China’s apprehension would be that a successful democracy anywhere in its neighbourhood is a threat to its own system based on dictatorship
Debates and discussions in Taiwan lately circle around the subject of democracy. The reason may well be the close proximity of this island nation to China, which claims its ownership. The intention might be to differentiate itself sharply from the communist dictatorship of the mainland; a subtle but obvious way of rejecting Beijing’s claims. China’s apprehension would be that a successful democracy anywhere in its neighbourhood is a threat to its own system based on dictatorship; a growing bourgeoisie and an expanding petty bourgeoisie are themselves a lure for democracy.
In any case, in his heart of hearts, President Xi Jinping would know that his country had lost Taiwan a long time ago. Although the Chinese were aware of the existence of Taiwan and its native aboriginal population, Chinese settlement of the island did not begin until the 17th century. The Portuguese first visited the island in 1590, naming it Ilha Formosa (Beautiful Island), but were unprepared to settle there. By 1626, the Dutch and the Spanish had established fortified commercial settlements along the island’s western coast. The Manchus began settling the island’s eastern shores in 1796. In 1895, Taiwan was ceded to Japan following the Chinese-Japanese War.
Under the Japanese, Taiwan became a major supplier of rice and sugar to Japan. In the 1930s, Japan’s Taiwan policy turned to the development of industry based on cheap hydroelectric power. Following World War II, Taiwan was ceded to China, then governed by the Nationalists (1945). Following the Communist victory on the mainland in 1949, the Nationalist Government and its supporters, led by Gen Chiang Kai-shek, fled to Taiwan. In 1945, the Nationalist Government and the United States signed a mutual defence treaty. Taiwan has since then received military and economic support from the US.
Taiwan has, ever since the Communist takeover of China by Mao Zedong, been an eyesore for Beijing. This is understandable; Taiwan has not only become a highly developed economy with a sophisticated industrial and manufacturing base, particularly software and electronics, its close ties with the financial world of the West and the success of its democracy are a challenge to China’s world view.
A democratic system is widely accepted as ideal; where it is not being practised, it is because of obstructive vested interests, like those of potential autocracies or oligarchies. Or, the people’s profile is such that they are unable to organise a democratic system. The supreme demand of a democracy is the continual existence of at least a few leaders sacramentally wedded to rules that mandate that when one’s time is up as President or Prime Minister, one gets up and leaves. Through modern history, the Anglo-Saxons are one people who have displayed this sacramental quality.
It began with King John of England, who signed the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) in 1215 at Runnymede (in Surrey). Since the sowing of this seed, democracy in the world has grown to become the rule of the people, by the people and for the people, as famously articulated by American President Abraham Lincoln (1860-65), one of the greatest democrats in the history of humankind.
This is not to say that other countries or societies do not have leaders who play by rules. France and Germany are equally civilised but had allowed themselves to slip out of the lap of democracy. In an endeavour to push out the monarchical autocracy of Louis XVI that had lasted several years, France landed in the grip of Napoleon Bonaparte and his vaulting ambitions. It took a century and more for France to adopt a true and proper democratic Constitution in 1905.
Germany adopted a democratic Constitution in 1918, which fell apart with the advent of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime. Fortunately, two-thirds of the country returned to democracy soon after World War II, with Konrad Adenauer as the Chancellor. The other one-third had to endure a communist dictatorship under Herren Walter Ulbricht and Erich Honaker until communism and the Eastern Bloc fell in 1989.
Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, but only since 1921. Before that, it was like any other monarchy. About the only democracies in Asia are Japan and India. Otherwise, traditionally, democracy was an Anglo-Saxon monopoly.
Political parties that run a democratic system are broadly of two types. One type would be those with a virtually unchanging ideology, while the other would have a view that encompasses the entire nation. The programmes or manifestos, however, would alter with the wind. The latter type is the Anglo-Saxon countries, with one exception. The British Labour Party remained fairly unchanged until Prime Minister Tony Blair innovated “New Labour” in 1994, and ruled with it for the next 10 years.
The non-ideological movements have the advantage of adjusting their manifestos every election and, therefore, do not get out of date. On the other hand, ideological organisations like the communist parties or the BJP can bend to the changing wind to some extent, but cannot violate their basic principles. When times change radically, they face the danger of expiring, as happened to the communist parties the world over. However, ideologies are excellent for binding parties and their members together.
(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)
