The story of liberal democracy flourished when the Soviet Union fell into irreconcilable parts and eastern Europe smothered under communist ideology went on a tear of disintegration. West exulted and one of its noted intellectuals, Francis Fukuyama, announced gloatingly that liberal ideas would now rule the world. So, Fukuyama and his uproarious choir proclaimed “the end of history.”

Fast forward to 2018. And that celebration sounds too optimistic and premature. This age is aflame with a sense of illiberalism. Against this background, a Vladimir Putin roars to a return to power as the indispensable man in Russia, a Duterte of the Philippines rejoices over his bloodthirsty programmes, an Erdogan of Turkey relishes throwing journalists behind bars and entrenching himself as the despot of the land. Even in the world’s most adored democracy, the leader, Donald J. Trump of the roosterly combover, coddles all these men and even looks to them with a sort of systemic envy.

China has never regarded itself as a western-style democracy. Never mind that its citizens, like most in the world, fall to elements of its cultural imperialism: movies, fashion, eateries, music, et al. China has always seen itself in the light of its imperial past, its burgeoning civilisation, its eminent military, its science, its arts, the pop and colour of its royalty.

When its present leader, Xi Jinping was voted overwhelmingly as the premier for life, or at least indefinitely, the west saw this as antagonistic to what it saw as the wise path for nations. Yet what cannot be denied is President Xi’s era has been marked by a systematic whittling down of his opposition.

He has also turned its military, though still far behind the United States’, to an increasingly powerful force in a world that is verging gradually into an arms race. He has also become an apostle of what many military and geo-political analysts call the Asian pivot, trying to overthrow the United States as the major force in southeast Asia.

All of these mean he has revived the pride of the Asian stalwart and fed nostalgia to its stature as the world’s dominant power. The decision to make him the paramount ruler counters a cautionary chapter in its history a generation ago when the same Chinese power elite decided to chasten its rulers to term limits.

This was after the death of its famous leader, Mao Zedong, who had unlimited powers. Mao gave the country a revolution in the communist style. His style was not only that of a despot but he subjected the country’s citizens to years of extreme suffering in what was known as the cultural revolution and the great leap forward.

He had overthrown the ancient regime, a feudal stronghold and asphyxiated a strong and virile people. So, at his exit, the political elite decided that Mao had wielded too much power and it was necessary to avert such tyrannical muscle in the future. The era of the gang of four in which a quartet strangulated the country with a show of power and corruption in a decade of turmoil capped the Zedong years.

These temptations to tyranny led to the enactment of the term limits. In spite of the benefit of hindsight,why did the Chinese elite succumb to another set of experimentation? We are not aware of any show of power arrogance in an overt sense from Xi. But he has been firm on his foes and sterilised them. Could that be a prelude to a more robust manifestation of power?

Yet, the system that led to term limits was not a western style system but it was an overthrow of an autocracy by the cult of one man. That cult seems awake again in China. Is this a different time? Mao Zedong allowed his wife to bring the system into a fever of oppression of the citizens. Do the Chinese bear that in mind or are they so trustful of Xi that they believe that his level-headedness will prevail?

He is presiding over unexampled prosperity and national pride and it could be that they believe that he has the personal vision and acumen that no other person can deliver on the national stage.

This is how autocracy yields to dictators. We only hope that he does not precipitate the indiscretions that Mao brought his fraught land. There is always a trap fall in a system that relies on one man. The Chinese and Xi are betting on the premier. The world watches.

The Nation