World at Crossroads: From Scenarios to Action
These short summaries and discussions address highly complex global, regional, and translocal developments occurring up to March 2025, involving numerous actors, perspectives, and nuances. They do not offer comprehensive accounts or detailed analyses, and inevitably may overlook certain events, developments, or viewpoints. Instead, their purpose is to help stakeholders critically engage with the four RESPACE scenarios, stimulating reflection, strategic foresight, and deeper exploration of transformative possibilities for collaboration. Each RESPACE scenario outlines distinct, plausible future pathways but is explicitly not predictive. Users are encouraged to continuously adapt and update these Dialogue Inputs to reflect evolving contexts and emerging understandings.
Politics, Economy & Civil Society in China, India and the Wider Region
May 2025
Download the article here.
Summary & Context
Across major powers and societies in Asia, internal dynamics are evolving in ways that reverberate beyond borders. Since late 2024, the Chinese domestic scene is marked by economic uncertainty and continued authoritarianism. Economic growth has slowed and youth unemployment has hit record highs, challenging government narratives of prosperity. Apparently in response, President Xi Jinping’s administration doubled down on nationalist messaging and state control. Crackdowns on dissent remain harsh – from Hong Kong to the mainland – leaving little room for independent civil society. At the same time, subtle forms of pushback persist such as social media sarcasm or local protests over housing and fraud. This suggests undercurrents of dissatisfaction.
After its mid-2024 general election, India remains governed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi but in a somewhat altered landscape. Modi secured a third term amidst strong Hindu nationalist rhetoric but his party had to form a coalition government, indicating a more contested democracy. Nationalism and majoritarian policies continue to rise – from contentious citizenship laws to amplified religious imagery in politics. All this is happening in a context of robust economic growth. Civil society in India is vibrant but under strain. NGOs face restrictive funding laws and activists (from environmental campaigners to journalists) report increasing government pressure.
Japan navigates a different set of internal challenges: a mature democracy grappling with economic adjustments and social change. After decades of deflation, Japan is seeing moderate inflation return, wages inching up and an openness to reforms such as more women in the workforce and a historic move to recognise same-sex partnerships in some cities. The aging population and low immigration remain key issues, however. There is also a cautious rise in nationalist sentiment tied to security debates.
Elsewhere in Asia, democracy movements and civic activism show mixed fortunes. Southeast Asia presents a patchwork. Countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia maintain relatively open politics, with vibrant civil societies and media. In contrast, Myanmar remains under military rule despite a brave grassroots resistance. In 2024, the youth-driven democratic wave in Thailand was stymied by establishment manoeuvres. Following the removal of Bangladesh’s long-serving prime minister, the student-led movement responsible for the ouster has established the National Citizen’s Party, aiming to reshape the country’s political future. Meanwhile, the interim government struggles with entrenched corruption, economic instability, and ensuring fair political competition before the 2025 election.
Across these contexts, one trend stands out. Young people and urban middle classes are increasingly mobilised, whether online or in the streets, for causes ranging from anti-corruption to climate action. They face powerful entrenched interests, however. The role of civil society is also shifting. In some places, it is expanding via digital networks and regional solidarity; for example, pan-Asian advocacy on human rights. In others, civil society is shrinking under state repression. Economically, the Asian engines – China and India – are both actively transforming. China is pivoting to higher-tech and self-reliance, whereas India is investing in manufacturing and infrastructure. In both countries, these moves could lift millions of people out of poverty but they could also widen inequalities if not managed in inclusive ways. Overall, the internal landscape of Asia is one of economic change, rising nationalism, contested democracy and resilient civic activism, varying widely by country but collectively impacting the regional trajectory.
Scenario Parallels/Contrasts
Internally, governance trends in many Asian states reflect a blend of Walls and Towers scenarios. Walls traits are evident where nationalism and authoritarian streaks intensify. For example, suppression of dissent in China and the nationalist shift in India mirror both the democratic backsliding and suspicion of minorities in a Walls world. Shrinking civic space and increased surveillance in several Asian countries also fit the Walls scenario. At the same time, there is a Towers aspect as countries emphasize sovereignty and regional pride. India championing Global South leadership or ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) nations prioritising non-interference resonate with the focus of Towers on regional identity and reduced Western influence.
In contrast to these trends, elements of the Bridges scenario can be seen in the grassroots domain. Despite crackdowns, Asia hosts dynamic social movements that connect across borders – from the Milk Tea Alliance uniting young activists in Hong Kong, Thailand and Taiwan and quickly spreading further to India, Myanmar, the Philippines, Belarus, and more countries, to cross-border feminist networks and climate youth strikes. These represent Bridges-like bottom–up solidarity, pushing back against top–down nationalism. A Maze future (global cooperation and reform) finds a limited foothold in current internal trends across Asia. While Asian voices are pushing for reforms in global institutions (such as India advocating UN reform or climate finance reform), on the domestic front many governments are sceptical of external pressure or multilateral norms regarding democracy and human rights.
Arguably, the economic integration of Asia into global markets is a Maze element – requiring rules-based cooperation – but even this is fraught with decoupling risks. Overall, internal evolution in Asia is tilting toward Walls (in governance) and Towers (in regionalism), with vibrant Bridge currents in society trying to broaden civic space and fewer Maze-style systemic fixes in play. How these forces balance out will shape whether Asia leans more toward authoritarianism or inclusive democratic development in coming years.
Discussion Questions
For Activists and Civil Society Leaders in Asia: How can civil society adapt and continue to operate under increasingly nationalistic or authoritarian conditions? For instance, in China where open dissent is dangerous, can activists use indirect methods (cultural activism, business start-ups with social goals, etc.) to advance issues such as environmental protection or labour rights? In India, how can NGOs and social movements build broad alliances that bridge communal divides so that advocacy (on gender equality, minority rights, etc.) is not dismissed as serving only one group? What role can regional solidarity play? Could Asian civil society organisations form coalitions to support one another when governments crack down? For example, establish legal defence funds or develop safe hubs in friendlier countries.
For Donors and International Supporters: What is the best way to support democracy and human rights in Asian contexts that are sensitive to foreign influence? Should donors prioritise quiet capacity building for local civil society, in particular to avoid government accusations of interference? Or should they take a bolder stand by publicly condemning abuses and imposing consequences? For example, sanctions for officials who stifle NGOs. How can international actors empower local voices – such as supporting Asian journalists and fact-checkers to counter disinformation that fuels nationalism – without feeding into the narrative of Western meddling? In more open countries, are there opportunities for joint initiatives that also expand civic space? For example, EU–India funding for grassroots climate adaptation projects.
For the Private Sector: Asian economic transformations offer both challenges and openings for civil society. How might companies operating in Asia contribute to positive social change? For example, could tech companies resist enabling surveillance and instead champion privacy rights for users in authoritarian countries? For example, perhaps through stronger encryption or transparency about data requests. Can domestic businesses in India or China take on more CSR (corporate social responsibility) projects to fill gaps in education, healthcare or environmental protection, effectively supporting civil society aims? On the flip side, if inequality grows – with big winners in tech and industry and many left behind – businesses might face social backlash. What responsibility do they have to ensure inclusive growth (fair wages, community investments) so that economic progress does not come at the cost of social cohesion?
For Local Communities: Amidst national-level shifts, how are everyday communities in Asia responding and innovating? For instance, in villages affected by climate disasters in Bangladesh or Philippines, are local groups taking the lead in building resilience when government support is lacking? In urban neighbourhoods in China or Vietnam, are communities organising (even in apolitical ways) to solve local issues? Could these efforts seed a broader revival of civil society engagement? How can communities hold onto their cultural identities and values in the face of rising nationalist narratives that risk marginalising minorities? For example, preserving indigenous languages and customs in the face of majoritarian policies. In essence, how are local grassroots initiatives forging their own paths to improve lives, and what do they need to flourish in the current context?