Friedman's thesis never was to argue that authoritarianism is better than democracies, but instead to explain some of the factors that make for successful adaptation. The fact that Mexico's democratic process has prevented it from taking advantage of the opportunities of a flattened world is simply a reality; there does not have to be an associated value judgment. In fact, Friedman quickly points out -- for those critics who bothered to keep reading -- that it is premature to conclude that democracy is a hindrance to economic reform. He believes, whether rightly or not, that the more important issue is leadership and cites examples of democracies that have failed to adapt (Germany) and some that have (the UK), as well as authoritarian governments that have adapted excellently (China) while similar nations failed to do so (Zimbabwe).
Second, we should at least pause and consider whether or not the critics aren't missing the point entirely. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Friedman really did state that democracies are a hindrance to economic success in a flattened world (though, it's apparent that he is unwilling to make this leap). Can any of these critics really say with a straight face that democracy is more important than economic prosperity for millions of people living in horrendous conditions in the developing world? Which is better for the rural poor of Mexico, jobs or the right to vote for politicians who may well...
Rather, it is the suggestion that in the developing world economic prosperity might form a strong base for democratic reform, while the opposite may not be true.
Friedman should be criticized on this matter, but not because he implies that democracies might hinder participation in a flattened world. Instead, Friedman should be challenged because he neglects to examine this important topic and fails to back it up with much more than anecdotal evidence gleaned from various political officials in Mexico. He simply classifies the question as one of a few "intangible things," which he attests cannot be defined.
Perhaps if Friedman had expended more effort to provide a definition of the role -- historically and otherwise -- that political structures play in a flattened economy, his critics wouldn't have been able to tear into his assertions so easily.
Works Cited
Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.
Thomas, L. Friedman, The World Is Flat (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), 332.
Freidman, 333-334.
Friedman, 330.
