China thinks in terms of decades, but democracy thinks in election cycles.

A recent article by Dr. AK Chaurasia reopens the debate on whether long-term development plans are undermined by democratic electoral cycles. The post points to Navroop Singh’s analysis of China’s large trade surplus and manufacturing growth, suggesting that five-year terms in politics typically derail or postpone transformative infrastructure and industrial projects. This is a challenge for projects planned on a 10 to 20 year timeline, as governments continue to change after each change.

As Shaurasia compares the two, this is in direct contrast to China’s decades of industrial policy. Because China’s government is not subject to elections, it can build manufacturing, technology, and import capabilities long before the world needs them. The structural advantage of this long-term discipline is that China complicates the political cycle in ways that are difficult to satisfy compared to democracies.

China’s trade surplus

According to Navroop Singh’s analysis, China continues to flood global markets with subsidized exports that other competitors cannot match. China’s goods trade surplus, set to hit $1 trillion in 2024, with exports to Southeast Asia increasing, supported by the threat of U.S. tariffs, was first confirmed in a Financial Times report.

The long-term impact of China’s policies can be seen in industries such as toys, steel, machinery, and electronics. Decades of production capacity have allowed Chinese companies to become more competitive in markets where the domestic industry’s policy environment is not always consistent. India’s toy and steel manufacturers, for example, are often unable to keep up with competition due to national policies that change with every election.

Structural advantage or policy imbalance?

In the post, the authors say that the long-term approach adopted by China offers structural advantages that cannot be easily replicated in democratic systems unless both sides commit to continuity. Many democracies have attempted long-term planning using multi-year plans, but the dynamics of elections tend to disrupt implementation, budget planning, and political agendas. Additionally, as global trade competition intensifies, countries with stable industrial policies will have an advantage over those bound by political change.

Economists warn that the gap could get even wider as China continues to invest heavily in high-tech production, electric vehicles, green energy and semiconductors, all supported by long-term state-backed subsidies. Democracies may have to rethink the way they develop development plans if they want to match China from an industrial perspective, something that has taken decades to do.

Dr. Shaurasia’s points are a sign of growing concerns about whether election-driven governance is simply too short-sighted in light of the contemporary global economic environment. As China grows in terms of long-term industrial interests, governments associated with five-year cycles are under greater pressure to adopt a more stable strategic planning model. Without continuity, democracies will be left behind in manufacturing, technology, and trade competitiveness.