Applying The Western Model Of Government On Countries Around The World - Essay Example

Question 3: How meaningful is it to apply western models of government to countries around the world APPLYING THE WESTERN MODEL OF GOVERNMENT ON COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD The unilateral application of Western models of government to all countries regardless of creed, socio-political culture, history and indigenous values carries with it several implications. Firstly, it implies that that the political progress of any and all countries can be properly measured against the standards set by the Western model. This basically means that the standards that are currently being used in the West to indicate the level of progress for one government's use of a particular form of government are also applicable to be used as the prime standards and measuring stick for all other countries employing the same form of government. If in the West the non-fulfillment of such standards are interpreted to basically indicate government failure, applying the same Western model in assessing another country's government would also require the same standards to be met in order for that government to be deemed successful. In the Western model of Democracy, for example, due process of law, respect for human rights and individual liberty, and the general population's participation in the democratic electoral process are among the standards that have thus far been raised by the Western school of thought to measure a country's level of democracy. When non-Western Democratic countries and governments, therefore, fail to provide adequate evidence that these specific standards are being met, these countries risk immediately being condemned by the global society as undemocratic. Organizations and individuals insisting on the application of Western models of government and the implementation of Westerns standards deduced from such models have thus been quick to condemn any and each country that have failed to meet these Western standards. Repressive regimes that fail to meet Western standards of Democracy, and who have a history, for example, of human rights violations, staggering judicial systems, and a weak electoral process, have thus been pressured in numerous instances to reform and meet these Western standards in order to gain the acceptance and approval of the dominant West. To be sure, the notion that a universal set of standards can be deduced from Western models of government and applied indiscriminately to all countries in the World, rests on some very thin assumptions-that there is only one path towards the development of a specific form of government, and that a country's progress down this path is but a naturally occurring process, one that is not influenced by internal and external factors. We can see these assumptions more clearly for what they are if we investigate the global movement towards Democracy. The application of a Western model of Democracy for all countries, for example, presumes that a country's progress towards democracy is a naturally occurring phenomenon, one that is dictated upon by a single process and occurs naturally without regard for a country's socio-political status nor influenced by any external and internal forces. Basically, this means, that countries would generally develop into democracies as they progress regardless of any internal and external pressure or movement. This has largely been disproved by numerous studies, most notably, an examination conducted in 1996 which showed that 58 out of the 61 democratic countries that were studied became democratic unnaturally and that democratic progress was as a matter of fact induced by way of economic sanctions and conditional aid that demanded for democratic legislation. (Whitehead, 1996) With today's governments leaning decisively towards Democracy and democratic forms of governance, the implementation of a universal model of democracy-one that is produced and upheld by the dominant West-presumes that for a country to successfully implement and uphold a democratic form of government, it has to follow the same model of Democracy that the West has derived from its own political progress. Any other path would lead to failure. Progress towards a "truly democratic" form of government are thus marked and measured by the standards set up in the Western model. Electoral participation, decrease in human rights violations, the degree of press freedom, and the extent of individual liberty and equality, are thus among the landmarks which line the path towards a successful Democratic government. As a government walks its way down the path, its progress is marked by each landmark it successfully passes. Governments are thus compared against each other based on their progress down this yellow brick road to Democracy. Again, it must be reiterated that this very notion of one singular path towards successful implementation and governance excludes the possibility of any other path that may be undertaken towards the same goal. This is the most basic implication when we apply Western models of government on all countries. It excludes the existence and application of any other models that may still be followed by other countries towards the same goal, and rests on the assumption that all countries must go through this path and undergo the exact same changes and developments in order to progress towards good governance. Insisting on a universal Western model for all governments and countries to be measured up against is flawed because it completely and utterly ignores the existence of internal factors that influence a country's political progress. It disposes of any cultural and historical differences between different countries which are actually essential in assessing any country's government and policies. Assessing and measuring a government's progress towards good governance based on that country's fulfillment of a universal model and universal standards discounts the possibility of intrinsic factors which may influence a government's difficulty in meeting particular standards and also discounts the possibility that other approaches may be developed that will be more conducive and effective for a particular country or set of countries. This runs counter to the very theory of cultural relativism approach which basically stresses that differences between countries and cultures should be taken into account when assessing the approach and model that would be most effective for a particular country. Cultural relativism basically provides for the non-application of universal models of government and warns against the dangers of unilaterally applying Western or Universal models on countries where such models are largely inapplicable due to cultural, historical, and sociological differences found in such countries. This is most effectively apparent in the emergence of what is termed as Asian Democracy, or a distinctly Asian approach to Democracy that differentiates in many aspects to the Western model but has largely been perceived to be more effective in assessing the Democratic progress of Asian countries and governments in that it takes into account the cultural context in several Asian countries to explain the differences that have emerged between Democratic governments in Asian countries and those in the West. (Hague, 2004). It makes sense that when assessing how a particular country would most effectively progress towards a specific form of government, the cultural biases and sociological situation of that country should be taken into account. Instead of insisting on using a cut-and-paste approach that basically just imposes Western models of governments on countries that are completely different from their Western counterparts from where these models were derived, the internal situation of these countries should be given credence over Western theory. As a country moves towards a particular goal, its progress would certainly be affected by its own social situation. It is not fair, for example, to insist on a high degree of participation in the democratic electoral process without taking into account the factors that may specifically contribute to the non-participation of the electorate. The factors which combine to determine the fulfillment and non-fulfillment of democratic standards must be given precedence in evaluating what step or approach the government should take next. Most certainly, the non-participation of African Americans in America's electoral process prior to the law which enabled their participation is different from the non-participation of Asians who are living in abject poverty and are thus too preoccupied with finding their next meal to participate in the democratic electoral process. These are two completely different situations and although democracy would be furthered by increased participation in the electoral process, it is rash to unilaterally conclude that Democracy has indeed failed in the latter scenario when the greater factor influencing the electorate's non-participation is poverty, and not the absence of democratic legislation. Apart from the sociological situation of different countries, culture and tradition also plays a tremendous part in assessing what model or approach would be better suited for a specific country. In the use of human rights and individual liberty as a prerequisite of democracy, for example, we risk ignoring the cultural context of specific countries which may influence how its citizens value individual liberty, and how this cultural mindset may also influence the policies and legislation that are passed by the administration. Insisting that these states and countries impose policies that uphold Western standards may be possible, but doing so may only serve to alienate and provoke the traditional population of these countries, causing these administrations to become less stable. In the context of Islamic countries, for example, the use of Western models of government in assessing the progress of Islamic government neglects the notable difference between Islamic and Western culture. Understanding the development and progress of Islamic governments cannot be possible without understanding that there is a yawning gap between the concept of state of the East and that of the West. Says Hassan (Mitchell, 1988): It follows from what has been stated that, to begin with, there is a very important distinction in the notion of State between Western political thought and Islam. From Plato and Aristotle to Rosseau, it has been maintained that the institution of the State was the culmination of an evolutionary process by which a large number of people in a fixed territory formed an organization for the collective good of all. The philosophical basis for this creation was provided by different versions of the social contract theory. As a consequence of these theories, especially that of Hobbes and Locke there emerged within the State so created two sets of entities, the rulers and the ruled. Compared to this, Islam begins by speaking of "universality" rather than of territorial limitations. The closest notion (but in reality quite different) to this outlook, is provided by the concept of "jus gentium" and "ius naturale" of Roman Law. While admitting that territorial boundaries do exist for artificial or administrative reasons, there is no place for the notion of the "rulers" and the "ruled". As a direct consequence, there is no place for the theory of social contract. The "righteous ruler" and his election by the community is provided by a divine mandate, and no philosophical basis is needed to give sophistication to an existing state of affairs. As may be deduced from the passage above, the state as an institution is perceived very differently in the Islamic culture. Whereas the Western school perceives the existence of a "social contract" between the citizen and the state, there is no such notion in the Islamic school of thought which prevails in Islamic countries. Government leaders in the West are perceived as rulers chosen by the people and primarily responsible to the people. In the Islamic context, however, there still stands out a notable perception of the leader as having been provided by a divine mandate. Because of this notable difference, the notion of individual liberty and human rights is stronger in the Western school of thought as each citizen has the right to demand the government's fulfillment of its part of the contract it has made with the citizen. Imposing this Western school of thought on Islamic countries and demanding the production of legislation for individual liberty and human rights equivalent to those in Western countries may allow such Islamic countries to pass one of the Western standards in a Universal model of democracy, but we may also question whether such legislation (albeit considered a landmark of democratic progress) does indeed represent the intent and will of the people. It becomes ironic then, that in pursuing the Western standards of Democracy, Islamic states may risk becoming less representative of their people's culture and their people themselves, thereby distancing away from the very essence of democracy. As may be realized from the discussions above, cultural and sociological differences between different countries must be taken into context when assessing the progress of these countries' governments. To simply apply the Western model of government without taking these factors into consideration would be foolhardy and may in fact, conclude to inaccurate assessments of that country's progress and the use of approaches that are in fact inapplicable. This is not limited only to the global trend of democratization, but may even be seen in the past Communist experience with the emergence of differing models and approaches for the different Communist regimes in the past. These differences have stemmed from the same rationale: that different people require different solutions and approaches. Proponents of the Western model as a universal model of governments, however, have proceeded to still stick with the imposition of universal standards and universal models while riding on the wave of globalization and trade liberalization. Scholars such as Fukuyama have basically been arguing that although differences between countries do provide a solid rationale against the use of Western models of government on all countries, such differences have been on a decreasing curve due to the rise in globalization and free market economics which "guarantees an increasing homogenization of all human societies, regardless of their historical origins or cultural inheritances." (Fukuyama, 1992). Such theories basically propose the emergence of a universal society with all countries becoming homogenized and cultural differences have zeroed out. In short, it should become possible to apply the Western model of governments then without risking any inaccuracies caused by cultural relativism since cultural differences would have already so decreased as to become insignificant in the equation. Aside from presuming the Western model to be the best model, it is notable that this theory does not discount the fact that cultural differences do exist today and that these differences make the application of Western models on all countries inaccurate in assessing the country's political progress. Their theory only serves to propose the further development of a universal model on the hypothesis that cultural differences would someday be erased. Since the publication of Fukuyama's book, however, the world has seen that these cultural differences have still persisted despite the trend of globalization because contrary to Fukuyama's prediction, the homogenization of all human societies has actually encountered resistance from the countering force of nationalistic groups around the world. At the end of the day, it still serves to be wary of unilaterally applying the Western models of government in assessing and developing all countries in the world. The main school of thought in this controversy still persist on stressing the importance of cultural relativism in assessing individual countries and warn against unilaterally imposing "universal laws". (Starr, 1991). This is especially true in the growth of democracy in the global scene with the mushrooming of different versions of democracy for different countries. Instead of condemning differing versions of democracy which deviate from the models espoused by Western countries, it will do best to assess a country's government based not on how it manages to fulfill the standards derived from the Western or prevailing model, but on how the particular government's approach works for its people. WORKS CITED Douzinas, C. (2002) The End(s) of Human Rights. Melbourne University Law Review. Vol. 23. p. 43. Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Praeger. Hague, R.& M.Harrop (2004) Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, 6th ed., Palgrave Mitchell, N.J. and McCormick, J.M. (1988) Economic and Political Explanations of Human Rights Violations', World Politics, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 476-498. Starr, H. (1991) Democratic Dominoes: Diffusion Approaches to the Spread of Democracy. Journal of Conflict Revolution 35:6-31. Whitehead, L. (1996) International Aspects of Democratization. In Transitions toDemocracy, Vol. 3, ed. G. O'Donnell, P. Schmitter, and L. Whitehand, pp. 3-46. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Read More