Joschka Fischer says we can no longer take for granted that freedom and democracy will continue to prevail, given the contest between “fundamentally incompatible political systems” – authoritarian capitalism and liberal democracy – espoused by China and the West respectively. This division of the world into two systems reminds of the Cold War era marked by a contest for nuclear supremacy between the US and the Soviet Union. The only difference today is that strength is measured by economic performance. Only time can tell whether China’s political system will succeed in the long term, and be an alternative to the current liberal, law-based order in the West.

But the author is pessimistic about the outlook for democracy in recent years. The Arab Spring in 2010/2011 had been a failure. The 2008 global financial crisis was a backlash against globalisation and gave rise to nationalism. Fueled by Russian revanchism, the West has been divided over identity politics, which led to Britain’s vote on leaving the EU in June 2016 and Trump’s election months later. Although the ongoing protests in Hong Kong and Moscow show that democracy is not dead, they may “have little to no chance of success in the short term.,” given the authoritarian power structures in China and Russia.

Some do believethat China’s model can rival Western democracy if it does not tear itself apart. Much depends on how Xi Jinping is going to handle the protests in Hong Kong against Beijing’s asserting sovereignty over the former British colony. Under the “one country – two systems” principle Hong Kong is guaranteed a high degree of autonomy for half a century, enjoying executive, legislative and independent judicial power until 2047.

While Beijing needs to manage social stresses and maintain economic stability, debate has intensified in the past decade over whether China’s mix of a market economy and authoritarian governance could be a viable alternative, given its phenomenal growth since Deng Xiaoping’s economc reforms in the 1980s. Many countries are impressed by China’s semi-capitalist system that has helped the country asecend from a “poverty-stricken developing country to an economic powerhouse.”

With millions of people lifted out of poverty, China has a huge middle-class that makes it an attractive market for foreign companies. Beijing aims to become a leader in high-growth manufacturing and focuses on technological progress and military build-up, seeking to become the world’s most powerful country. But the leadership sees its authoritarian governance as a zero-sum game, allowing no room for failure. If the model fails, the country will lose face, for which the people would have to pay a high price.

According to the author, Trump is “something of a Chinese Trojan Horse.” Despite launching a trade war against Beijing, “he is also doing everything he can to undermine the credibility of the Western model,” which will have “far more consequential than his tariffs.” He is less concerned about a world with “eight billion people” who cannot afford a global conflict. For him it is always “America First.”

The author complains about Europe’s “economic weaknesses and geopolitical naiveté” that have failed to defend the Western model. For this reason, “China’s ascent cannot be prevented. The country is simply too large and too strong to be boycotted or contained; at any rate, the Chinese people’s desire to share in global prosperity is entirely legitimate. The West has little choice but to maintain good relations with the new superpower, while at the same time defending its values.”

Indeed, China’s destiny lies entirely in the hands of “future generations of Chinese.” Although many young people have “no memories of past horrors such as the Cultural Revolution” they may still reject their model. Many travel abroad and have a taste of liberty and freedom. They certainly will call for change when the time comes. It remains to be seen how long this authoritarian governance will last. Obviously the leadership is no longer confident of its grip on power, or elese it would not have to resort to repression. China is so afraid of the vagaries of reforms that leaders have no appetite for change.