Sunday & a question of Democracy and Economy

Today's first read yielded a new thought or two. Saturday's Guardian Review ran a piece by Martin Jaques (p.8) on Chris Patten's second book Not Quite the Diplomat: Home Truths about World Affairs. Jaques says that Patten "provides a useful antidote to New Labour's worldview". Patten is disillusioned with the US, but the reviewer's critique concludes: "...Empire and colonialism are for the most part strangely absent...history starts at around 1900... It is quite impossible (my emphasis) to make sense of modern Britain - or the modern world including nation states and natioinal sovereignty - without discussing the legacy of colonialism. ... Moreover, he seems almost oblivious to race or racism. He also adopts a strangely unhistorical view of democracy, which he never ceases to lecture the world upon, often, it feels from the pulpit. He notes, in a tone of surprise: `China - like other authoritarian regimes in recent years in Asia - shows that it is possible to develop an economy without democracy.' Why the surprise? That has been the case with virtually every industrialised country in the world, with the exception of India. It was certainly true of Europe"
Interesting?
(Forgive my emphasising. It helps me not to stray from the point of this blog. As my blogname suggests, it is colonialism with which I remain preoccupied but latterly, the entry of China into almost everybody's `worldview' is a phenomenon which sets a lot of new hares running (for want of a better phrase). I am most intrigued with the statement that it is possible to develop and economy without democracy. I know that Singapore is an outstanding recent example but I am shifted from my limited perception of this issue where Zimbabwe is concerned. I have been convinced, without reference to history, that democracy was an essentail precursor to developing (or rather re-developing) Zimbabwe's economy).

On America
One other observation, Jaques says that Niall Fergussen in his book Colossus suggests that `America was expansionary from its very inception. Its committment to international rules and alliances since 1918, and especially after 1945 was more a matter of expediency than high principle' (my emphasis again - I like that latter phrase).
ends