Nations Can Thrive Without Democracy,

¶ … Nations Can Thrive Without Democracy, but Only for so Long by Marcus Gee. Specifically it will contain a critical response to the essay. Gee's essay promotes the idea that capitalism and success can spread without democracy, and autocracy can be the choice for some people of the world. While his arguments are compelling, they are weak when they assume that people "choose" autocracy and that all non-democratic entities must someday fail seem at odds with each other and at odds with what is happening in the world today.

Gee's essay addresses the rise of China from a third-world economic nobody to one of the giants of industry in today's world. He also discusses Russia's return to autocracy, and the main points of his article are that experts believed a rising economy and prosperity would spread capitalism and democracy around the world, but Russia and China have resisted this assumption, and cling to their autocratic governments, seemingly without regret. Gee writes, "Many Chinese and Russians seem to agree. China's leaders face no real challenge to their rule and Mr. Putin remains far more popular than many democratic leaders could dream of, despite his steady accumulation of unchecked power (Gee, par. 5). The author maintains this autocracy cannot last, and historically it does not last, and that nations cannot survive and thrive without democracy.

Gee presents logical arguments, often backed up with readings from other authors, but many of his arguments are assumptions, rather that facts with backup. For example, he writes, "China's leaders can probably keep China orderly and its economy growing for years to come. Perhaps. But the good times for China and Russia can't go on forever. Russia's current prosperity floats on high oil prices, which are even now showing signs of coming back to earth" (Gee, par. 7). "Probably" and "perhaps" are not words normally used to argue effectively. They point to the fact that Gee is offering is opinion, and no matter how informed and well read he is, it is still that, simply his opinion. In reality, China shows no signs of turning democratic any time soon. There were no mass demonstrations or defections, for that matter, during the Olympic Games. This is because China's government rules with an iron hand, to be sure, but the people of China seem content with their lives and their government, and no large-scale revolt is seen, except in other countries who protest China's record on human rights. Are the people afraid? Certainly, but that has never stopped people from rebelling, and that does not seem to be occurring in China. Gee even agrees with that, even as he argues against it. He writes, "It is a reminder that ordinary people put a premium on order, especially if they are from countries like Russia and China that have suffered through the lack of it" (Gee, par. 6). He seems at odds with his own assessments, as he says autocracies cannot work, and yet, they are working in times when experts predicted they would not.

In addition, he notes that the Chinese and Russians somehow "choose" to be continuing autocracies, and then acknowledges the power of their leaders. Thus, the people are under the thumb of their leaders, and may be "settling" for autocracy because they see democracy as unattainable and out of reach. Take the Russians, for example, who had a real shot at democracy when the Soviet Union fell, and have instead allowed Putin to create another autocracy not unlike much of the Soviet regime before the fall. Indeed, people may choose autocracy, or they may be bullied into it, or they simply may be more comfortable with it, because it is so ingrained in their lives.

Gee does make valid points throughout his essay, including the notation that most large, successful countries fail without democracy. Rome and Greece are two of the dominant democratic cultures that notoriously fell from power and crumbled as their democracies crumbled. What does that say about autocracies? That they will do the same thing? Gee writes, "It would be equally naive to think that the capitalist autocrats of Moscow and Beijing have invented a formula for governing forever without the nuisance of elections. Some day soon, their people will want something better, and in time they will get it" (Gee, par. 9). That may be true, and Gee cites countries like the Philippines that have proved this true, but it is still an assumption. When given the chance, Russia instituted "democratic" elections that elected an autocrat, and the Iraqis elected a government that seems to be ineffectual at best. Perhaps it is equally naive to think that every people in the world desire a democracy, and that their cultures and values support a democracy. China and Russia seem to be clear examples of countries that are perfectly happy without a democracy - perhaps some people really do not desire a choice, and are happy with the status quo.