Political Transitions in East and South East Asia - Essay Example

Political science al affiliation The political transitions in East and South East Asia Question The democracies of China and Taiwan Both China and Taiwan have had democracy issues in the past decades and it is for this reason that they form the basis of this study. Before going down to the specifics of democracies in these two nations, it is imperative to first define democracy, understand its concepts and explain democratic transition. There are five key concepts of democracy (Linz, & Stepan, 1997). These include: Worth of people Equity of all people The concept that majority rules Necessity of compromise Individual freedom a) Worth of people Democracy embraces the recognition of the fact that people are worth and ought to be dignified equally. As a matter of fact, democracy dictates that every person’s dignity must be respected and recognized by everyone surrounding them including their societies at all times. It is considered undemocratic in the event that people are respected and dignified selectively and with discriminatory perspectives. This concept of democracy illustrates that on some occasions the welfare of one or just a couple of people can be subordinated by the interests of the majority in order to achieve a common good. b) Equity of all people It is important to note that democracy does not it whatever circumstances promote equality of condition like in communism. Equality of condition comes with favoritism and categorization into groups of similar characteristics. On the other hand, democracy promotes equality of opportunity. According to equality of opportunity, everyone has then freedom to develop his or her talent to totality or as much as he or she cares to. c) The concept that majority rules Democracy is founded on the principle that the majority is more often right that wrong. When it comes to politics, democracy dictates that the majority is better positioned to make sane political decisions as compared to the minority or a single individual. One ought to note that sometimes democracy is seen as a trial and error process in which some decisions may not be absolute best but eventually become satisfactory because of its support from then majority faction. Despite the fact that democracy seems to dwell so much on the majority, it is noteworthy that it does not overlook the minority entirely. On the other hand, democracy gives some respect to the minority. This is done by giving then minority a chance to join the majority faction through legal means. Additionally, democracy also ensures that then minority in a society is given equal chance as the majority to voice its views. d) Necessity of compromise Compromising can be defined as the process of adjusting, reconciling and blending competing views with the aim of finding common ground that is most acceptable to the largest number of stakeholders involved. Democracy demands for the acceptance of compromise. Compromise in democracy is, therefore, important for a number of reasons. For instance, if all people are meant to be equally important despite having different views, it is only through compromising that things can get done. Additionally, most political and public questions have more than two sides. This is an implication that these questions can be answered in a number of ways. For this reason, compromise gives the opportunity of finding acceptable solutions to such questions. e) Individual freedom On most occasions, societies will not last long under an anarchy system of governance. This is because it will eventually lead to dictatorship. It is for this reason that democracy insist that everyone should be free to do as she or he pleases so long as their actions will accommodate the freedom of every other person. However, democracy faces the challenge of achieving the most appropriate balance between the freedom of people and the needs of the society in which these people live in. Definition of Democratic transition Democratic transition can be defined as the process of regime change in which a nation or state changes its mode of ruling from totalitarian from of governance to a more all-inclusive from of ruling. As such, democratic transition sets a society in a path that plays a significant role in shaping its political development and subsequent economic growth (Guilhot, 2005). The inception of democracy and its subsequent embracement took many years in which four major transition theories were involved. Nations across the world chose to incorporate democracy in their ways of governance through gradual processes that incorporated the transition theories. Dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, totalitarian regimes and the third wave democratization comprises of the four phases of democratic transition witnessed in the world. The democracies of both China and Taiwan China and Taiwan have striking similarities in their political systems. These similarities are majorly derived from the fact that the two societies share a common language, history and to an extent culture. In addition, both their political systems are majorly attributed to the revolutionary politics in China during the early 20th century. It is noteworthy that both regimes evolved from the presumably new forms of the authoritarian rules after the political traumas that lasted for decades in their specific geographical locations. For China, the political reforms are evolved from the political turmoil, mass blood-shed and revolutionary commotion during the Mao Zedong periods. For Taiwan, on the other hand, political reforms emanated from the surrender of the KMT towards the island after it was defeated by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949 (Huntington, 1991). Following the periods of political instability, these two regions experienced remarkable economic growth that went a long way in transforming their political systems. When it comes to democracy, however, Taiwan seems to be more democratic as compared to its sister China. Various characteristics of the existing systems in China still indicate some level of deprivation of freedom and equal treatment. For instance, the 1959 collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of industries in China made the Chine Communist Party to declare that the nation had achieved socialism. However, after a number of decades, this scheme failed to bare fruits. All that came out of the declaration was disaster. In 1987, more than three decades later, the party asserted that China was only at its initial stage of socialism. As a matter of fact, one of China’s leaders, Deng Xiaoping indicated that China’s version of socialism lacked all the prerequisites of socialism. When making an unequivocal evaluation of the periods between 1950s and 1990s of both China and Taiwan, one immediately realizes that Taiwan has a remarkable story of political and social transformation as a result of democracy. Amidst formidable domestic and international challenges that were brought about by the reign of the Kuomintang (KMT), Taiwan seems to have swiftly and steadily transformed into political democracy. This is in complete contradiction of its sister state China that went through a number of uncertain years to achieve half as mush democratization and political transformation as Taiwan. Prior to the mid-1980s, Taiwan was faced with myriad political injustices in which political leaders enjoyed unimaginable amounts of power. As such, they tried really hard to maintain the power structures in what appeared to be a quest to maintain the status quo. Despite having had bigger political and socio-economic problems as compared to China, Taiwan is currently seen as more democratic and transformed (Kim, 2011). Question 2 Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes Discussions about democracy cannot go without the mention of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Before discussing the details of totalitarianism and relating it to authoritarianism, it is imperative to define the term totalitarian regime or totalitarianism. Scholars have defined totalitarianism as a political system that the state exercises total authority over its subjects and makes all efforts to control both the private and public aspects of the people or societies (Hood, 2004). There are a number of factors that would constitute a hardcore totalitarian regime that distinguish it from the ordinary and regular authoritarian regime. As opposed to the totalitarian regime, the authoritarian regime is more governance-based as compared to the totalitarian regime that is society-based. That aside, authoritarianism constitutes of a single power holder in which one person holds total power over the subjects. On some occasions, such people are referred to as dictators because they rule according to their own instincts and never seek others’ opinion when it comes to governance. It is imperative to note that power in this kind of governance is somewhat monopolized to a single political regime (Diamond, 1997). Operative features of totalitarianism There are a number of indicators of a totalitarian regime. One of the most significant indicators of such a regime is an apocalyptical ideology that openly announces the complete obliteration of the old order in readiness to usher in the new government. Such an indicator is always accompanied by festivities and myths that are meant to commemorate the entry to power. It may also at times include rituals, cults and catechism that are directed towards commemorating the destiny of the newly elected or appointed offices. Another significant feature of the totalitarian regime is the economic-bureaucratic collectivism which is meant to contribute to meeting the regime’s interests or promises to the populace. Additionally, this feature is also intended to coordinate productive forces on which the regime pillars on. Monopolistic control of the media is also one of the features for totalitarianism that cannot go unmentioned. Such regimes always seek to take full control over the media with the aim of dictating all that is announced and aired by the media personnel. There are a number of factors that would constitute a hardcore totalitarian regime that distinguish it from the ordinary and regular authoritarian regime. As opposed to the totalitarian regime, the authoritarian regime is more governance-based as compared to the totalitarian regime that is society-based. That aside, authoritarianism constitutes of a single power holder in which one person holds total power over the subjects. On some occasions, such people are referred to as dictators because they rule according to their own instincts and never seek others’ opinion when it comes to governance. It is imperative to note that power in this kind of governance is somewhat monopolized to a single political regime. There is a distinctive relationship between the operative and hardcore features of a political regime. For instance, hardcore and operative feature of a political regimes are related in the sense that they both have dictatorial tendencies. In both cases, the political regimes tend to exercise utter control over the key pillars of an economy. Additionally, both come as a result of real or perceived change from authoritarian to totalitarian political regimes. One ought to note that the change in political regimes can be categorized into either genetic or developmental change. These two types of changes in a political regime have significant distinctions including the fact that developmental change comes as a result of inevitable forces both in the political and economic spheres. Genetic change, on the other hand, comes as a result of processes and procedures borrowed from a previous regime by the incumbent regime (Boix, 2003). In the event that a totalitarian regime becomes more benevolent or less repressive, relaxes its control over the populace, give room for the development of private enterprises and resort to laws then it still remains as a totalitarian authority. This is because the totalitarian regime focuses on the society as compared to governance hence these changes will still make the regime totalitarian. However, in the event that these changes were effected on an authoritarian regime, the regime would change from authoritarian to totalitarian. Question 3 The Third Wave of democratization The phrase the ‘third wave of democratization’ is majorly attributed by scholars to what is considered the democratic evolution throughout the developing world across Europe, Africa, Latin America, Asia and other parts of the world. The third wave of democratization has a number of causes. This section of the assignment therefore provides the causes of the third wave of democratization in comparison with the other propellers of previous waves of democratization. According to recent scholars, the inception and subsequent rise of the famous third wave of democratization has five major causative factors. These include: The decrease of the authenticity of authoritarian regimes The efforts to broaden democracy by external forces like the United States of America and European Union The factor of regional contingency The widespread growth of global economies Changes realized in the Catholic Church The decrease of the authenticity of authoritarian regimes The third wave of democratization is thought to have been primarily caused by the decrease of the authenticity of authoritarian regimes. During these times, there was pressure from the societies to embrace competitive elections and democratic governance. It is during these periods that societies were thriving to achieve economic development as a way of attaining independence and subsequent democratic governance. The efforts to broaden democracy by external forces like the United States of America and European Union Another cause of the third- wave was the pressure to promote democracy by external forces like the United States of America and European Union. There was wide criticism on communism and instead nations across the globe called for the promotion of socialism (Colomer, 1995). It is for this reason that democracy began to reign amongst societies in what was then referred to as the third wave of democratization. The factor of regional contingency Regional contingency was also a major factor that played an imperative role in the formation of the third-wave democratization. This was described by many as the snowball effect. These periods marked the transition of regimes from authoritarian governance to more democratic forms of ruling. It happened almost automatically that other countries followed suit as their neighboring nations began to embrace democracy. Democracy had succeeded in other nations and it is for this reason that their neighboring nations became envious of them. The widespread growth of global economies Economic development is widely associated with democratization. It is important to note that economic development realized during periods prompted the modernization of less developed nations. During these times, there was pressure from the societies to embrace competitive elections and democratic governance. These modernizations included a number of structural changes like increased urbanization, rising middle classes (Maldin, & Vidović, 2007). Changes realized in the Catholic Church During these periods, the Catholic Church experienced a number of changes that compelled Vatican II to emphasize individual rights. That notwithstanding, the church also played a pivotal role in opposing the authoritarian rule that had reigned in a number of states by then. It is worth noting that this shift in the manner in which the world viewed individual rights was particularly important for countries that embraced Catholicism like the Latin America, Philippines, Hungary, Poland and the Mediterranean nations. As compared to the previous waves of democratization, then third wave democratization has the most significant effects in the democratization of the world. Previously, education and wealth were the major causes of democratization. It was argued that a higher GDP per capita had a close relationship with democracy. Nonetheless, there were claims that wealthy democracies had high chances of embracing authoritarianism and this was evidenced by the rise of one of the world’s renowned dictators; Adolf Hitler. Similarly, education correlates to wealth and it is for this reason that education was also one of the factors that led to democratization before the third wave democratization (Colomer, 1995). How democratization affect the system’s capacity to address pressing economic challenges There are a number of ways through which democratization can be resourceful in addressing challenging economic problems. For example, unemployment is one of the major economic tussles that most economies try to avert. Democratization is a process that promotes equality and fairness. For this reason, citizens from democratic nations tend to embrace fairness and equality and would therefore be in a position to award employment opportunities according to competence and not favoritism and nepotism. Free international trade is also a major concern for economic growth. In cases where nations fail to engage in gainful international trade, there is bound to be poor economic growth and development in these nations. However, it is noteworthy that democratization amongst countries encourages free interaction of nations and hence provides room for free movement of goods across borders. As such, free international trade is promoted and this always has a direct positive impact on economic development for all the nations involved. Question 4 The four major transition theories The inception of democracy and its subsequent embracement took many years in which four major transition theories were involved. Nations across the world chose to incorporate democracy in their ways of governance through gradual processes that incorporated the transition theories. Dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, totalitarian regimes and the third wave democratization comprises of the four phases of democratic transition witnessed in the world. There are certain concepts and principles associated with each phases of dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, totalitarian regimes and the third wave democratization. For instance, dictatorship authorities were majorly characterized by they exercised utter control over their subjects. Additionally, it is worth noting that this type of regime made sure that no opinions were sought from the public and that the populace was subjected to utter submissiveness to the authority. Another important aspect about the dictatorship mode of authority was the fact that rebels and opponents of the regime were eliminated or intimidated to become submissive to the regime. Dictatorship was followed by the authoritarian regime or what many refer to as authoritarianism. This mode of regime can be described as a more civilized form of dictatorship. As mush there was some iota of democracy when it came to authoritarian regime, subjects of the authority did not have the freedom to fully exercise some basic rights the rights of the media, rights of expression and most importantly the right to say no to dictatorship leadership. The authoritarian regime was followed by the totalitarian regime. It is noteworthy that this form of regime was more focused on the society as compared to authoritarian regime that was rather focused on governance. For this reason, totalitarianism has been defined as a political system that the state exercises total authority over its subjects and makes all efforts to control both the private and public aspects of the people or societies. This form of regime was characterized by a number of features including its apocalyptical ideology that openly announces the complete obliteration of the old order in readiness to usher in the new government. In addition to that, it was also characterized by the economic-bureaucratic collectivism which was meant to contribute to meeting the regime’s interests or promises to the populace. The economic-bureaucratic feature was also intended to coordinate productive forces on which the totalitarian regime had a lot to borrow from (Guilhot, 2005). Monopolistic control of the media was also one of the most celebrated features for totalitarianism that could never be unmentioned when it comes to discussions of totalitarianism. Such regimes always seek to take full control over the media with the aim of dictating all that is announced and aired by the media personnel. The third wave democratization marked the last phase of democratic transition in the entire world. According to recent scholars, the third wave democratization was a recipe of entire freedom on the people in which subjects exercised total freedom. It is for this reason that nations still make reference from the concepts and principle that guided this regime. It is worth noting that this transition phase had a number of causes that were widely agreed upon by the populace. According to modern scholars, the beginning and subsequent rise of the well-known third wave of democratization has five major contributory factors including the decrease of the authenticity of authoritarian regimes, regional contingency and the efforts to broaden democracy by external forces like the United States of America and European Union. The widespread growth of global economies and the changes realized in the Catholic Church were also major causative factors of the third wave democratization. References Boix, C. (2003). Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Colomer, J. M. (1995). Game theory and the transition to democracy: The Spanish model. Hants ;Brookfield, Vt: Elgar. Diamond, L. (1997). Themes and perspectives. Baltimore [u.a.: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Edozie, R. K. (2009). Reconstructing the third wave of democracy: Comparative African democratic politics. Lanham: University Press Of America. Guilhot, N. (2005). The democracy makers: Human rights & international order. New York: Columbia University Press. Hood, S. J. (2004). Political development and democratic theory: Rethinking comparative politics. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Julian J. Rothbaum distinguished lecture series: Vol. 4. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kim, H. M. (2011). Korean democracy in transition: A rational blueprint for developing societies. Lexington, Ky: University Press of Kentucky. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1997). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Baltimore, Md. [u.a.: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Mainwaring, S. (1998). Rethinking party systems theory in the third wave of democratization: The importance of party system institutionalization. Notre Dame, Ind: Univ., Helen Kellogg Inst. for Internat. Studies. Maldini, P., & Vidović, D. (2007). Transition in Central and Eastern European countries: Experiences and future perspectives. Zagreb: CPI. Parajulee, R. P. (2000). The democratic transition in Nepal. Lanham [u.a.: Rowman & Littlefield. Read More