In a world where authoritarianism is on the rise and democracy seems to be faltering, the philosophy of Xiao Gongqin—a prominent Chinese historian and political theorist—offers crucial insights into the appeal and pitfalls of strongman rule. Chang Che, writing for The New York Times, explores Xiao’s life, work, and evolving stance on the authoritarian model he once championed. Xiao’s theories have left an indelible mark on China’s political landscape, and his reflections carry weight far beyond his homeland.
The Rise of Neo-Authoritarianism
Xiao Gongqin emerged in the 1980s as one of China’s most influential political thinkers. At a time when the country was grappling with the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution and searching for a path to modernization, Xiao introduced the theory of neo-authoritarianism. Drawing on ideas from Western scholars like Samuel Huntington and historical examples from authoritarian success stories such as Singapore and South Korea, Xiao argued that a strong central authority was essential for economic stability and progress.
“In order to have democracy, there must be civil society,” Xiao explained. “A civil society requires economic prosperity; economic prosperity requires political stability; and political stability requires a strongman.” This philosophy resonated with Deng Xiaoping, China’s paramount leader at the time, who believed in pragmatic reforms under firm state control. According to Chang Che, Deng reportedly responded positively to the theory, albeit with reservations about its branding.
Xiao’s neo-authoritarianism was not meant to be a permanent solution. In his vision, an enlightened strongman would stabilize the nation, foster economic growth, and eventually pave the way for constitutional democracy. Yet, as history unfolded, this optimistic progression stalled, and Xiao himself began to wrestle with the consequences of his ideas.
Authoritarianism’s Dilemma: Power Without Accountability
While Xiao remains steadfast in his belief that democracy cannot be transplanted wholesale into Chinese society, he acknowledges the inherent risks of authoritarianism. As he told Chang Che, “A neo-authoritarian leader must be wise… And he may not be.” The central flaw in his theory, Xiao now admits, is the assumption that an authoritarian leader will voluntarily cede power once their mission is complete.
This flaw became increasingly apparent under Xi Jinping, who rose to power in 2012 and quickly consolidated control. Initially, Xiao supported Xi’s anti-corruption campaign, seeing it as a necessary measure to stabilize the party. However, Xi’s subsequent abolition of presidential term limits, silencing of dissent, and expansion of state surveillance painted a much darker picture of unchecked power.
Xiao now recognizes what many political theorists have long argued: authoritarian systems may promise stability, but they rarely deliver lasting freedom or justice. Once power is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler, the likelihood of abuse increases exponentially. Xiao describes this as an unsolvable “dilemma”—authoritarianism offers short-term gains but often at the cost of long-term progress.
The Historical Roots of Xiao’s Philosophy
To understand Xiao’s perspective, one must consider his personal history. Born in 1946, Xiao came of age during the tumultuous years of Mao Zedong’s rule. As a young man, he witnessed the horrors of the Cultural Revolution—a period of political purges, chaos, and widespread suffering. Initially sympathetic to Maoist ideals, Xiao later became disillusioned as he experienced persecution and witnessed the devastating consequences of radical governance.
These experiences shaped Xiao’s cautious approach to political change. He became deeply skeptical of rapid democratization, fearing that it could lead to instability or even societal collapse. “The National Assembly couldn’t do anything except mess things up,” he said of China’s brief experiment with republican democracy in the early 20th century. To Xiao, democracy without a robust foundation of civic institutions and political culture was doomed to fail.
Yet, despite his pragmatic view of authoritarianism, Xiao has always been a reluctant advocate. His admiration for conservative philosophers like Edmund Burke reflects his belief in incremental change rather than revolutionary upheaval. Xiao’s vision was never about permanent dictatorship—it was about using authority as a bridge to a more democratic future.
The Global Implications of Xiao’s Ideas
Xiao’s influence extends far beyond China’s borders. As Chang Che points out, the allure of strongman rule is not unique to any one culture. In recent years, populist and authoritarian leaders have risen to power across the globe, often appealing to the same fears and frustrations that Xiao identified decades ago. These leaders promise stability, efficiency, and national pride, but often at the expense of personal freedoms and democratic accountability.
Xiao’s reflections serve as a cautionary tale for any nation tempted by the promises of authoritarianism. While strong leaders can deliver short-term successes, the long-term risks are profound. As Xiao himself warns, “Once you pin your hopes on a justice-delivering strongman, he may take the righteous path, or he may not. The only certainty is that he has control.”
The Legacy of Xiao Gongqin
Today, Xiao lives a quiet life in Shanghai, focusing on his academic work and reflecting on his legacy. He remains a complex figure—both a product of his time and a keen observer of its failures. His philosophy of neo-authoritarianism, once seen as a roadmap for China’s rise, now feels like a warning.
As the world grapples with rising authoritarianism, Xiao’s story serves as both a mirror and a lesson. The appeal of a strongman is undeniable, especially in times of uncertainty. But as history repeatedly shows, unchecked power rarely leads to lasting prosperity or peace.
In the end, Xiao’s dilemma remains unresolved. Can an authoritarian regime ever truly transition to democracy? Or is the promise of a wise strongman always destined to end in disappointment?
ACZ Editor: While Xiao’s perspectives are interesting, the author of the NY Times article attempts to compare Xi with Trump – liberal stupidity at its worst. The NY Times is well known for its lack of editorial integrity when it comes to politics. It is a bit sad that this work was marred with an unfortunate comparison. But let me untangle this.
Xi has taken power and cannot be deposed, he is in power for life, he has the ultimate, unchallenged power (…some would disagree, but he has purged most of his potential enemies), he continues to consolidate his power and can impose torture and confinement on large populations (as with the Uyghurs), sentence people to death on a whim.
Trump is, of course, a strong leader, but he was elected democratically by a population that had just experienced 4 years of mayhem, weakness and, frankly, embarrassment. He is no threat to democracy, and it fact was elected precisely because he is what this democracy needs at this time. He will leave when the next President is elected. This is not authoritarianism, this was a democratic choice.