President Biden, from the outset of this administration, has articulated a vision of a 21st century world divided between two adversarial systems — democracies and autocracies. It is very reminiscent of the early Cold War when Truman and Eisenhower described an existential struggle between communism and the free world. Contemporary strategic fault lines look much as they did then; Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China versus the democracies of Europe and North America. Observers have a right to be skeptical. History does not usually replicate itself so neatly and broad brush categories like autocracy and democracy often conceal more than they reveal.
Yet, to a remarkable degree, the principal actors on the international stage have taken the places and assumed the roles that Biden describes. Even more striking, the world’s principal autocracies — Russia, China, Iran and North Korea — while fearsome in their willingness to intimidate, oppress and kill — have revealed serious systemic pathologies and weaknesses.
There is a well established body of thought that sees autocracies as having major, inherent advantages in any international contest with democracies. A dictator can act quickly and decisively, unencumbered by domestic critics or ethical niceties. Every truly democratic leader must contend with competing centers of power in the government as well as a broader public that controls the ultimate fate of the government via elections. Democracies also have constitutions that impose structural constraints on the use of executive authority. Putin could — and did — order the military invasion of a European neighbor without publicly consulting anyone. In China, President Xi Jinping imposed a draconian nationwide “zero COVID” policy requiring total lockdowns of entire cities for extended periods — while apparently disregarding expert advice from China’s medical community. Iran’s “Supreme Leader” has violently imposed strict social controls in the name of religious orthodoxy — triggering broad alienation among Iran’s young people. In North Korea, perhaps the world’s most thoroughly totalitarian regime, the “Dear Leader” has produced a nuclear-armed garrison state that cannot feed itself.
Russia and China warrant a harder look. Vladimir Putin, a little known former KGB operative, took power in 1999. Sometimes as prime minister, more often as president, he has steadily concentrated power into his own hands. By the time the COVID pandemic struck, the circle of advisors and officials that had his ear had shrunk to a handful. Putin responded to the threat of COVID infection by physically isolating himself — effectively months of near total quarantine. He seems to have spent much of this time in solitary brooding over accumulated resentments and frustrated ambitions directed at the West. This produced a fevered vision of a future Europe prostrate before Russian power and of a Ukraine brought under direct control from Moscow.
As a result, almost exactly a year ago, Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine — a gambit based on a total misreading of Russia’s military capabilities, Ukraine’s will and capacity to resist, as well as American and European reaction. Even as the war still rages, it is clear that the invasion is a national catastrophe for Russia — one that will radically weaken Russia on every dimension for decades. The Russian economy is being degraded by sanctions, the Russian army is being decimated by casualties and equipment losses, and the science/technology sector has been hollowed out by a wholesale exodus from the country of critical personnel. For 300 years, Russia’s natural orientation has been westward toward Europe. Now, those connections — tangible and emotional — are being severed. To be Russian today is to be told to look, not to London or Paris, but to Almaty or Tashkent. But Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are more interested in building their own ties to Europe.
As Putin has become the sole, unchallenged authority in Russia, something very similar has happened in China. Xi took power in 2013 as head of the Communist Party and the government. Ten years ago, Xi was part of a governing system that, while autocratic, put clear constraints on the centralization of power. The president was limited to two five-year terms and he had to share decision-making with colleagues on the Politburo. The role of private business was protected and the Chinese internet was a reasonably vibrant marketplace of ideas. Over his 10 years in power, Xi has systematically dismantled these guardrails while imprisoning anyone who posed a potential threat to his authority. As in Russia, we now have a full-blown cult of personality built around the all-powerful, all-knowing, infallible President Xi.
It is still too early to pronounce on the consequences of these changes in China, but there are straws in the wind. Xi’s arbitrary “zero COVID” and then his equally arbitrary abandonment of the policy has placed huge strains on the economy and social fabric in China. Economic growth has slowed, income inequalities are through the roof, pensioners are demonstrating openly against reduced benefits, business entrepreneurs are leaving the country and taking their money and talents with them, and so many young people now dream of emigrating that it has become a major social media meme — “runxue” (running away).
In looking at totalitarian regimes, one pathology particularly stands out. The leader, alone in his omniscience, has only himself to consult. There are no corrective criticisms, no cautionary voices, no one challenging his infallibility. The consequences are predictable — mistakes, misjudgments, blunders — big blunders. In Putin’s case, the megalomania has gone beyond bad — to evil. Today’s Kremlin deliberately targets hospitals, apartment blocks, schools, power grids — all in a campaign to inflict pain on civilians. That same regime deliberately opens the floodgates on dams in an effort to inundate settlements downstream. It also kidnaps infants and children from Ukrainian families and sends the children on a one-way ticket to Russia.
Democracies have their own problems and challenges. But when Biden insists that democracy, not autocracy, is the better bet — he may be on to something.
Marvin Ott is a professor at Johns Hopkins University and senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center of the Smithsonian Institution. He is a summer resident of Cranberry Isles.
Marvin Ott is a professor at Johns Hopkins University and senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center of the Smithsonian Institution. He is a summer resident of Cranberry Isles.
