The Rapid Rise of Autocracy in the Modern World

When South Korea was initially formed in the 1940s, Syngman Rhee, an anti-democratic tyrant became its first ever president. His reign of 12 years was marked by oppression, corruption and rigging of any possible elections that came on cards.

It was a relief to many South Koreans when he was overthrown in the Student Revolution of 1960 in the light of democracy.

In 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, much of its citizens were satisfied with the transition by their new leader Milkhail Gorbachev to democratization.

Also in 1971, something similar happened in the newly formed country of Bangladesh in which its citizens felt empowered by their Leader Sheikh Mujeeb Ur Rehman who had promised free and fair democracy.

This was happening in other parts of the world as democracy was being hailed as the pathway to the future, a key element of prosperity. An essence of what makes a nation truly great.

Fast forward to today, we witness an eventual decline of those same values as they are paraded as somewhat unreliable and a factor towards instability in a country.

Back then people wanted the liberty to select their leader, today’s populace desire nothing but stability- in politics, in economics, and in their living standard (if not progress), something which modern democratic values have disastrously failed to deliver.

In today’s world, we are seeing an uprising of autocracies and one-party states in different corners of the world. In the world of today, China is not the only communist country. There are dozens more who are fighting to make their mark on the global map.

To those who support these leaderships and regimes, these are the bacon of reestablishing the old order of culture, traditions, and religion. Simultaneously, these regimes have actually propelled towards establishing economic prosperity and many have succeeded to a decent if not to greater extent.

Let us look into the communist country of Vietnam whose political hierarchy and governing system resembles broadly with the Chinese Communist Party. Its governing system introduced Doi Moi reforms in 1986 leading to swift growth and higher economic activities.

Vietnam today has maintained a trade surplus of $26 billion for eight consecutive years. Its economy is projected to increase up to 6.7% in 2024. The country has received $28 billion FDI and stands with high industrial growth, a $30 billion thriving digital economy and an overall GDP of $408 billion- not bad for a non-democratic country.

Then we have famous one-party states like India, Bangladesh, and Turkey whose leaders have been coming forth from the same old party. This is the newest form of anti-democratism and is prevalent in a number of countries. Despite these accusations, these one-party countries have economically thrived in the past 4 decades.

Among meetings with the IMF representatives and dwindling foreign reserves, Bangladesh economy was projected to rise 6% in 2023 and currently has a GDP of $460.2 billion with multiple foreign investment deals in the pipeline.

India on the other hand has already taken the global stage as the next mega manufacturing hub of the world and a fast-emerging economic superpower.

While these one-party states may look democratic on paper, they are not. The ruling party in these countries prevent any opposition from rising. This gives them the golden opportunity to own the yard. While these states limit political freedom, they encourage economic ones and have a track record of explosive economic growth.

Then there are absolute monarchies such as Saudi Arabic, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Brunei. The measures these monarchies have undertaken to strengthen their economies are remarkable.

Many of these absolute monarchies are allies of the Western liberal world order and are embracing every factor of the values except the actual one: Democracy.

In a world where globalization was seen as an eventual outcome through democratic values, autocracies, one party regimes, monarchies, and dictatorships are emerging rapidly and yet are more than willing to be connected with the outer world.

Global trade is now becoming excessive in a world that seems globalized on the surface but beneath is polarized.

Some of the most notorious anti-democratic states such as China, and Russia have massive influence on the global trading routes despite being countries with strict authoritative values. When the Russia Ukraine war happened, The West was surprised to see the global impact Russia had on the world’s economy.

Today, China is thriving despite trade restrictions. It is solidifying its relations with other authoritative regimes. The West divestment in China and moving its money elsewhere such as in India (A one- party state) is a misunderstanding for democratic supporters.

It would be difficult to disintegrate the world trade with these autocracies who are much bigger and richer as compared to the ones before World War 2.

These autocracies are well integrated among each other. These have sufficient resources to back their regimes. They have access to top level technologies, and many are closely allied with one another in the case of Russia and China and respect the countries sharing their governing system and aim to become more self-reliant rather than dependent on others.

Through the past decade, autocracy like Iran has proven that it doesn’t allow the West to prosper. It has established trading agreements with other South American and Asian powers and continues to show positive growth signs. These autocracies are open to trade with the West, changing their political environment is out of the window.

Due to this, the 1990s saw an immense boom in trade between the West and the East. This landed a leverage for the non-democratic leaderships to pave their way. Today these autocracies hold more than 30% of global trade power and it is the West who will suffer the most in the case of isolation.

According to the Economists, even by removing China, the non-democratic regimes have seen more direct investments than their democratic counterparts and have opened up new companies. Today these sets of countries are interested in forming smaller regional deals with their immediate neighbors rather than with the ones situated far away.

The only thing these regimes consider a threat is the sweeping in the liberal values. That’s why these countries have their own set of strict rules when monitoring data and importing tech. They want their own media to remain dominant in the region and are unwelcoming to the foreign ones. The biggest example here is China that hasn’t let any of the modern social media platforms penetrate its market.

As we move forward, we see a global order that is more polarized than ever. We see positive trade but limited access to data. We see countries that are open to trade but not to privacy. And where each region has its no more than one ruler. And where being self reliant is the primary goal and to separate oneself from the worldwide system is the best way to prevent economic pain.