76 Culture The Economist April 2nd 2022
casters are crippled with spurious tax
demands and then bought bythepresi
dent’s cronies. Critics are harassedwithli
bel suits or fined for spreading“fakenews”.
Ecuador’s former president, RafaelCorrea,
forced documentaries off the webbysuing
for unauthorised use of his picture.Au
thoritarian leaders who manipulate,rather
than censor, the media are typicallymore
popular than democratic oneswhofacea
genuinely free press.
The goal of a spin dictator istoappearto
allow political competition whilemaking
it nearly impossible in practice. Rather
than criminalising dissent, heimprisons
his opponents for nonpolitical crimes,
such as fraud or rape, of whichtheyarein
nocent. Sometimes he locks themupfor
short periods, so they do not becomemar
tyrs, and often, so their work isconstantly
disrupted. Rather than banningopposi
tion parties, he tangles them inredtapeor
bankrupts them with fines andlawsuits.
For extra deniability, the taskofmaking
dissidents’ lives hell can be outsourcedtoa
youth militia or army of onlinetrolls,who
may rough them up, publish theiraddress
es or leak embarrassing photos.
In some respects, the authors’ argu
ment is optimistic. Political killinghasde
clined because it has grown moretaboo.As
people become more educated,theyexpect
better from their governments.AsSinga
pore’s former leader, Lee KuanYew,putit:
“One simply cannot ask a highlyeducated
workforce to stop thinking whenitleaves
the factory.” That is why spin dictatorstry
so hard to pretend to be democrats.
Mr Guriev and Mr Treismansuggesta
policy of “adversarial engagement”. The
free world should watch morecloselyfor
signs that leaders—including itsown—are
grabbing unwarranted powersor under
mining institutions. It should welcome
modernisation even in dictatorships,
since economic and social development
may ultimately create more demandsfor
liberty. It should stop helpingdictatorsby
laundering their money and reputations—
anonymous shell companies should be
banned, and mischievous lawsuitsagainst
exiled dissidents should be curbed.
Unfortunately, the arsenalofdeceitis
highly effective at keeping malignleaders
in power, which is perhaps whyglobal
democracy has been in retreatforthepast
decade. And if those leadersremain in
power for a long time, theyoften grow
more repressive. Mr Putin maybelessbru
tal than Stalin, but in his thirddecadein
office he has shifted firmly from“spin”to
“fear”. Xi Jinping, who also showsnosign
of retiring, has turned China intoa surveil
lance state. That is an aspect of21stcentu
ry repression that this otherwiseadmira
ble book fails adequately toexplore. In
many countries people can neithertrust
their rulers, nor hide from them.nWorldina dishThe unreal McCoy
A
certain type of bigcity eater—in
cluding, sometimes, the author of this
column—reflexively assumes that noodles
eaten at a restaurant without an English
menu are, by definition, superior to those
from a stripmall outlet catering to non
Chinese diners. Such people are liable also
to think that nonItalian ingredients have
no place on a pizza, or that using Italian
rather than Tunisian olive oil in couscous
is a grave culinary sin.
A taco, these diners will explain (often
without being asked), consists of paired
soft tortillas, typically made of corn. These
are wrapped around a modest amount of
meat, usually braised, with a sprinkling of
chopped raw onion, a couple of sprigs of
coriander and a squirt of salsa—the spicier
the better. Made well, these are indeed del
icious, with an almost Japanese austerity
that lets every ingredient shine and com
plement each other.
What innumerable Americans know as
a taco—a hardshell tortilla that comes in
boxes on grocery shelves, stuffed to burst
ing with ground meat cooked in mass
market seasoning, topped with orangey
massproduced cheese, iceberg lettuce,
tomatoes and mild salsa from a jar—bears
little relation to this “real thing”. So, the
authenticitypolicing diners argue, it
should be shunned and mocked.
This is a joyless way to eat. Chubby,
crackly American tacos may be unknown
in Culiacán or Toluca, but they taste good.
They may well seem “inauthentic” in Mex
ico, but they are deeply authentic in the
minds and memories of millions in America. Korean tacos—tortillas filled with
Koreanseasoned barbecued meat and
kimchi—are also little known in Mexico.
But they emerged authentically from the
marriage of Korean and Mexican cultures
and cuisines in multicultural Los Angeles.
That is how food develops. Being the
original progenitor of a recipe may merit
some bragging rights at the dining table,
but nothing more. Legend has it that Marco
Polo brought noodles back to Italy from
China: that does not make spaghetti just
bastardised lamian, except in the way that
all foods (and people) are hybrid and deriv
ative. Lebanese emigrants brought lamb
cooked upright on a rotating spit with
them to Mexico. Decades and countless
chillies, onions and pineapples later, Mex
icans turned shawarma into tacos al pastor.
Judging dishes by their authenticity
ignores the development that follows nat
urally as food and people migrate. It also
encourages unwelcome stereotyping. In
2019 Sara Kay, a culinary consultant, stud
ied 20,000 online reviews of restaurants in
New York, and found “authentic” to be
associated with “dirt floors [and] plastic
stools” when describing nonEuropean
restaurants. For European eateries, it
meant elegant decor.
That exemplifies the common but re
grettable belief that nonEuropean food
should be cheap and served in tatty sur
roundings—even when the cuisines in
question are intricate and delicious. In the
end, whether someone considersafood
authentic says more about their ownbias
es than about what is on their plate.nN EW YORK
Authenticity is a terrible metric for judging food