The Politics of Democratic Transition in Southeast Asia - Essay Example

The Politics of Democratic Transition in Southeast Asia Introduction Southeast Asian countries are characterized by their standing as transitional states as none of them are fully democratic. On the one hand, Japan and South Korea are increasingly becoming democratic although authoritarian tendencies in general are deeply embedded in their political system. On the other hand, China and North Korea still remain to be crass authoritarian as they are single party states favoring totalitarianism. Besides, Taiwan has not become enough democratic due to various reasons including the critical question of national sovereignty. Therefore, Southeast Asia stands as typical case for examining the effectiveness of the theoretical models of democratic transition. In addition, the ethnically diverse countries of Southeast Asia are noted for their rapid economic development and corresponding political upheavals. In acknowledging the possibility of sustainable alternative regimes to democracy, this literature appears to significantly depart from modernization theory's linear conception of political development that was implicit in earlier transition theory. But how adept is this work in explaining, as opposed to characterizing, regimes that don't seem to conform to prevailing ideal types of authoritarianism or democracy What light can it shed on the particular paradox mentioned above And just how far has it shifted from the primary assumptions of modernization theory In part this is due to the persistent preoccupation with understanding how to achieve democratic transition. This tends to steer analysis away from a full understanding of the forces behind different regime directions in favor of prescriptions to correct democratic institutional deficiencies. A related problem is the narrow framework within which analysis is conducted, whereby institutions loom large but their relationships to wider power structures are either ignored or under-theorized. For this reason, much of the debate about preferred institutional design to promote or improve democracy within this literature may be informed by idealist, liberal optimism rather than a realistic assessment of the foundations and dynamics of regime power. This is not to deny attempts have been made to incorporate socio-economic and structural factors into analysis, but these have not been linked to any wider analysis of capitalist development and its implications for the exercise of power and related conflicts. Revisiting the Theories of Democratic Transition There are many contesting theoretical perspectives which attempt to explain the intricacies of political transition. It has been generally observed that theories of democratic transition are not really successful in explaining the process of political development in the postcolonial societies. However, the relationship between economic development and political transition against the experiences of third world countries could be explained using the existing theoretical frameworks of democratic transition with adequate alterations and modifications. Both Marxist and Weberian approaches are useful for this purpose as "the modern effort to relate changes in political regimes to changes in the underlying economic structures takes off largely from the grand theorizing of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly that done by Karl Marx and Max Weber" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 313). It does not mean that both Marxist and Weberian schools of thought are equally useful in all the social contexts. Generally speaking, Marxist theories are more effective for analyzing the cases of developing countries which are locked in the mirage of war and imperialism. On the other hand, Weberian theories are commonly used for analyzing the political process of advanced industrial societies of the west as liberal democracy attained almost divine status in the West vis--vis the development of communism in the east. Lipset was a pioneering figure in bringing in the ideas of Weber for the analysis of democratic transition as he "followed up the Weber's supposition that industrial capitalism might be a prerequisite for the emergence of modern democracy" and drawing from the experiences of Western Europe and Latin American countries "demonstrated that in these cases there was indeed a correlation between democracy and the level of economic development" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 313). Here, the underlying logic is that economic development enhances other factors such as industrialization, urbanization, wealth and education which are critical to establishing democracy in a country. Unfortunately, Lipset's theoretical formulations did not give "encouragement to democrats in the majority of states in the world, which were mired in poverty" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 314). As soon as the optimism of post World War II collapsed, there emerged the need for a new paradigm of democratic transition in order to understand the reality of the breakdown of democracies and the consolidation of authoritarian rule. In this context, Huntington asserted that "social scientists had been wrong about democratization because they had got the paradigm of political development wrong" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 314). Along the theoretical lines of Lipset, Huntington saw the correlations between level of economic development and level of political development and the mediation of such correlation by the changes in society. "But the reason that democratization was having such a hard time, he opined, was that for many countries history was not the study of inevitable progress towards democracy (or communism either, for that matter), but of possible vacillation between order and disorder" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 314). Such a possible vacillation is characterized by growth rate and the legitimacy of political institutions. On the other end of the spectrum, neo-Marxism, especially dependency school attempts to resolve the question of the democratic transition of poor countries with reference to the globally existing economic and political disparities. It is nothing but the structure of global capitalist system that determines the development of democracy in countries which are placed in the periphery and semi periphery of the world system of capitalism. Banking upon the ideas of Andre Gunder Frank, dependency theorists pointed out that "at this stage in history the world economy comprised a core of the advanced capitalist countries and a periphery of the less developed countries, the former holding the latter in the thrall, thereby frustrating their autonomous development and fostering authoritarian rule" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 314). Contrasting this point of view, O' Donnell asserts that economic development does not necessarily favor conditions of democratic transition. In the context of South American transitional democracies, O' Donnell et.al (1986) pointed out that "the transition from import-substitution industrialization to intermediate and heavy industrialization in South America was associated with what he called "bureaucratic authoritarianism", in which the state (often dominated by the military) allied itself with foreign and local capital against the working class and the peasantry" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 315). By the end of twentieth century, once again there was a resurgence of democracy which brought a good number of authoritarian states into the fold of democracy. Huntington was instrumental in revealing the vitality of middle class in deepening the democracy initiative in political societies which are authoritarian or soft authoritarian. "The class analysis was taken furthest by Rueschemeyer, Stephens, and Stephens who, following the comparative-historical approach of Barrington Moore, argued the democratic political forms were usually associated with capitalist economic development "because it transforms the class structure and changes balance of power between classes". In particular, capitalist development has the effect of "strengthening the working and middle classes and weakening the landed upper class" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 315). Recent studies show that even poor countries are on the forefront of bringing in democracy even in certainly adverse conditions. Now, the crux of the research is nothing but democratic breakthroughs which means that there could be instances of democratic upsurge by the effective concentration of popular forces. Democratic evolution must be seen as protracted process determined by number of universal and local factors. "Transitions from authoritarian to democratic rule, in this view, have to be "crafted" and are based on pacts negotiated by rival political groups in which soft-liners in authoritarian regimes reach agreement with antiregimic opponents" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 316). It all means that the structural aspects regarding democratic transformation are not vital as it thought to be. "This downgrading of structural factors in the explanation of political transition has been reflected also in writing specifically about democratization in the Asian region" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 314). It is important to note that short term political calculations of political actors are at times more vital in the actualization of democratic transition. Assessing the Models of Democratic Transition and Comparative Analysis of the "Democratic Experiences' of Southeast Asian Countries The approach followed here does not mean that we simply subordinate political institutions to underlying social conflicts, but rather that institutions themselves embody certain forms of conflicts and struggles. As such it is not the quality of institutions per se that is important but rather the type of conflicts that are privileged within various spaces of political participation. This framework allows a rigorous exploration of the relationship between the emergence of arenas of political participation, such as the rise of informal politics, and new patterns of conflicts and interests. Therefore we ask not whether new institutions are good or bad for democracy, but rather what kinds of conflicts and contradictions do these institutions express None of this is to dismiss normative concerns within the hybrid regime and quality of democracy literature about the establishment of democratic regimes. Rather, it is maintained that certain forms of conflict being organized out of politics, and the marginalization of related interests, poses a fundamental problem for democratic prospects - and one that the prevailing theoretical literature is not equipped to recognize ( Huntington, 1991, p.36). Drawing on the foundational research on democratic transition, Crouch and Morley (1993) explores the dynamic of political transition and the leap to democracy through the materialization of three interrelated processes which are given as three critical assertions, 1. Economic growth drives social mobilization, 2. Social mobilization drives political mobilization, and 3. Political mobilization drives regime change. Here, the problem is that regime change does not necessarily lead to transition to democracy. The pressure exerted by the forces which are conducive to transition to democracy cannot be ignored by authoritarian regimes indefinitely. In most of the cases, even the authoritarian regimes develop structures which are necessary for economic growth, social mobilization and thereby regime change will be initiated. The fact is that "to improve the factors of production, the dynamic process must be set in motion by which the quality of labor is steadily upgraded, more and more capital is accumulated and invested, and higher and higher levels of technology are introduced. Concomitantly, as the quality and quantity of these factors change, the factors themselves must be redirected to meet even more rationally evolving economic needs" (Crouch and Morley, 1993, p. 318). For the late developing countries, the process of democratic transition is heterogeneous and substantially different from those of developed societies. While analyzing the case of Southeast Asian countries, it is particularly important to note that the tension between rival political groups which represent old forces and modernist forces would bring neither democracy nor authoritarianism but a mixed form of democracy and authoritarianism. It is the balance of antagonistic forces which create such a condition of vacillation between democracy and authoritarianism. In reality, the complex balance of power shows that no social or political group has the adequate material capacity to establish its own rule by subsuming all other groups and their political representative structures. Chinese Prospects for Democratic Transition and a New Paradigm for Analyzing Democratic Transition Despite widespread and growing "mass disturbances" in China in recent years, there is little indication of the increased public interest in promoting liberal democracy. A key part of the explanation is that in china, capitalist economic development has emerged from socialist, planned economy characterized by substantial economic equality. "Therefore, the emergence of capitalism has brought both greater economic inequality and new forms of dependence on the state. The result is that decline sectors (such as laid-off state owned enterprise workers) have incentives to support Chinese Communist Party rule, in the hope that the party will make good on its socialist promises. Meanwhile, rising sectors- and particularly private entrepreneurs- have reasons to fear that political reform might threaten their economic prosperity and privileges" (Dickson, 2003, p.112). In short China's unique combination of state-led late development and a socialist past has given both the sides of success and growth a stake in maintaining the political status quo. It means that the existing theoretical models which adopt a sort of deterministic view of democratic transition based on economic and developmental factors cannot withstand the actual experiences of many developing nations like those of China. The historical inevitability of growth ridden transition to democracy is nothing more than a theoretical illusion. It is nothing but the balance of power and the balancing of interests by the state determine the course of a country's democratization. Therefore, a new paradigm to analyze the question of democratic transition must take account of immediate political decisions and other conjuncture- factors. For instance, in Southeast Asia, media plays an extraordinarily effective role in pushing the democracy initiative forward. A core assumption of much of the literature on democratisation is that a more independent press with greater freedom will make a positive contribution to political change, supporting democratic transitions and the downfall of authoritarian regimes. In other words, media can play an especially crucial role at the 'transition phase', where it may act as a decisive agent of change. Neumann argues that freedom is 'taking hold' in Southeast Asia, in a process of political liberalization inexplicably linked with the rise of a more open and critical press. There many other equally important factors relate to culture, religion, ethics and education which could play effective roles in shaping the character of a political system. Conclusion In Southeast Asia, the process of (un)democratic transition is multilayered, heterogeneous and extremely complex. In Althusser's terms, it is essentially overdetermined by corresponding national and international factors. In Southeast Asia the exceptions are so striking as to disallow an observer from simply assuming that the one causes the other. The connections are much more complex than that, and the theoretical assumptions involved as well as the empirical data demanding explanation turn out to be tangled up with other factors as well. Authoritarian regimes can be expected to respond to the pressures generated by social and political mobilisation in different ways, some moving towards more representative or democratic directions, other creating new institutions which will en-able them to accommodate pressures from below without making concessions to-wards demands for democracy. Works Cited Crouch, Harold and James W. Morley (1993) 'The Dynamics of Political Change', in James W. Morley (ed.) Driven by Growth: Political Change in the Asia Pacific, New York: M.E. Sharp. Dickson, Bruce J. (2003). 'Red Capitalists in China: The Party, Private Entrepreneurs, and Prospects for Political Change'. New York: Cambridge University Press. Huntington, S. (1991), 'The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century', University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. O'Donnell, G., P. Schmitter & L. Whitehead (eds) (1986), 'Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives', Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Read More