I am having difficulties with this question as there appears to be a contradiction in Wong's statement. Wong claims that all countries are better off as democracies, yet also concedes that a transitional autocratic stage is sometimes required before a country can become democratic. But if autocracy is required at some point in a country’s development, doesn’t that suggest that, in that moment, autocracy is actually the better form of government? Otherwise, why would it be necessary at all?

It seems unreasonable to assume that this “requirement” is externally imposed or arbitrary. The more plausible assumption from the provided text is that autocracy is adopted because, under certain conditions, it is more politically expedient or effective than democracy — even if only temporarily. If that’s the case, then we have a clear counterexample to Wong’s universal claim that democracy is always better for all countries. This would appear to be a direct contradiction.

Furthermore, neither author explicitly frames their argument in terms of an “end state” of governance. The notion that countries are progressing toward some final or ideal form of government is not articulated, but rather assumed — and that assumption reflects a distinctly Western or Whiggish view of history. From alternative theoretical perspectives, governance is neither linear nor teleological; there is no fixed endpoint for political development, only successive periods in which different forms of government dominate before giving way to others. Interpreting Wong’s claim through this “end of history” lens imposes a significant ideological presupposition — one that is not supported by the text and should not be taken for granted.