Taiwan’s testimony

This rule, which is empirical in principle, should be noted, because the reciprocal thesis may be true: non-democratic countries have more difficulty to develop and advance than liberal countries. And in any case, the exceptions that exist relativize the norm and prevent it from being used as an excuse to justify certain dictatorships.

Something similar happens in the system of relations between democracy and culture. After Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, which sparked a backlash in China, Daron Acemoglu, author of the bestselling book Why Nations Fail, and James A. Robinson, co-author of the first and several brilliant articles, criticized Pelosi. The frivolity in which the Chinese dictatorship is justified on cultural grounds. “A common belief among Western politicians and many commentators today is that China will remain anti-democratic for the foreseeable future because of its deeply authoritarian political culture that will stem from its deep Confucian tradition”. In this view, the “individualism” of the West contrasts sharply with the Confucian heritage of China, which implies rigid hierarchies in all social settings, not just families. The result will be that the Chinese people are more willing to take their place in a predefined order of authority and less willing to participate in democratic politics. Some writers, such as Ray Dalio, have argued that “the Chinese system is hierarchical and not egalitarian… The US is run from the bottom up and optimized for the individual; China is run from the ground up and optimized for the collective.”

Turning to empiricism, it is undeniable that China has been an authoritarian model over the past 2500 years, shaken and shaken by the rise and fall of countless rebellions and countless dynasties, without the slightest hint of any democratic project over the long term. It is therefore understandable that the temptation to assume that China has no cure and that its fate depends on the presence of a strong leader who benevolently guides the fate of the people. This thesis is also supported and supported by the regime that seeks to subordinate subjects.

But the thesis cannot be defended, because there are obvious phenomena that disprove it. Hong Kong and Taiwan are integral parts of China – which the Chinese regime has warmly defended – yet they have managed to cast off the historical curse and embrace democratic models very successfully. Hong Kong was a “living democracy” until Hong Kong vaguely crushed liberties after violating agreements with London that were supposed to protect the Taiwan regime and maintain the “one country, two systems” duality outlined in this definition (Acemoğlu). one point seemed convincing. And Taiwan, a country where the nationalist Chiang Kai-shek fled the continent after being defeated by the communists in 1949, is today a magnificent political and digital democracy where active citizen participation in political decisions is the norm: It could be argued that the most advanced experiences of direct democracy in the world are unlike any other developed country. that it has improved its capacity for political participation and civil liberties.

The consequence of all this is clear: it would be a grave mistake to affirm the fatal existence of any sort of unbreakable historical link with ancient cultures that hinders the enjoyment of modern freedoms and political democracy. Therefore, it should not be too obvious that Taiwan must submit to historical death to the Chinese dictatorship, which demands reunification according to continental norms. Since the question is important and has no easy answer: Why shouldn’t China surrender to Taiwanese democracy instead of Taiwan returning to China?