An interesting article titled, ‘What China Threat?’, by Kishore Mahbubani, a professor in the practice of public policy at the National University of Singapore, takes issue with the widely held view that China’s rise poses a threat to the US and rest of the Western world. In his long article, Mahbubani disagrees with this view and propounds his alternative narrative. According to him, “In American eyes, the contest between America’s and China’s political systems is one between a democracy, where the people freely choose their government and enjoy freedom of speech and of religion, and an autocracy, where the people have no such freedoms.” But, as he puts it, “To neutral observers [like him, obviously], however, it could just as easily be seen as a choice between a plutocracy in the United States, where majority public policy decisions end up favoring the rich over the masses, and a meritocracy in China, where major public policy decisions made by officials chosen by Party elites on the basis of ability and performance have resulted in such a striking alleviation of poverty.” All through his article, and there is more of it as we will see, Mahbubani makes no secret of his preference, which is for the Chinese model of “meritocracy”. He doesn’t however, explain what makes the Party elites have this uncanny ability to pick up winners among officials who administer for “masses” and produce the right results. What he seems to be suggesting is that the Chinese political system of the Party control and governance is way superior to the much-touted Western democracy. And to him, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, which is that China is racing ahead with its economy likely to surpass America’s in about fifteen years– to become the largest in the world. In other words, if you accept the underlying assumptions of this thesis, China’s system is proving its superiority and is likely to prevail and become the governing model for much of the world. This thesis is akin to the one that American political philosopher, Francis Fukuyama, propounded to declare the end of history with the supposed victory of liberal democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. What he seems to be suggesting is that the Chinese political system of the Party control and governance is way superior to the much-touted Western democracy. And to him, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, which is that China is racing ahead with its economy likely to surpass America’s in about fifteen years — to become the largest in the world In his book, “The End of History And the Last Man”, Fukuyama explained how he came to this conclusion, starting with an article, “The End of History” that he wrote for the journal, The National Interest, in 1989, which developed into his book-length study. To quote Fukuyama: “I argued that a remarkable consensus concerning the legitimacy of liberal democracy as a system of government had emerged throughout the world over the past few years, as it conquered rival ideologies like hereditary monarchy, fascism, and most recently communism.” And he further argued that, “liberal democracy may constitute the ‘end point of mankind’s ideological evolution’ and the ‘final form of human government’ and as such constituted the ‘end of history.'” And we know now, as did Fukuyama later, that history is constantly evolving; and China’s system has too many unresolved issues arising from creating a monolithic society with very little scope for political, social, cultural and religious diversity. Recent history shows that all such systems, with centralized control and tied to ultra-nationalism as in pre-WW11 Germany, Italy and Japan, only ended in disaster; even though they seemed to be producing economic results until everything came collapsing. Even Mahbubani concedes there are blemishes here and there in China’s system, which need to be ironed out like, for instance: “Human rights violations-such as the detention of hundreds of thousands of Uighurs-remain a major concern.” In a broader context, Mahbubani says, “that American policymakers have to accept the undeniable reality that the return of China (and India) is unstoppable.” India just pops in here, without any reference or analysis elsewhere in the article. However, if China’s “meritocracy” fostered and “chosen by Party elites on the basis of ability and performance” is a prerequisite for success, then India’s democracy would hardly qualify for it with its competing political parties in the midst of a federal system seeking to manage extraordinary social, cultural and religious diversity. However, Mahbubani argues that China (and India’s) unstoppable march will happen because, “From the year 1 to 1820, China and India had the world’s two largest economies. The past two hundred years of Western domination of global commerce have been an aberration…” In that case, China and, for that matter, India’s political systems might not be so relevant. It is just that history will be righting its wrongs to restore China and India’s central position in the world. The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia Published in Daily Times, March 4th 2019.