The Arab nations accumulated enormous wealth after they became a major source of oil-production. Now that the focus is on alternative sources of energy, with particular urgency due to climate change, the effort has been to invest that wealth in other productive activities, if these countries are to maintain their GDPs. So, the focus is on promoting tourism, getting networked with the global economy as investors, and through other lucrative activities, including sports. This process has also, particularly, involved social reform, as integration would not otherwise be possible. This means the fundamentalist approach to religion has also been discarded. The Arabs do have not suffered any loss of identity or self-esteem in the process.
China, which has also amassed enormous wealth through several stages of development, is facing a similar quandary at the present. It knows that, for several reasons, it is likely to be overtaken by other economies such as India, so it needs to retain a competitive edge. It can no longer use the old ways of providing cheap labour for western companies, or stealing technology. For several reasons, unlike the Arabs, it is unable to shed its fundamental belief system, Communism; even temper it for the sake of genuine integration with the world. So, it has set out to develop economic ‘colonies’ to retain its power. These dependencies are to be exploited till the global economy enters some more suitable phase in the future. This philosophy, particularly of late, has not been functioning well, but that has not put off the likes of Xi Jinping. They are trapped in a civilisational dilemma, too fearful to open up as a society, which basically means becoming a democracy.
China’s approach towards Taiwan and the Maldives is explained by this mindset. The Taiwanese would have no problem with re-integrating with China if it had the kind of political freedom they presently enjoy. On the other hand, as a targeted ‘dependency’, Maldives is being arm-twisted to alienate even natural allies like India, which can only be explained by the inherent paranoia of the Chinese leadership. Hopefully, the island nation will be smart enough not to be taken in by talk and extract some solid benefits while the opportunity lasts. It could obtain advice from Sri Lanka and Nepal on the pros and cons of the relationship.
So basically: If China is actually so wealthy, why cannot it afford democracy? And, also, can it afford to do without it?
