One long-time theme of American foreign policy is the belief that free markets and free politics not only are good for everyone, but they go together - promoting one helps bring about the other. In particular, the theory holds, as formerly communist and other dictatorial states let economic controls lapse, entrepreneurs will help create a middle class that will demand social and political freedoms to match their new business freedoms.
As proof, Washington officials often cite developments in East Asia, notably in South Korea and Taiwan. There, private enterprise took hold and incomes rose, and military or one-party regimes gave way to pluralistic political systems as prosperity spread to more and more people.
Over time, the theory may prove true elsewhere. But for now, at least, it does not seem to be working in the world's biggest nation - Russia - or its most populous - China. Though the details differ greatly, in both countries the political rulers are maintaining, even tightening, their grip on political power as they relax many social and economic controls. It seems unlikely that either nation will join the ranks of democratic societies, or allow serious efforts to do so, anytime soon.
After the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia had its fling with a democracy of sorts under president Boris Yeltsin. But Russia lacked the most basic requirements for successful electoral politics, such as a trustworthy legal system and responsible politicians, and the effort foundered. For many Russians, democracy became almost a dirty word. Meantime, a mismanaged privatisation drive allowed former communist bureaucrats to all but steal state property and discredit the market system.
President Vladimir Putin is restoring order and stability, gaining much approval from a public tired of chaos and distrustful of all regimes. But Mr Putin also centralises state power in ways more reminiscent of past tsars and commissars than of Jeffersonian democracy. Old-style Communist Party corruption continues unabated. Mr Putin muzzles the press, critics and rival politicians, on his chosen course to make Russia strong, stable and respected once again. He may not succeed, but so far he faces no serious challenge.
There are similarities in China. Three rounds of party and government bosses have given the country social and economic freedoms that seem incredible to those conditioned by Mao Zedong's ideology and the Cultural Revolution. But if Beijing has tossed Marxism overboard, it has not given up Lenin. His type of political leadership - opaque, self-selected and intolerant - continues in place. Those suspected of opposition can find themselves locked up; sometimes beaten up.