His answer is that the West benefited from six “killer apps”. These were: “the capitalist enterprise, the scientific method, a legal and political system based on private property rights and individual freedom, traditional imperialism, the consumer society and what Weber probably misnamed the ‘Protestant’ ethic of work and capital accumulation as ends in themselves.”

Some of these, Ferguson argues, particularly numbers one and two, China has already replicated. Other, and among these he includes imperialism, consumption and the work ethic, it is making headway on. “Only number three,” he notes, “the Western way of law and politics – shows little sign of emerging in the one-party state that is the People’s Republic.” But, he muses, “does China need dear old democracy to achieve enduring prosperity?”

Those two words, enduring and prosperity, put the question slap-bang into the heartland of the territory the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development team is beginning to map out. Read Niall Ferguson’s fascinating article and ponder our collective future trajectories – as I did. Then join us, in 2010 and beyond, in the quest to find out how to marry the best of West and East in pursuit of democracy and sustainability.

The first is a Guidance Note of the Secretary General on the United Nations Approach to Democracy. This has emerged out of consultations within the Inter-Agency Working Group on Democracy of the Executive Committee on Peace and Security, and sets out ‘the United Nations framework for democracy’.

The second document is an ‘advanced unedited copy’ Report of the Secretary General on climate change and its possible security implications. The summary of the latter identifies ‘democratic governance’ as one of the ‘threat minimizers’ which can help to lower the risks of climate-related insecurity. 

Our own open letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, four days later on International Day of Democracy, unconsciously served to shine a spotlight on the links between these themes.

However difficult might be for the United Nations to work collectively on democracy given its diverse membership, it is good to see concrete signs of progress both in terms of elaborating an acceptable UN approach to democracy and democratisation at the national level, and in terms of its linkages to the most pressing sustainable development challenge of our time.

One need only think of the process of democratisation by means of the war in Iraq, and the ongoing role of occupying forces in supporting the democratically elected government, to trigger reflection on the rights and wrongs of democratisation. Where is sustainable development in the process?

Economic development, public institution-building and human rights are certainly visible themes. But poverty reduction; protection of the environment; economic development pathways that could lead to non fossil-fuel dependent futures – these themes don’t seem to be very visible at least in the ongoing process of change in Iraq, where the oil on which the country depends continues to flow.

In a book I’ve just been reviewing for the journal International Affairs, “The Ethics of Global Governance” (edited by Antonio Franceschet), chapter author Tom Keating explores the ethical limits of democracy promotion. He argues that “democracy promotion advocates and practices too often narrowly define democracy in relation to the establishment of markets.”

One former USAID official who I spoke to informally recently suggested that the existence of a free market may itself be an essential attribute or indicator of a democracy. For many advocates of sustainable development, who see economic liberalism (and liberalisation) as part of the problem, this is an extraordinary idea.

One key question then is this: how long before sustainable development gets integrated within the practice of democratisation on the ground? And what would democratisation designed with sustainable development in mind look like?