Ninth International Conference on Communication & Media Studies

Abstract

Whether or not the analogy is apt, it is difficult to avoid characterizing the relationship between the U.S. and China as one of a “New Cold War.” Unlike the previous Cold War characterized by the conflict between socio-economic systems of capitalism and communism, the New Cold War is characterized by the political binary of “democracy” vs. “authoritarianism.” Indeed, defending and defining democracy is one of the main fronts of the ideological battle, as the recent U.S.-led “Summit for Democracy” and the counter-summit from Chongyang Institute entitled Ten Questions for American Democracy reveal. The following study sets out to establish three points. First, the inherent association of democracy with legitimate government is a relatively recent one (dating to the late nineteenth century). Western Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau made no such association. Secondly, democratic governments are fast losing legitimacy with the increasing electoral success of populist/nationalist/xenophobic political formations, from the U.S., to Europe, to India and Brazil; and with abstention rates winning most democratic elections across the world. Thirdly, the actual track record of democratic governments has been less than stellar, given the patent failures of U.S.-led nation-building efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Haiti, or the human rights abuses committed by India or Israel, among other democracies. I conclude my paper by arguing that the democracy/authoritarian binary is inherently unstable, and singularly unhelpful for understanding the current restructuring of the global political and economic system characterized by the rise of China.