Older theories hold that political democracy can emerge only after a certain level of socioeconomic development. This view remains plausible because democracy, which aims to protect minority rights within majority rule, is a delicate system that takes root and bears fruit only when people enjoy a certain degree of prosperity. In tougher conditions, its success is less likely.
The idea is empirical in nature. It also implies a counter-thesis: non-democratic regimes may face greater obstacles to development than liberal ones. Still, exceptions exist that soften the norm and prevent it from serving as a blanket justification for dictatorships.
The interaction between democracy and culture mirrors this pattern. After Pelosi visited Taiwan, provoking backlash in China, researchers like Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson questioned Western readings that praise cultural explanations for China’s political stance. Some authors have argued that Western optimism about a persistent anti-democratic China rests on a belief in a deep Confucian tradition that supposedly fixes social hierarchies beyond families. In this view, Western individualism contrasts with a Chinese heritage seen as rigid and collective, potentially reducing public willingness to engage in democratic politics. Analysts such as Ray Dalio have claimed that China emphasizes hierarchy over egalitarianism, while the United States is described as bottom-up and individually oriented; China, by contrast, is described as rooted in the collective from the ground up.
Historically, China is often portrayed as having maintained an authoritarian trajectory for millennia, repeatedly tested by rebellions and dynasties without a lasting democratic project. This narrative can create a temptation to imagine that China needs a strong benevolent leader to guide its people. It is a view that some regimes may find convenient in asserting control.
Yet this thesis fails under scrutiny. Notable counterexamples show that democracy can take hold in places strongly tied to tradition. Hong Kong and Taiwan, though linked to the Chinese state, have developed robust democratic practices and civil liberties. Hong Kong once functioned as a living democracy before perceived erosion of liberties and shifts in the broader framework of the one country two systems arrangement. Taiwan, after years of nationalist governance, has evolved into a vibrant political and digital democracy where citizen participation is normal and direct democracy experiments are increasingly visible. Many observers regard Taiwan as a leading example of democratic participation and civil liberties in action.
Taken together, these observations argue against a fatalist claim that ancient cultural legacies permanently block modern freedoms. It would be mistaken to assume that Taiwan must surrender to a continental model of governance. The more nuanced question remains: why should China concede to Taiwanese democracy instead of Taiwan aligning with a future China that respects democratic norms?