China’s Tech-Enhanced Authoritarianism 

by Dr. Samantha Hoffman, Senior Analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute

This Big Story was adapted from Samantha Hoffman’s contribution to the new book, Defending Democracy in an Age of Sharp Power.

Emerging technologies offer numerous conveniences and capabilities, benefitting consumers and governments alike; however, they also carry inherent risks that can threaten liberal democracies when leveraged by powerful dictatorships seeking to reinforce and spread their authoritarianism.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) leverages emerging technologies to undercut democracies’ stability and legitimacy, while expanding its own influence. Beijing exerts “sharp power” that enables it to limit access to information, distort political environments, and undertake censorship and surveillance. The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) aim is to shape, manage, and control the international environment so that public sentiment is—or is seen to be—favorable to its interests (that is, the party’s interests, not simply China’s or the Chinese people’s interests). This goal is driven by the CCP’s concept of “state security.” Its scope encapsulates a range of whole-of-society activities designed to protect the CCP against the extensive threats that it perceives, regardless of state borders and especially in the realms of ideology and politics.

The CCP’s use of technology to expand its power and influence is best described as “tech-enhanced authoritarianism.” Rather than creating fundamentally new ways of controlling populations, technology augments the party’s standard methods of exercising authoritarian dominance. The global repercussions of the PRC’s tech-enhanced authoritarianism so far have been vastly underestimated, as analysts tend to focus mostly on overt coercion and direct surveillance while overlooking how Beijing uses technologies designed for solving everyday problems and providing public services to expand its power.

China’s development and global export of “smart cities” technology reveals the character of its tech-enhanced sharp power and authoritarianism. The CCP uses these technologies to monitor their populace and control society. It does not clearly distinguish basic public goods, for example traffic safety or the prevention of violent crime, from the authoritarian suppression of pluralism and dissent. The party-state blends the two together, prioritizing regime security over essential rights. Furthermore, governments worldwide are often eager to adopt smart cities technologies, and the implications of reliance on such PRC-based, globally applicable surveillance systems are serious.

Beijing also takes an active role in international standards-setting for emerging technologies. Participation in the development and design of such technologies enables the CCP to exploit emerging technologies to enhance sharp power capabilities. For instance, the China Standards 2035 plan calls for the global export of PRC standards for emerging technologies, and for PRC standards to be accepted through international standards-setting bodies. If PRC-originated technical standards are adopted internationally, PRC-made systems will enjoy greater interoperability and market access around the world, with implications for democratic integrity.

For policymakers, researchers, and civil society alike, it is crucial to develop a sophisticated country-specific understanding of how state actors—including the CCP—project sharp power using new technologies. States act differently depending on their interests and goals, and the impact of tech-enabled sharp power will vary. Although “country-agnostic” policy approaches to decision-making may feel more objective, they often obscure important realities by poorly defining the nature of the problem. Varying intentions among authoritarian actors also affect different issue areas and require distinct responses.

At the same time, liberal democracies must clearly explain to their citizens why China’s tech-enhanced authoritarianism is a direct and major threat that, among other things, undermines individual autonomy and freedom of expression. Liberal democracies must also be clear about why the alternative they offer is better. They should define and promote liberal-democratic values and invest heavily in protecting them.