The Paradox of Progress: Why Economic Liberalization Often Strengthens Autocracies
There’s a paradox at the heart of modern geopolitics that few seem to talk about: as the world’s economies become more interconnected, many of its governments are becoming more repressive. It’s a trend that defies the optimistic predictions of the past, when economists and policymakers alike believed that opening up markets would inevitably lead to democratic reforms. But here we are, in a world where 41% of the global population lives under autocratizing regimes, according to the V-Dem Project. What went wrong?
Personally, I think the answer lies in understanding the intricate dance between economic liberalization and political power. It’s not just about markets and money; it’s about who holds the reins of control. Take the case of Mexico, Malaysia, and Senegal—countries that, after embracing economic reforms, saw a surge in human rights abuses. This isn’t an anomaly; it’s a pattern. And it’s one that challenges the very foundations of the Washington Consensus, which has long championed economic liberalization as a path to democracy.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how autocratic elites respond to these changes. When a dictatorship opens its economy, it’s not just inviting foreign investment—it’s also inviting new players into the political arena. An emerging business class, opposition leaders, and other outsiders suddenly have more power. For the old guard, this is a threat. And how do they respond? Often, with repression.
From my perspective, this isn’t just about silencing dissent. It’s about maintaining control. Dictators who liberalize their economies are walking a tightrope. On one side, they risk alienating their ruling elites, who see liberalization as a threat to their influence. On the other, they face pressure from international actors like the U.S., who demand adherence to the Washington Consensus. Repression becomes their tool to balance these competing forces. It’s a way to signal to elites, ‘I’m still on your side,’ while also keeping international critics at bay.
One thing that immediately stands out is how this dynamic plays out in countries like Cuba and Venezuela. Both have recently embarked on economic reforms under pressure from Washington. But here’s the kicker: these reforms might not lead to greater freedom. In fact, they could make things worse. Why? Because in both cases, the ruling elites have gained more autonomy and influence. If liberalization threatens their power, leaders will likely crack down harder on dissent to appease them.
What many people don’t realize is that this isn’t just a historical phenomenon. It’s happening right now, and it’s likely to shape the future of autocracies worldwide. Take China’s approach to artificial intelligence. Under Xi Jinping, the state has centralized control over the AI sector, promoting firms aligned with the regime while disciplining independent entrepreneurs. This isn’t just about technological advancement; it’s about creating a new class of elites whose loyalty is tied to the leader. If you take a step back and think about it, this is a modern iteration of the same dynamic: using economic shifts to consolidate power.
This raises a deeper question: Can economic liberalization ever truly lead to democracy in autocracies? In my opinion, the answer depends on the balance of power within the regime. If elites are weak, leaders might have the leeway to pursue reforms without resorting to repression. But if elites are strong, liberalization becomes a threat—and repression becomes the default response.
A detail that I find especially interesting is how this dynamic challenges our assumptions about progress. We often think of economic openness as inherently good, a step toward a more democratic world. But what this really suggests is that progress is never linear. It’s messy, unpredictable, and often paradoxical. Economic liberalization can empower people, but it can also empower those who seek to control them.
If we’re to make sense of this, we need to rethink our approach. International pressure for economic reform isn’t enough. We need to understand the internal power dynamics of autocracies and find ways to support those who genuinely seek change. Otherwise, we risk perpetuating a cycle where economic openness becomes a tool for repression, not liberation.
In the end, the story of economic liberalization and autocracy isn’t just about economics or politics. It’s about human nature—the desire for control, the fear of losing it, and the lengths people will go to hold onto power. And that, I think, is what makes this topic so compelling. It’s not just about systems; it’s about us.
