,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
hard to look at ‘leading democracies’ and conclude that democracy will not face a serious rival this century. I’d say it’s already here, sometimes not seen as such bc it lacks the universal claims of past rivals like Communism. /1
I'm talking about the one party state. It’s ideologically flexible - can be technocratic, populist, or oligarchic. Left or right. Usually illiberal, but not too proselytizing about it. Capitalists don’t love it but can live with it. /2
It’s not a grand ideological rival like fascism and communism were. It’s not a transnational movement or a coherent set of ideas. In that sense Fukuyama is right. But it’s still an *alternative organizational model*, and an increasingly attractive one. /3
if so then the institutional rivalry of the 21st century will be between the multi-party state and the one-party state. Capitalism will be okay with either, liberalism less so. And the century's ideological rivalries will not map onto it easily. 4/4
by the way, easy to forget that the one-party state is barely a century old, even younger than democracy. Ironic that Lenin's biggest legacy might be in creating not an ideological rival to democracy but an institutional one
excellent essay on this very subject, arguing that the 'illiberal challenge' is incoherent. My concern is that this incoherence is actually an advantage bc it doesn't bind autocrats to a specific ideology
also, a number of people told me to read Jowitt and I am on it! 
