I
have been struggling for several years with the issue of Singapore and
China. Both nations have a single party government with limited
political free speech. Yet both have a thriving commercial world.
Singapore has nearly forty years of success in doing both commerce and
politically restrictive governance, with no apparent conflict.
The prevailing wisdom is that the expansion of commerce will generate a free speech governance system.
The closest I can come to making the argument that commerce will generate a free speech governance system is that commerce creates a meritocracy and commerce is a permanent form of social perturbation.
Both the rise of a meritocracy and permanent socio/economic upheaval could threaten a non-free speech governance system.
But
that is not necessarily the case. (1) China's classic mandarin
government was meritocratic and could therefore be a reasonable source
of government control of the commercial world. (2) Japan and many
European governments are efficient and meritocratic. (3) Any nation
that had free emigration has a mechanism for getting rid of political
troublemakers.
And lastly, a point I get from friend Alex G. (4) an expansive commercial world may offer so many work and lifestyle opportunities that few people would notice the absence of free speech.
What do you think?