A (OK, The) commentor in my post below China vs. Japan made the remark that "I don't know anyone who lives in China who seriously believes that the Chinese are ready for democracy." That got me to thinking - when are a people "ready for democracy"? Is there something that can be done to get them ready?
Was Japan or South Korea ready for democracy when they became democracies? How about Taiwan? They aren't so bad as democracies after some initial growing pains.
Now a successful country isn't built just on democracy (I prefer representative government) - the rule of law, private property, and free markets are probably even more important. But the four do seem to go hand in hand, and all four can be, let's face it, somewhat difficult. The US is fortunate because we started with all four from our British heritage, but other countries that were once ruled by the British show that it's a matter of culture, not race.
And I think, just from looking around at the history of nations, the best way to get ready for democracy (and the rule of law, free markets, and private property) is to experience it. Most nations start out shaky but improve over time. They indulge in trial and error and sometimes (like the Wiemar Republic giving way to Nazi Germany) things don't work out so well.
If you compare South Korea to North Korea, they were essentially identical in 1945. They were split based on a line of occupation, one side under the US and the other under the USSR. 60 years later, one is a basket case in every way, and the other has become a representative democracy. Not perfect by any means, but then there isn't a perfect country. Taiwan and Japan have both come become much better at democracy in recent years.
Just like so much in life, democracy is a process that requires practice to get any better at it. Now that may mean it's best to phase it in stages, but ultimately "not ready yet" is a copout. If not now, then when? Because the sooner a nation starts the process of democracy, the sooner it will have a well functioning one.
First of all, via the Prawfsblawg I offer this article and this paper as relevant and worth reading.
Second, why do you think the Chinese need to be democratic? It seems to be a moral imperative for you, as if it would be better to live in economic despair, with civil unrest, but in a democracy, than it would be to live in an authoritarian state with prosperity, safety, and a reasonable degree of freedom. I'm not sure why that would be so, and I know that other people might choose differently. Communist China is a much better place to live than democratic Russia. Too much freedom, too fast, can sometimes lead to disaster.
Or so it seems to me.
Perhaps I'm not clear, but as I said, I see four pillars to a better society - representative government, the rule of law, free markets, and private property. I grant you it's not a particularly unique viewpoint, but there it is. And I think the more every nation moves towards these goals and improves upon them, the better off everyone will be. So I think you present a false dichotomy, chaos under democracy and stability under authoritarianism.
As for your example of Russia, the introduction of democracy in Russia isn't what caused the collapse of that nation, but is the result of the prior collapse of the communist USSR. IOW, the reason Russia is so unpleasant a place to live is it's prior, non-democratic history, not it's recent move towards democracy. It was a similarly awful place in the last years of communist rule, and in fact had lost ground on the Russia of the czars (no mean feat).
And when it comes to improving the lot of one's people, it's interesting that communist leadership of the USSR (and all their satellites except Cuba) ultimately abandoned communism and turned to democracy as a means to improve. And that's the issue - under one regime philosophy there will be improvement, but under the other stagnation or decline.
As for the article you linked, let me repeat myself: "Just like so much in life, democracy is a process that requires practice to get any better at it. Now that may mean it's best to phase it in stages, but ultimately "not ready yet" is a copout." Seems to me that you pointed out a particular person in local government dabbling in a limited form of democracy, which would come under phasing it in stages, if the single experiment was part of larger movement. If it stays as a man bites dog story, which is why it's even in Time, then in the long run it won't mean much.
But ultimately the true test comes when the CCP commits to a democracy that threatens their rule, something they have reacted to in the past with torture and murder. The way they've clamped down in Hong Kong instead of using it to understand and promote democracy in the rest of China is disheartening.
Back to your example of Russia - if you look at all the Communist countries of Europe you'll find they were all ruined more or less by communism and face an uphill struggle post communism. Russia fared the worst because it started out further behind and communism lasted longer. But they all would have an easier time of it now if they had switched to the four pillars I keep going on about sooner. And that offers a lesson for China as well -- a go slow approach seems appealing in theory, but the practice tells a different story. The sooner the switch is made, the shallower the hole that has to be dug out of.