The economists within the liberal ranks understand that market economics forms the foundation of China's success. Yet their economic position has been hijacked by political ideologues who insist on linking market economics to the political system of liberal democracy. They believe the market cannot function without voting, blind to the fact that a vibrant market economy has been growing by leaps and bounds under one-party rule.
Eric X. Li, commentator
Insight page, April 3
I sympathise with Mr Li's quest for a place where market economics is the foundation of a spectacular success and no political ideologues interfere with it or try to make it subject to the ballot box.
I knew such a place once. It was old colonial Hong Kong. We even had a name for this separation of state and market. We called it 'positive non-interventionism', which was a fine way of saying 'benign neglect' or simply 'Can't be bothered. What horse do you favour tonight?' I heartily recommend this form of government to Mr Li.
But while old Hong Kong showed it is indeed possible to have a successful market economy without the vote, I don't see a parallel to present-day China here. The real foundation of a liberal democracy is not so much the vote as it is civil liberties. Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, among others, are the core values. The vote is a way of guaranteeing them. The one civil liberty of greatest interest here is the freedom of the market - the right to buy and sell goods, services and securities with the counterparty of your choice at prices you agree without artificial control of price or supply.
I think it as valuable a right as any other civil right and the foundation of economic success. Mr Li thinks so too. He not only attributes China's economic success to it but says it exists under one-party rule without liberal democracy.