Can the Chinese Watch "All the President's Men"?

Much ink and many pixels/bits have been spilt on whether capitalism and information and communication technology are ultimately destined to undermine authoritarian regimes and promote democracy. Just a few years ago, at least, there seemed to be a consensus that both IT and economic openness were bound to promote open government and democracy. Thomas Friedman may have been the poster child, as evinced in his blockbuster The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Friedman maintained that the globalized economy forced a choice to repressive governments: keep your people repressed and impoverished, or allow both economic development and political and social liberalization. I.e., you can't have one without the other.

Lately, it seems like the tide of opinion may have shifted somewhat. This is not a wholesale reversal, it just strikes me as a more negative trend in opinion. China seems to be the poster child for this pessimistic streak. To wit: China has seen strong economic growth, and a corresponding growth in IT and telecom, yet it is still has an autocratic, oppressive regime that continues to stifle political dissent and democratic reform. It may even be that the Chinese government is successfully implementing a form of "market autocracy" where the economy is successfully grown through economic liberalization, but this liberalization does not bleed over into the political sphere. Certainly, Chinese authorities have aggressively censored the internet, banning many topics on domestic sites and blocking foreign sites that have prohibited topics.

I tend to side with the optimists. In the first place, it hasn't been all that long since the revolutionary leap (dare I say "great leap forward?") in communications technology represented by the internet and affordable cellular phones. You mean these things have been aroung for a whole decade, and we don't have democracy everywhere yet? What's the freakin' holdup? In reality, some things take time. Cultures and other ancient human institutions don't necessarily evolve at the same blinding rate as pure technology, but they do evolve. A number of observers marked the SARS outbreak as an important bellwether. Although the government did attempt to suppress text messages during the panic, both rumors and legitimate information spread rapidly, ultimately forcing the leaders to be more forthcoming about the real extent of the epidemic.

It is also fascinating to note how popular culture can infect repressive societies with subversive, non-sanctioned messages. For instance, the TV show Dallas helped undermine Romania's dictatorship. Of course, apparently the wealth and depravity of the Ewings tempted the Romanians more than political freedom per se, so this example doesn't necessarily undermine the "market autocracy" hypothesis. But I would suggest the effect is even broader and deeper, and that it will be impossible to squash all liberalizing ideas. I offer this as a simple test: can Chinese citizens watch All the President's Men?

On the surface, the movie has nothing to do with China (other than the indirect, spurious "Nixon opened China" coincidence). The government (especially the Maoists of old) may even think of this movie as showing the corruption of the West (that was Ceausescu's thinking about Dallas). But think about the deeper message: the most powerful man in the world, corrupt and willing to abuse his power, is nonetheless brought down by a (relatively) free press and a (relatively) representative form of government. Can the deeper message truly be lost on the average Chinese citizen?

Even if this particular film is banned for the very reasons I submit it here, I think foreign culture will insinuate "dangerous" ideas about freedom into Chinese society, merely by showing the possibilities of different social and political systems. And they'll never censor all of that.