On any given day, there are reminders how Indian democracy is manipulated by vested interests to stall policy. Confronted with these reminders, an intelligent Indian policymaker may and sometimes does look wistfully at China: where policy rationality is apparently systemically incentivised. But democracy, warts and all, remains a fine comparative advantage for India, and proof again is to be found in the columns of Chinese troops keeping ?peace? in Lhasa. Let?s keep aside for the moment the specifics of the Tibet issue. What?s the core problem for China now? Critiques of its conduct in Lhasa flow from the fact that China is a one-party autocracy with a long record of brutally suppressing protests, that Chinese official descriptions are classically Orwellian, and that avenues of civil dissent are absent in the country. Now, if China were a democracy, it could still have had a problem about an ?unhappy territory?. There could have been protests that are uncomfortably timed with a showcase global sporting event, and even troops may still have been called out. But the Chinese state would have started with a cleaner slate?that?s the advantage democracy confers. It is the same with popular disaffection with some aspects of China?s hugely impressive economic growth. Lack of civil society means of protest means the building up of dissatisfaction and consequent unpredictability about how long disaffected groups can be kept ?disciplined?. China?s Communist Party seems convinced, in part from the seeming acquiescence of the country?s increasingly prosperous middle class, that the political question has been solved by economic performance. China-watchers should be wary of this thesis. Lhasa is just one of many possible faultlines.
As for the Tibet issue, the original cause has been diluted by all players, including seemingly by Tibetan leaders, and disputes and negotiations seem to centre around the question of a sense of Tibetan distinctiveness in the Chinese territorial arrangement. China has sought to ?export? both people and economic infrastructure to Tibet; the now-famous railway being a prime example of Beijing?s ?integrationist? plans. But again, the idea that physical infrastructure and commerce can reverse feelings of alienation may have worked better in a democratic context. Tibet could be an early sign of a long series of questions facing China?s communist leaders.
