29 August, 2026

Blog

Democracy Under Strain: Beijing’s Quiet Challenge

By A. Jathindra

A. Jathindra

China today represents not only a strategic challenge to the USled, rulesbased international order but also a profound test for democracy itself. For many smaller nations, Beijing’s rapid transformation from poverty to sustained economic growth has become a source of admiration. The danger, however, lies in this economic respect evolving into an endorsement of China’s governance model. In this sense, China stands as both a “near peer” competitor to the United States and a rival to the Westernled democratic ecosystem.

Sri Lanka once openly expressed interest in adopting governance lessons from China during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure — a telling indication of how Beijing’s influence extends beyond economics. Even within Sri Lanka’s business community, debates over governance mirror the political divisions shaping the nation’s future.

At a panel hosted by the Sri Lanka–Korea Business Council, Aroshi Nanayakkara — CEO of a global consulting firm and former chairperson of the Sri Lanka Institute of Directors — openly challenged Sri Lanka’s governance model. She asked whether a system defined by short electoral cycles and changing mandates can truly deliver the longterm vision needed for economic transformation.

“I’m going to challenge: is democracy the right way to go? Every five years when you have a new president and a whole new parliament, how are you going to maintain that vision for a country?” Nanayakkara asked.

This sentiment finds echoes in Sri Lanka’s political sphere. Tilvin Silva, the powerful general secretary of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), has argued that longterm governments are essential for national transformation. In his view, countries such as Singapore and China required 10 to 20 years to reshape their societies. “It takes years to change the entire society. We need to protect the government until we achieve the objectives of forming the government. We cannot finish the work within five years,” Silva declared.

Such statements illustrate how China’s governance model is influencing democratic nations that traditionally uphold liberal principles. Beijing’s example challenges Western notions of human rights and democracy by demonstrating that economic development can occur without them.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union posed an ideological challenge to the United States. China’s approach is subtler. While it remains the oneparty communist state, Beijing does not export ideology in the traditional sense. Instead, it indirectly inspires smaller nations through its economic success, offering an alternative governance model. This is China’s quiet tactic.

Officially, China champions a foreign policy of noninterference. In practice, however, Beijing frequently involves itself in the internal affairs of smaller states. Nepal offers a vivid example. In July, Chinese Ambassador Zhang Maoming intervened to halt an academic conference on Tibetan studies scheduled at Kathmandu University in collaboration with the International Association for Tibetan Studies (IATS). The university withdrew as host after government instructions “not to proceed,” following Chinese concerns that the event might provide a platform for critics of Beijing’s rule over Tibet.

More than 700 scholars from 39 countries had already booked flights and hotels for the conference, including participants from Chinese institutions. The seminar was set to cover Tibetan history, language, religion, philosophy, art, and culture. Yet China’s pressure prevailed, underscoring how its “One China Policy” can override sovereign decisions in smaller states.

Nepal’s situation is further complicated by its Tibetan refugee population. Once a major transit route for Tibetans traveling to India — home to the Dalai Lama in exile — Nepal remains highly sensitive to Beijing’s demands. In July, the government permitted Tibetan refugees to celebrate the Dalai Lama’s birthday but banned the Tibetan anthem, rallies, slogans, and statements from the exile administration. Similarly, Sri Lanka rejected the Dalai Lama’s request to worship at the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy and at the Mahabodhi tree in Anuradhapura, fearing Chinese hostility. These examples raise a pressing question: is this truly China’s policy of noninterference?

The contradictions are striking. While Beijing forced Nepal to cancel a Tibetan studies conference, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK LAW) has simultaneously permitted collaboration with the U.S.-based Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam — a group advocating for a separate Tamil state in Sri Lanka. According to the university’s announcement, the project will examine ongoing political and legal discourses surrounding the development of an independent Tamil state within the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. It aims to provide an objective academic assessment of the legal challenges facing the creation of such a state. This duality illustrates how China manipulates its principle of noninterference: stepping into the internal affairs of nations when its strategic interests demand it, yet turning a blind eye to other movements when they align with its longterm “wolf warrior” ambitions.

China’s growing influence in small countries thus extends far beyond trade and infrastructure. It shapes debates on governance, challenges democratic norms, and pressures sovereign states to align with Beijing’s priorities. For nations like Sri Lanka and Nepal, the dilemma is stark: economic partnership with China brings development opportunities, but it also risks eroding democratic values and independent decisionmaking.

As China continues to expand its global footprint, small democracies face a critical test. Will they safeguard their democratic institutions and human rights traditions, or will they drift toward governance models inspired by Beijing’s success?

The answer will determine not only their political futures but also the resilience of democracy in the developing world.

*A. Jathindra is a geopolitical analyst and the founding director of the Trinco Centre for Strategic Studies, an independent think tank based in the port city of Trincomalee, Sri Lanka.

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    I challenge Aroshi Nanayakkara to revisit what they said on democracy. The UNP held power for 17 straight years, CBK for 12, and the Rajapaksas for 11. After all that time, did the country achieve the progress you imagine — or did it fall off the cliff?
    These long stretches of political dominance are often romanticised as periods of stability, but the outcomes tell a different story. If longevity in power truly guaranteed progress, Sri Lanka should have emerged with less corruption, strong institutions, disciplined governance, and a resilient economy. Instead, those extended eras produced a deep cesspit of corruption, rule of drug kingpins, putrid political culture, jungle law and kangaroo courts, and a mountain of debt!
    This is precisely why long-held political monopolies are no better, and often worse, than shorter democratic cycles. Extended regimes tend to entrench themselves, protect their networks, and silence criticism. Complacency grows, corruption deepens, and policy stagnation becomes the norm. Decades can pass without meaningful reform.
    Shorter democratic cycles, for all their imperfections, at least force accountability. They allow voters to correct course, remove failing leadership, and demand change. They prevent any one group from treating the state as personal property.
    So before glorifying those long political reigns, it’s worth asking: Have we not learnt any lessons – Ever!

  • 0
    0

    “ Westernled democratic ecosystem.”
    For Ceylon/SL it was a total failure as democracy was made equal to MAJORITARIANISM. Instead of remaining SECULAR rulers gave prominence to Sinhala language and Buddhist Religion. In addition they targeted minorities language and economy. Do hope that the current government of SL will rectify it.

  • 0
    0

    No one needs to cry over the DEMOCRACY that had been practiced ever since the SL Independence. It a terrible disaster. Some sort of curtailment of individual liberties are needed in order to achieve NATIONAL PROGRESS.
    Under Rajapaksas and the Uncle & Nephew rule SL has reached its ROCKBOTTOM. SL democracy has produced crooked politicians professionals clergies drug peddlers
    Murderers Child molesters Rapists.
    Let us TURN A NEW LEAF under AKD/ Harsha N and Tilvin!

  • 1
    0

    “China today represents not only a strategic challenge to the USled, rulesbased international order “
    I am disappointed with Mr. Jatindra.
    If Trump represents this “rules-based international order”, all of us would be better off without it.
    Chinese rules, whether we like them or not, are pretty predictable.
    1. Thou shalt not talk about Tibet.
    2. Thou shalt not mention Taiwanese independence.
    3 Thou shalt not talk about Uighurs.
    China doesn’t impose oil blockades or pile tariffs on countries only to reverse them in a week.
    The sooner the clown in the White House goes, the better for all of us.

  • 0
    1

    Some of us know only one democratic model and would uphold it even after it has betrayed the vast majority.
    Has this writer have the foggiest idea of how socialist states have been administered?
    Prejudiced superfical gathering of information from utterly biased sources can only lead to stupid conclusions.
    *
    Who is the biggest external threat to this country?
    This very author well over a decade ago pointed his finger northwards.

  • 0
    0

    More and more people everywhere are questioning the validity of
    their religions and their history and the same is becoming true now
    about the democracy of today . Weaker people are increasingly
    finding it difficult to face the challenges of growing inequality among
    rich and poor and its dangerous approach of suppression using
    democracy’s endless loopholes .

  • 1
    0

    “Tilvin Silva, the powerful general secretary of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), has argued that longterm governments are essential for national transformation. In his view, countries such as Singapore and China required 10 to 20 years to reshape their societies. “It takes years to change the entire society.”
    It is true that long term governments are essential for national transformation. Yes, for Singapore and China it took 10 to 20 years.Singapore achieved it through the path of democracy. But China achieved through the path of one party rule with undemocratic way. There is no religion with China’s communist party. JVP Political leader is NPP but JVP leader Tilvin is the powerful JVP Secretary. AKD/NPP came to power through democratic. It may be possible that they can extend their period with or without another election for 10 years. This is only possible if China took full power over Sri Lanka.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.

leave a comment