in certain situations and circumstances and an authoritarian dictatorship in others. Things like the move of liberal democracies to tight state control in WW2 illustrates the point, even if an extreme situation.
The laissez-faire capitalist wing of the West would assume that breaching laissez-faire capitalism is inefficient. However, then you look at the accusations against China of currency manipulation. If it really hurt China more than the West we'd shrug and move on. But the complaints clearly indicate that selectively not playing by the rules works. Similarly, China "cheating" by dumping cheap steel in a construction slump has brought the British steel industry to its knees. Maybe it is inefficient for China... but it also suggests they can just kill competitors. And when the steel industry picks up again, that's less competitors for China. That "inefficiency" sounds like it might be worth it, long term.
We could look at Trump blundering around on the world stage potentially undermining US power and influence, or the British Brexit vote, both democratic results arguably relying in no small part on campaigns of lies, bullshit, self-harm born of social discontent, and so on. What if that's where liberal democracy is going in the internet era? Ill-informed, fractured, echo chamber electorates lashing out at the wrong targets and voting their states into bad policy and increasing disrepair. Perhaps these are all problems a more "carefully managed" state could avoid. You might validly note problems with the likes of Russia and China, but a more positive example might be Singapore which is well along the same sorts of lines. China and Russia might erase many of those problems whilst keeping their authoritarian heart.
It all sounds worryingly Francis Fukuyama to just assume liberal democracy is the best and has won and end of debate until the human race meets it's end. Perhaps, with the relative decline of the West, we're living through and looking at the end of liberal democracy's primacy. Because liberal democracies still have the edge from their prior development, it gives an illusion of its superiority, even as the cracks are becoming more and more evident. Much like for instance the Romans believed their empire - with all its wealth, culture, cities and sophistication - would last forever even as it was decayed inside to the point that the barbarians were about to swamp the borders and sweep it away.
