International Relations of the Asia-Pacific: Is Democracy Inimical with Asian Values - Research Paper Example

International Relations of the Asia-Pacific IS DEMOCRACY INIMICAL WITH “ASIAN VALUES”? Introduction The Asia-Pacific is mainly composed of thelocal countries of north-east and south-east Asia and the two great regional powers China and Japan. International politics of the Asia-Pacific includes the two super powers: the United States and the Soviet Union, also South Asia, Australasia, the South Pacific, Canada and parts of Latin America. The diversity of the region prevents the emergence of an indigenous and common regional identity (Yahuda, 2004: 8). Since 1974, with the “third wave” of democratization, more than eighty countries have made progress towards the new form of government. In the Asia Pacific, where earlier Japan had been the only democracy, five new democratic states emerged by the mid-1990s. In 1986, the Philippines became a democratic country, the next year South Korea and Taiwan, in 1990 Mongolia, and in 1992, Thailand emerged as a democracy. These changes occurred in the presence of authoritarian rule in China, Vietnam, Burma, Singapore and Malaysia. However, it is stated that the emergence of electoral democracy, has to be devleoped into consolidation of democratic rule (Shin & Wells, 2005: 88). According to Berger (2004: 181), some of the “Asian values” that authoritarian governments emphasize are: obedience to authority, discipline, allegiance to community which has to be given priority over the individual, unity among ethnic groups, strong kinship with family and mutual economic activities, thrift, hard work, loyalty to the extended family, filial piety, and most importantly, respect for education. The purpose of this paper is to examine the various dimensions of democracy in relation to “Asian values”, and to determine whether democracy is inimical to Asian values. Discussion The Asia-Pacific region encompasses eighteen countries and territories which vary greatly in size and population from China to Singapore. Economically, China still belongs to the third world, whereas Singapore is in the category of a newly industrialized economy. According to Pempel (2005: 57-58), on a per capita basis, Japan is far ahead of China both in purchasing parity power GDP and in market GDP. Greater economic disparities are present between Japan and Vietman, and between Japan and Burma. Similarly, there are wide differences in religion, culture, historical associations, social traditions, language, ethnicity and political systems among the countries of the region (Yahuda, 2004: 9). Many of the divisions in the Asia-Pacific cut across state borders, create tensions between regional states, and increase the problems of nation building and consolidating state power. Further, the colonial legacy has resulted in territorial disputes among the Southeast Asian states, and led to highly complex domestic communal problems such as that of the ethnic Chinese. There is an absence of regional order because of the fluidity in security arrangements, unstable relationships between states, and lack of common elements between regional and external states such as between China and the United States; Burma, Malaya and Singapore with Britain; and Indonesia with Holland, which were formed from the colonial experience (Yahuda, 2004: 9). Today the focus has shifted to the Asia-Pacific from the Euro-Atlantic. International relations of the Asia-Pacific forms an important component for understanding world politics (McDougall, 2007: 2). There is enhanced regional cooperation among the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) security and intelligence forces, due to the war on terrorism. Secondly, the legitimacy of Washington in the region is undermined by U.S. pressure and its rigid unilateral position (Beeson, 2007: 94). The current U.S. foreign policy is adversely affecting the development of a civil society in Southeast Asia while its preference for bilateral security arrangements is marginalizing the development of multilateral regional security arrangements. Further, the U.S. acts as an obsruction to further regionalism rather than as a facilitator. This has promoted regional elites to foster East Asian regionalism to confront East Asian problems, states Alagappa (2003: 595). According to Rodan et al (2006: 153), there is a link between the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA) and the United States need for allies in the war on terror after September 11. The USSFTA was to serve as a precedent for U.S. negotiations with other cooperative Asian nations. Japan, while maintaining a close alliance with the United States: economically, politically, militarily and even culturally, the country has struggled to maintain an Asian identity at the same time. On the other hand, Beijing’s continued condemnation of American capitalism and imperialism did not allow any doubt regarding the country’s orientation towards Asian values. However, with normalization of the China-U.S. relations, the increased opening of the Chinese economy, and improved military strength, it was difficult for China to continue classifying the West as an enemy to be guarded against (Suh et al, 2004: 222). The Essentials of Democracy “Democracy is more than an election, more than a government, and more than a set of laws” (Rich, 2007: 14). Democracy is a system of governance that has various dimensions, some of which are essential for its existence, some for its sustainability and others are important for promoting the quality of democracy. For a consolidated democracy, there are certain essential qualifications: first, the polity needs to be accepted by the populace as a state; second, Dahl’s (1997: 94-95) seven conditions for polyarchy must be met: constitutionally elected officials should implement government policy; elected officials are chosen in free, fair and frequent elections; elections are conducted on the basis of universal adult suffrage; all adults have the right to run for elective office; citizens have freedom of expression; they have a right to seek alternative sources of information; and also have a right to form political parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Third, the elected governments should govern democratically which “requires a commitment to constitutionality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights” (Rich, 2007: 13). Human rights form part of the aspects of a democracy. Once the above conditions for a democracy have been met, Linz & Stepan (1996: 16) put forth three tests for a consolidated democracy: behaviorally no secessions from the state or creation of nondemocratic regime by any of the constituent countries; attitudinally the belief in democratic procedures and institutions for governing collective life continue to prevail; and constitutionally when both governmental and nongovernmental forces are subjected to the resolution of conflict within the sanctioned legal boundaries. It is always important that a country achieves economic and developmental viability before it can become a democracy. According to Islam & Chowdhury (1997: 129), traditionally, the initial and necessarily painful step towards self-sustained growth needed to be accomplished before progressive affluence could generate demands for political liberalisation. Following this, the system would eventually respond to such demands, which forms a part of the “modernization theory”. Both historical evidence and cross-country studies indicate that levels of economic development fuelled the emergence of stable democracies. Thus “development first, democracy later” was accepted as conventional wisdom (Islam & Chowdhury, 1997: 130). Democracy and Asian Values The concept of Asian values focuses on socio-cultural differences between Asia and the West which apparently make it difficult for Western moral standards to be applied to an Asian context. Asian cultures are exempt from considerations such as civil liberties, political freedom, democracy and human rights. If necessary, the rights of the individual should be compromised for the benefit of the society. Critics of the concept of “Asian values” have often accused the supporters of Asian values of advancing a variety of self-serving arguments in order to justify their “authoritarian, paternalistic and illiberal political system” (Wunderlich, 2008: 120). In international relations, the Asian values concept is indicative of a wider struggle between cosmopolitan and communitarian positions. Beyond the local particularities and the cultural norms of individual states, cosmopolitan concepts focus broadly on a “community of human kind”. An example of cosmopolitanism is universal human rights. Old arguments promoting development as an essential precursor for democracy, has a cultural aspect. Today, the key factors for economic development are considered to be: discipline and the need to maintain social cohesion. In Asia, discipline is the most important characteristic that a country needs to have, more than democracy. Zakaria (1994: 109) from his interview with Lee Kuan Yew, a Malaysian leader and critic of western-style democratic traditions, and Fukuyama (1995: 12) support this view. Yew has been quoted as stating that “the exuberance of democracy leads to indiscipline and disorderly conduct which are inimical to development” (Zakaria (1994: 109). It is important to note that discipline is the product of core “Asian values” which is a generic term used instead of “Confucian values”, because its ideological basis covers both Confucian societies such as China and Singapore, and non-Confucian societies such as Malaysia. A paternalistic authoritarianism supported by democratic institutions such as free elections, is considered as a durable political system On the other hand, Asian leaders such as You Ching, county magistrate of Taipei has been quoted as stating that though some Asian leaders have argued that democracy is not suitable to the particular context of Asian culture, “Taiwanese democratisation proves that western ideas and Asian cultural values are compatible” (Documents on Democracy, 1995: 185). It is also asserted that for the development of societies in Asia and elsewhere, the concepts of democracy and human rights are not only applicable but also crucially important for their development. Additionally, the Forum of Democratic leaders in the Asia-Pacific region is currently located in Seoul. Its primary goal is to counter the false judgment that the Asia-Pacific region is lacking in historical legacy and cultural heritage which is suitable for democracy (Documents of Democracy, 1995: 186). Thus, it is clear that there is a divergence of views on the relationship between “Asian values” and democracy. There is a wide rift in the differences in ideologies underlying new democracies and the non-democratic or quasi-democratic counterparts. In spite of the difference, the “Asian values” hypothesis has been the focus of attention from scholars, and has credibility (Islam & Chowdhury, 1997: 131). Two important factors that have provided credibility to the concept of “Asian values” are that: first, some of the most successful economies in contemporary times come from the region in which the spurt towards sustained industrialisation occurred during authoritarian or at best, semi-democratic regimes; and second there is a perceived decline of the liberal democratic west, most notably the United States of America as an important centre of economic power, but more importantly as a bearer of moral standards. In some sections of Asia-Pacific society, the concept of the U.S.A. as exemplary and worthy of emulation has declined because of the rampant crime, breakdown of the family, racial tensions and illegal immigration that continue to take place in the country. Islam & Chowdhury (1995: 131) state that U.S. scholars themselves support adverse perceptions about liberal democratic regimes. Mature democracies are believed to have an in-built mechanism for stagnation through the institutionalization of distributional integrations and coalitions. A recent hypothesis regarding the silent killer of good governance in the U.S.A. is demosclerosis, and is a variant of the above argument of stagnation of democracies. These concepts along with the earlier mentioned decline in economic and moral standards of western society help us to understand why the search for an Asian alternative to democratic governance is important for some leaders in the Asia-Pacific. On the other hand, though this element of credibility strengthens the argument supporting “Asian values”, this concept has several limitations, as follows. To start with, both theory and evidence indicate that core “Asian values” or Confucianism is neither necessary nor adequate for rapid growth. An example for this is the lack of progress in imperial China and Korea which are deep-rooted Confucian regimes. Secondly, Confucianism is compatible with democratic traditions when the focus is not on discipline and social cohesion Confucianism emphasizes self-improvement through education; further, non-prejudiced and merit-based examination systems promotes social mobility from which emerges a middle class that provides a durable basis for democratic transitions (Fukuyama, 1995: 7). But, once core Confucian or Asian values are diluted to generality, they lose their unique characteristics and become a part of universal human values. Thirdly, it is possible that the “Asian values” argument justifies the political order in parts of the Asia-Pacific, and like ideologies that are state-sanctioned, is not intended to be a rigourous argument. It is worth noting that Fukuyama (1995: 28) has made the controversial claim that a low level of spontaneous citizenship and a culturally ingrained distrust of state authority are paradoxically exhibited by Sinitic or Chinese societies, due to which a Lee Kuan Yew type of hypothesis is simply a weapon of political control. This is because of a deep feeling of “familism” that is distinctive about Chinese societies and that takes precedence over all other social relations. Hence, social cohesion has to be imposed from the top. There is a greater need for an authoritarian political system in Chinese societies because of the weaker Chinese obedience to authority. The emphasis on political authoritarianism in Singapore and other Southeast Asian societies is more of a reflection of those societies’ low level of spontaneous citizenship and fear of decline if there is a lack of coercive political authority, rather than an indication of those societies’ self-discipline (Fukuyama, 1995:28). The political leader Lee Kuan Yew emphasized that the key to Singapore’s success lay in the fact that they used the family to promote economic growth. Also, besides the other Asian values such as hard work and respect for learning, the eastern belief that the individual exists in the context of his family have helped Singapore to progress rapidly. Further, the Confucianist view of order between subject and ruler actually facilitates the rapid transformation of society because the individual fits himself into society; and this is the exact opposite of the American belief in the rights of the individual. Moreover, the core Asian values responsible for Singapore’s success is the importance of discipline rather than democracy. In the view of Lee Kuan Yew (Zakaria, 1994: 109), democracy resulted in indiscipline since this was inimical to development.. The subtle perspective as viewed by Emmerson (1995: 95) is that a focus on social cohesion may not be by the elites, but rather from a larger presence of citizenry who value order and fear disorder. Thus, the exercise of coercive political authority may be voluntarily accepted by such citizenry. The form of governance that is created by such conditions may not be recognizably democratic in the western liberal sense. Further, in the Asia-Pacific region where political legitimacy is primarily based on economic performance, the case for democracy has to be based on the economic dimension. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the various dimensions of democracy and “Asian values” and examined whether democracy is inimical with Asian values. It is found that development, economic performance and discipline are found to be important Asian values which can lead to democratisation. Due to reasons such as a weaker Chinese obedience to authority, and the great importance of “familism”, there is a fear of social decline if there is a lack of coercive political authority. The Asian value of authoritarianism continues to be used in some of the Asia-Pacific countries such as China, Vietnam, Burma, Singapore and Malaysia. In these countries, a paternalistic authoritarianism supported by democratic institutions such as free elections, is considered as a durable political system, and is on par with a liberal democracy. Two reasons why authoritarianism is still preferred in some countries is that, the concept of Asian values has shown proven credibility in authoritarian or semi-democratic regimes, and secondly the perceived decline of the liberal democratic west as an important centre of economic power, but more importantly as a bearer of moral standards. Moreover, rampant crime, breakdown of the family, racial tensions and illegal immigration are also deterrents to changing to a democratic form of government. Western scholars have also expressed their misgivings about democracies, stating that democracies have an in-built mechanism for stagnation, and a silent killer of good governance is demosclerosis. Hence, it can be concluded that democracy is not inimical to “Asian values” and in fact both can be blended together for the purpose of obtaining the best of both concepts. By combining the two forms of government, the outcome will be a more moderate style of governance, with neither the liberalism or stagnation of democracies, nor the authoritarianism of “Asian values”. References Alagappa, M. (ed.). 2003. Asia-Pacific in world politics. California: Stanford University Press. Beeson, M. 2007. Regionalism and globalization in East Asia: Politics, security and economic development. England: Palgrave Macmillan. Berger, M.T. 2004. The battle for Asia. London: Routledge. Dahl, R.A. 1997. Polyarchy. Toward democracy: a journey – reflections: 1940-1997. Volume 1. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press. Documents on Democracy. 1995. The Asia-Pacific region. Journal of Democracy, 6 (January): 186-198. Emmerson, D.K. 1995. Singapore and the “Asian values” debate. Journal of Democracy, 6 (5): 95-105. Fukuyama, F. 1995. Democracy’s future: the primacy of culture. Journal of Democracy, 6 (1): 7-14. Islam, I. & Chowdhury, A. 1997. Asia-Pacific economies. London: Routledge. Linz, J.J. & Stepan, A. 1996. Toward consolidated democracies. Journal of Democracy, 7 (2): 15-26. McDougall, D. 2007. Asia Pacific in world politics. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Pempel, T.J. (ed.). 2005. Remapping East Asia: the construction of a region. Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 57-58. Rich, R. 2007. An excerpt from Pacific-Asia in quest of democracy. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Retrieved on 30th August, 2008 from: http://rienner.zingstudios.com/uploads/47e29bb71ad1a.pdf Rodan, G., Hewison, K. & Robison, R. (eds.) 2006. The political economy of South-East Asia: markets, power and contestation. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Shin, D.C. & Wells, J. 2005. Challenge and change in East Asia: Is democracy the only game in town? Journal of Democracy, 16 (2): 88-103. Suh, J.J., Katzenstein, P.J. & Carlson, A. 2004. Rethinking security in East Asia. California: Stanford University Press. Wunderlich, J-U. 2008. Regionalism, globalisation and international order. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Yahuda, M.B. 2004. The international politics of the Asia-Pacific. New York: Routledge. Zakaria, F. 1994. Interview with Lee Kuan Yew. Foreign Affairs, 73 (March-April): 109-126. Read More