For decades, it was widely believed that economic development would naturally lead autocratic regimes to transition into democracies. However, the resilience of modern autocracies, exemplified by China’s continued authoritarian rule despite economic progress, challenges this assumption. These regimes adeptly use technology and other strategies to maintain control, suggesting that economic growth alone is not sufficient to trigger democratic reforms.

For a long time, people believed that economic development would naturally lead autocratic regimes to evolve into democracies. This idea is rooted in the modernization theory, which suggests that as countries develop economically, their citizens become more educated and politically aware, eventually pushing for democratic reforms.

Take China, for instance. Back in 2016, Pei predicted a democratic shift for China within a few years. Fast forward to 2024, and China remains firmly under autocratic rule. This reality challenges the straightforward link between economic growth and democracy.

However, modern autocracies are incredibly savvy. They’ve adapted by adopting some democratic elements—like holding elections—but with a twist. They use technology and manipulate electoral processes to legitimize their rule and maintain power. This strategic manoeuvring disrupts the traditional narrative that economic development alone will lead to democracy. Technology has played a massive role in this endurance of autocracies. These regimes leverage tools like the Internet, social media, and AI to control and monitor their populations. China, for example, uses advanced surveillance systems and big data to keep a tight grip on its citizens. This digital authoritarianism makes it harder for citizens to organize and push for democratic changes.

Despite economic progress, many autocracies, especially in the Middle East and Asia, remain firmly in place. The political and economic literature on this subject is inconclusive, suggesting that while economic development can support democracies, it doesn’t necessarily trigger their emergence. Geographic and regional factors also play crucial roles in determining political transitions. China’s story is particularly compelling. Its economy has boomed over the past few decades, creating a new middle class. However, this middle class is less autonomous and more dependent on the state compared to their counterparts in democratic regions. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has maintained control by balancing economic benefits with political repression, proving that economic success doesn’t automatically lead to democracy. Autocracies have learned to mimic democratic systems to some extent, reducing violence and increasing the likelihood of a stable transition of power within their own ranks.  Despite China grappling with a challenging recovery from three years of Xi’s zero-COVID policy, fragile consumer and business confidence, and weak export demand, Xi Jinping still secured an unprecedented third term as president of China on March 10, 2024. Officially, the Presidium is responsible for nominating all elected positions. However, in practice, the Communist Party leadership holds the ultimate authority over nominations through the nomenklatura system.

Leaders manipulate electoral systems and use non-political charges, encompassing expected charges like corruption or adultery, as well as more unconventional accusations such as disrupting traffic, stealing street art, and engaging in illegal elk hunting, to suppress opposition, making their control seem more palatable to the public.

Interestingly, the world has seen a decline in global freedom over the past 16 years. More countries are experiencing setbacks in democratic governance than those making progress. This trend, coupled with the success of non-oil-dependent autocracies like China, suggests that the old belief in an inevitable march toward democracy may need rethinking.

So, where does this leave us? It’s clear that economic development alone isn’t enough to guarantee a shift from autocracy to democracy. Modern autocracies have become adept at using technology and other means to maintain control and legitimacy. While the quality of life in these regimes might mirror that of democracies, the challenge to democracy itself is real and ongoing. As we navigate this complex landscape, it’s crucial to recognize that different contexts and dynamics can lead to various forms of governance. Ultimately, the well-being of citizens—economically, socially, mentally, and physically—should be the benchmark for evaluating any regime.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Featured image: “Llegada de Xi Jinping, presidente de China” by G20 Argentina is licensed under CC BY 2.0.