"At one point, the grand political bargain that CCP struck with the population was, “We will let you get rich, you let us govern.”Democracy under capitalism ('bourgeois democracy') is a peculiarity within history. All previous social formations (in their respective modes of production) have been autocracies for the many, even if they had a democratic formulation for the ruling class itself.
Those circumstances that allowed China to prosper and CCP to thrive since 1978 are no longer in place. The wealthy and the very wealthy are now forces with which to contend, even as they are beholden to the Party for continued flourishing.
As hard as it tries, the government cannot import western Dr. Science without the specter of Mr. Democracy. The same students who go to the US for degrees in STEM come back wanting to say what they think, even as they adjust to life back within the authoritarian regime.
Middle class CCP cadres whose livelihoods depend on party stability still want clean air, water, food, and good education and job opportunities for kids.
China is not a tinderbox waiting for a spark, but the constant stirring of anger and resentment is no way to run a country.
If something cannot go on forever, then it will eventually stop – hence a warning to CCP, which turns 100 years old in 2021 and in that year will be the longest lasting single party state in history, at 72 years."
Why?
Because capitalism separates the economic class, which secures wealth for itself, from the state apparatus and political power. Capitalist relations generally reproduce themselves without direct, repressive coercion from the state. You do not go to work at the point of a gun.
Slaves and peasants metaphorically did.
In the normal state of affairs, the capitalist economy grows. This is inherent in the competitive process. Invest or die. However, a rising economic tide can lift all classes. Buy-in can be bought. Meanwhile, a democratic form allows the state to debate optimal policies. Not an easy task, as Brexit is currently demonstrating.
Centrally-planned economies, where the bureaucracy attempts to direct production (through central planning) via administrative means are always repressive. The interests of the bureaucracy cannot be aligned organically with the interests of the masses. As Markle indicates in his post, this is a sign of weakness, not of strength.
---
The story changes when the capitalist economy falters in stagnation, or plunges into recession, or worse, depression. The working class and sections of the petty-bourgeoisie (the middle classes) no longer economically advance. Instead, they mill around in confusion and obdurate resistance (one of the key motors of the Brexit vote). They obstruct the measures necessary to restore profitability which always include company bankruptcies, mass unemployment and serious cuts to real wages and benefits.
Sometimes authoritarian-state or paramilitary force is required to cow the masses and economically scatter them. It's always a multi-year project, but in history we've seen reactionary strong states and fascistic movements triumphing.
The attractor form of governance is always bourgeois democracy, but the duration of repressive structures can be long. If Spain (1939-1975) or Portugal (1932-1974) are taken as examples, you can see that it took generations to move from regimes like those of Franco and Salazar back to democracy.
I do not see an infinite history ahead for the Chinese Communist Party. The economy will become more capitalistic, that sector will continue to grow. The rising middle-class will demand dynamic economic growth. Given China's size and historic fear of disintegration, some kind of strongly presidential state seems likely to emerge, something like France or Russia.
Perhaps Xi is giving us the preview.