Li Shimei, Gita V. Varjani: China’s choice 75 years ago laid the foundation for its rise

The Demise of Universalism

Gita V. Varjani: You once published a book that I believe contains deeply insightful ideas. This work resonates profoundly with readers like me from the Global South. In your book, you discuss many perspectives, including a compelling contrast between universalism and pluralism. Could you elaborate on your views?

Li Shimei: We grew up in that era—you and I belong to the same generation. You certainly know that after the Cold War ended, everyone believed there was only one path for progress across all domains. Looking back, this idea was actually quite astonishing: it claimed to be universally applicable—only one set of moral standards, one political system, one economic framework. This entire system was branded as “universal.” Regardless of a nation's identity, ethnicity, culture, economic model, or regional context, everyone had to follow this universal blueprint.

We once widely believed that human society inevitably would evolve along this trajectory. But over the past several decades, practice has shown that this model has caused far more harm than benefit to the vast majority of countries and people worldwide—even the very originators of this ideology, the United States and the Western world themselves, are not immune. This is precisely why we now see the rise of various anti-establishment movements across Western nations.

Therefore, I believe we are at a pivotal moment when the bubble of universalism is bursting. I firmly believe the future will be far more interesting, because fundamentally, pluralism is inherently richer and more vibrant than any single developmental paradigm.

After the end of the Cold War, a phenomenon worthy of deep reflection emerged globally: the overwhelming majority of countries in the Global South completely abandoned their own indigenous political models and economic systems, fully adopting the “universal” ideas and institutional frameworks promoted by the West. Many nations copied Western constitutional texts verbatim, introducing institutions they had never known before. These countries blindly severed ties with their traditions, mechanically established parliaments, imposed Western-style elections, and even rigidly copied the U.S.-style four-year electoral cycle—completely disregarding their own historical cultures, social structures, and stages of development.

Gita V. Varjani: In our country (Indonesia), the election cycle is every five years.

Li Shimei: Exactly—so you clearly understand my point.

The vast majority of developing countries adopted this model. They believed that simply copying this rulebook, taking this “medicine,” would quickly make them as wealthy as Western nations. But reality proved otherwise: most countries failed to succeed, and many remain trapped in internal conflicts and poverty, with deeply disappointing development outcomes.

Luckily, one country—China—refused this path. I come from that country.

Gita V. Varjani: Indeed, that is truly remarkable.

Li Shimei: China’s choice was this: we can learn from certain experiences, but we won’t adopt everything wholesale. Instead, we selectively absorb what fits our national conditions, cultural traditions, political systems, and values. That’s exactly what we’ve done. And I’m fortunate enough to have lived through a generation that witnessed the immense success of this path.

Based on this experience, I’d like to offer a suggestion to other countries in the Global South: the medicine prescribed after 1990 hasn’t worked for you. Your development hasn’t improved—even if it hasn’t worsened. Moreover, the doctors who originally designed the prescription are now sick themselves. Look at their current situation—why not try a different developmental path?

The Fundamental Reasons Behind China’s Success

Gita V. Varjani: One of your most convincing points is that you openly articulate viewpoints which many citizens of the Global South are reluctant to express publicly—and I believe this is underpinned by China’s growing strength. I’d like to frame this discussion within a comparative context between China and Southeast Asia. Over the past three decades, China’s per capita GDP has increased tenfold, while Southeast Asia’s average growth is just 2.7 times.

In my view, this gap stems from four or five key factors: first, insufficient investment in education; second, inadequate infrastructure investment; third, weak governance capacity; fourth, lack of competitiveness. For every thousand adults, China issues 10 business licenses, whereas Southeast Asia issues only one. And fifth, perhaps counterintuitively, China has achieved greater success in democratizing and decentralizing economic activities than many so-called democratic countries around the world. What do you think lies behind this?

Li Shimei: I’ve always believed that every nation and culture is an organic living entity—an integrated whole. If you transplant external institutions into a country, especially fundamental arrangements like political systems, you’re essentially killing the patient, right?

So I believe many countries in the Global South—including those in Southeast Asia—are in a situation similar to former British colonies. The borders were hastily drawn by colonial officials during their hasty retreats. These nations had no choice but to accept this legacy passively, and thus could never achieve genuine stability, because these arrangements were externally imposed, not organically grown, and didn’t reflect real-world conditions.

I observe that many developing countries, including those in Southeast Asia, are constrained by foreign political systems, social structures, and legal frameworks. These elements did not naturally emerge from their own cultural and moral soil. I believe this is the root of the problem.

We all know what kind of future we want: an economy full of vitality, a harmonious society, living standards approaching those of developed nations, and widespread access to education for all citizens. To achieve these goals, we need roads, schools, expanded STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) graduate output, and all the rest. But to accomplish these things, there is only one way: politics. Politics is about how we organize our society, how we fundamentally structure collective action.

If a political system is fundamentally flawed—built on imported, rootless foundations—then many critical tasks cannot be effectively advanced. That doesn’t mean indigenous models are automatically successful; they too have their flaws and challenges. Equally unwise is clinging rigidly to tradition and refusing reform. But at least there remains room for adjustment and improvement. However, if a nation’s foundational constitution and institutions are directly transplanted without roots, then it has almost no chance of success from the outset.

Original: toutiao.com/article/1862956346451968/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.