On February 6, 2009 G. John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney discussed their most recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine, "The Myth of the Autocratic Revival: Why Liberal Democracy Will Prevail." At the event Ikenberry and Deudney defended and elaborated on their arguments, while Dimitri Simes, president of The Nixon Center and publisher of The National Interest, offered some qualifying critiques of their analysis.

The event began with Ikenberry pointing out the growth of narratives about a revival of autocratic regimes, using Robert Kagan’s work as a key example. In the past, he noted, debates have been over the entire political and economic systems endorsed by different ideologies such as fascism and communism; however, it seems now that capitalism, in its broadest terms, has been widely accepted in China and Russia and that the current debate is primarily focused on political, not economic systems. Ikenberry argued that autocratic regimes still contain contradictions that will incentivize liberalization, such as property rights and a growing middle class. Additionally there are increasing disincentives to remaining autocratic such as corruption and the inefficiency of closed systems without free-flowing information for the competition of ideas.

Daniel Deudney went on to discuss how, despite Robert Kagan's claim of a return to 19th century relations, the current system of international relations widely differs from two centuries before. He pointed out that collectively the West's degree of hegemony was unprecedented. Further, he argued, the economy of violence has radically changed due to the use of nuclear weapons as preventative forces for great power wars and the spread of small arms making conquest exponentially more costly. Finally, Deudney explains that the degree to which Russia and China are dependent on exports and international trade makes them strong stakeholders in preserving the current international system. In terms of policy, Deudney argued that this means we should reinforce, extend, and strengthen our international institutions while continuing make autocratic regimes stakeholders in them. Additionally, because much of their revival has been due to growing fears about secessionists and regime change in neighbors, the United States should not actively provoke such fears in areas of critical Russian or Chinese interests.

From the outset Dimitri Simes argued that neither Russia nor China pose any serious threat the United States. While he agreed with Ikenberry and Deudney's policy prescriptions, he did disagree with some of their arguments. Simes pointed out that the apparatus for decision making is not always superior in democracies and he cited appeasement in Munich prior to WWII as an example. Additionally, he observed that corruption is typically the worst in semi-liberal/autocratic regimes, and actually much less in severely autocratic governments. In the end, Simes argued, our objective ought to be to conduct foreign policy with nations on the basis of our national interests rather than their regime types.

--Event Summary by William Monroe, Intern, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation