Political Systems and Innovation: How Governance Models Shape Technological Progress

Foundations of Political Ideology and Culture

Ideology is at the root of any political system, and it drastically influences both its culture and functionality. This can be seen clearly in an empirical sense as anyone can notice the significant difference between China and the US, one being a communist autocracy and the other a liberal democracy. Yet this can be seen just as clearly with an intuitive glance at their distinctive features, and a forecast of how that would influence their respective political systems. Overall, the key influence on a nation’s culture and economic functionality is evidently its fundamental ideology, and so this must be investigated.

We will now look into the fundamental ideological features of autocracy and democracy respectively, before then analysing how each of these influences innovation within their political systems. In autocracies or heavily authoritarian regimes, there is a clear focus on sustaining power through control, centralisation and strong nationalism. These regimes place all decision-making power in the hands of a single and unchallenged party, who will dedicate their focus to control and manipulation of the market, finance and the media. Furthermore, strong authoritarian regimes keep all of this unchecked with mass surveillance and indoctrination, ensuring minimal challenge and sustaining centralised control.

On the other side we now have democracy, where focus is placed on freedom, openness and equality. Furthermore, although often still present in democracy, these systems generally have noticeably less centralisation and pure nationalism. Instead, democracies allow the involvement of the public in elections and important decisions, and allow open decision-making. Furthermore, the lack of centralisation in one party and necessity for control allows democratic nations to house a free market, involving activities and corporations that are often largely uninvolved with the state. Overall, the distinctions are clear and one can see how each would lead to distinct means of innovation, and so this is our next investigation.

Democratic Innovation

As we previously mentioned, democracies promote freedom and openness, which reflects not only in decision-making, but in the market as well. Although the extent varies, all democratic states have a mostly free market that allows for its own organisation and hence relatively unfettered innovation. Albeit that state-run institutions exist that may spawn innovation, democracies typically involve most innovation in the market and as a result of private competition and development. Hence we can clearly see the form of innovation present in democracies, its relation to the free market and, typically, a reasonable extent of deregulation.

For instance, this can be seen very clearly in the US with space exploration, where almost all innovation and development is coming from the private industry, in an open and decentralised manner. Space exploration has become a competitive area of development in the market, with a variety of companies involved, including Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic and, most notably, SpaceX. As a result of this, innovation in space exploration has been centred on domains that are practically relevant for companies involved in privatised competition. We see this in the way in which this innovation has involved areas such as reusability and satellites, such as with Starlink, rather than areas that may be nationalistic or purely scientific, as we often see with state-run space exploration.

Autocratic Innovation

Unlike democracies, we understand that autocracies and strong authoritarian regimes do not promote freedom, but instead control and centralisation in the market and economy. Thus we clearly recognise the vast distinctions that arise between democracies and autocracies in the realm of innovation, with autocracies being far more focused with controlled design of how and where they will go about innovating. Instead of innovation occurring in whatever domains are wished by the free market, authoritarian regimes will plan their investments and developments with a strong focus on the long-term future, guided by a nationalist vision of sustained and growing power – both technologically and economically. Consequently, we see innovation not organised by and occurring in a free market, but in state-run or incentivised institutions. When an autocratic or authoritarian regime wants something done, they will find the best organisation to do and go about heavily investing, or they will build their own organisation.

To see the effect of this, we can again investigate innovation in the domain of space exploration, yet this time in China. As a result of their control and deliberation, China has been investing significant resources into the fulfilment of their strategic, and long-term, plans for space exploration. They have landed rovers on Mars and the Moon, deployed a national space station, and have built and used an array of rockets with their Long March rocket family. Furthermore, they are planning on further development in the industry with ambitions to expand their space station and send a Chinese astronaut to the Moon within the decade. Beyond state-run projects, there are also a plethora of Chinese commercial space exploration ventures, innovating new technologies in the realm of outer space exploration, satellites and more, most of which are strongly involved with the Chinese government and their space program.

Comparative Analysis of Autocratic and Democratic Innovation

Overall, we have seen in this article the deep fundamental distinctions between democratic and autocratic political systems, and how this leads to significantly different means of innovation. In democratic systems, innovation is a result of a free market and private competition, while autocratic systems breed innovation from control and centralised deliberation. This was clearly seen with an investigation into how the US, a democracy, and China, an autocracy, each involve themselves distinctly in space exploration, with one controlled and incentivised by the government, while the other is inspired by profit and private competition. So now it follows that we must conclude with an analysis of which form of innovation suits best, and in what situations.

We must first understand that innovation itself does have some key fundamentals which can be seen in any political system where it may occur. Most notably is the clear correlation between competition and innovation and how, whether direct or indirect, privatised or state-run, competition is always a vital ingredient in the concoction of innovation. Similarly, we notice how innovation is often inspired by necessity, often linked to competition, as we typically innovate as a means of solving a problem. So here we must understand the root of competition and necessity in an autocratic system compared to a democratic system.

Autocratic systems, with innovation ingrained in the entity of the state, are in competition with other nations, often opposing ones, and so focus their innovation explicitly on this, with the necessity to assert their global dominance. On the other hand, democratic systems typically host innovation within their free markets and so the competition is not with opposing nations, but with opposing companies and organisations, inspired by the necessity to make profit and provide greater value than their competitors. Yet an acute reader will notice an issue arise, namely in the sustained availability of competition in an autocratic system. Free markets will exist as long as the freedom and democracy is sustained and so there will always be competition between opposing private entities. However, there will not always be geopolitical tension that will inspire competition and innovation. This does not mean that innovation within autocratic systems is inherently flawed, but that sustained innovation in state-run or incentivised enterprise is.

How do you see it? Comment your take👇