SESSION SUMMARY Interactive Session Cultural Impulse in Politics: Asian Experiences and Perspectives October 14, 2006 I.
Background Over the years, many parts of Asia have adopted democratic systems of government. It would be valuable to research the evolution of Asian democracies and reforms to find out what issues Asians are most concerned about in democratic governance in their respective societies. Against this background, Civic Exchange embarked on a project to look at the cultural impulses in Asian politics to explore how ideas from the East and West had affected democratic practices in various jurisdictions. Civic Exchange identified seven research partners in Asia to take part in this project: Subhash Agrawal, India Focus (India); Shamsul A. B., Malaysia University (Malaysia); Chu Yun-han, Taiwan National University (Taiwan); Mariko Tanigaki, Tokyo University (Japan); Yeo Lay-hwee, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (Singapore); Zheng Ding, Renmin University (China);1 and Selina Chen and Christine Loh, Civic Exchange (Hong Kong, China).
II. Research and Deliberation Each participating scholar submitted a paper examining the cultural impulses in politics in their respective societies. A seminar was organised in Hong Kong on 14 October 2006 to enable the scholars to exchange views with each other as well as to discuss with a group of thoughtful people from diverse backgrounds how political systems and politics are affected by history, culture and socio-economics.2 III. Key insights a) India Looking at the ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ of democracy is a useful way to understand democracy in India. The ‘hardware’ (democratic institutions and routine practices), already exist in India. However, the ‘software’ (habits and mentality) is still not yet well-established. Despite the fact that India is the biggest operating democracy in the world, people in the country still have not yet developed a habit of democracy in their daily lives. This implies 1
Zheng Ding of Remin University was unable to complete his paper or participate in the seminar due to health problems.
2
The seminar was divided into two parts: 1) Panel discussion, in which participating researchers shared their insights on democratic development in their respective jurisdictions; and 2) Moderated discussion session during which the audience exchanged views and ideas with participating researchers. 1
that the society lacks the ‘social capital’ to achieve a real democracy. India also lacks good governance. Authority and power are still held by those from privileged backgrounds (the caste system mentality continues) and there are “big name” family legacies. Corruption remains pervasive in government. If India can focus on building the ‘software’ (social capital), Indian democracy will be able to develop greater depth as it continues to evolve. b) Singapore The slow speed of democratic development in Singapore is the result of three contextual factors and one personality factor: 1) the country’s small size; 2) its location; 3) its heterogeneous population, and 4) the influence of Lee Kuan Yew. Whilst Lee has provided a measure of stability his continuing political presence also affects Singapore’s policies. It is doubtful whether the current Singapore system will outlast Lee. How the post-Lee system may evolve is an open question. Singaporeans believe more in good governance than democracy. The question of “how to achieve good governance” is under increasing public scrutiny because the people feel they are paying high taxes and the government must deliver. c) Malaysia Malaysia is a pluralistic society with different ethno-religious groups. The country has always been in a situation of ‘stable tension’. Nevertheless, Malaysians have adopted a continuous, open, rational and peaceful discourse approach to reconcile their differences. The concept of Kerajaan is essential to understanding the politics and governance in Malaysia. The elements of the Islam-based Kerajaan are constantly reconstituted. d) Japan In the past, Japan’s political system has always been seen as the key to its success. However, such a perception has changed over the years and there is a greater appreciation of the importance of cultural influences, although it has yet to lead to wider and deeper discussion. The Japanese have a high sense of trust in the government to provide public goods. The emperor system also serves to act as a stabilising factor in politics. Bottom-up decision making was the basis of the Japanese system and it has been rather difficult to perform strong leadership. However, after experiencing major social changes brought by globalisation, top-down decision making has been introduced in the system of Japan and there are less avenues available to query leadership. The Japanese are now more concerned about Japan’s development, resulting in a growing desire for political participation. e) Taiwan Taiwan is experiencing a crisis of democratic governance. The old authoritarian regime (KMT) is still seen by many people as relatively more stable and less corrupt than the current regime (DPP). The people believe the economic benefits arising from growth were more fairly distributed in the past. Overall, the old regime set a relatively high benchmark for the new regime to meet. The current political crisis in Taiwan is related to the conflict of national identity between ‘Taiwanese’ and ‘Chinese’ and how Taiwan should position itself with regard to Mainland China. These are emotional issues which lead to strong arguments, too often without regard to due process. A compounding factor is the high level of corruption in Taiwan. Democracy involves people sharing an imagination and without such a ‘shared 2
imagination’ democracy will run into trouble. Liberal democratic values are not prevailing in Taiwan today. Politicians sometimes break the law and can get away with it on the grounds that they are acting for the public good. f) Hong Kong Hong Kong has a long history of British colonial rule and a British style of governance, i.e. liberal but authoritarian. The colonial system co-opted the business and professional elites into the system through patronage and appointment. By 1985 this was transformed into today’s two functional election systems that select the chief executive and half the members of the legislature, respectively. Under colonial rule, the people accepted colonial governance on the grounds that it brought economic benefits through growth and opportunity for the disadvantaged to get ahead. However, the post-1997 system, which is modelled upon the colonial structure, has come under increasing strain as it is seen to be unfair in terms of both political power and distribution of economic benefits. British liberal attitudes did create a vibrant civil society in the latter years of colonial rule, which established democratic attitudes. Post-materialist values of trust, autonomy and participation are on the rise.
IV. Discussion Session Summary Four key themes emerged during the discussion session: a) common cultural factors affecting democratic development in Asia; b) rule of law; c) what democracy means; and d) achieving democracy. a) Common cultural factors affecting democratic development in Asia While no over-arching concept could be identified that could be said to affect democratic development in Asia, it was felt that Asian societies place greater emphasis on the ‘collective’ rather than the ‘individual’, and put ‘substance’ ahead of ‘procedures’. As such, there is greater acceptance of the ‘ends justifying the means’ and a lesser focus on due process. Apart from these differences, it may be useful to explore democracies in Asia by examining the levels of modernisation of various jurisdictions, although ‘marketisation’ should not be confused with true modernisation. b) Rule of law Confucianism is deeply rooted in East Asian societies, and it is fundamentally in conflict with the concept of rule of law. In China today, people still regard authority as the law. Moreover, despite the fact that democracy should not have to rely on a leader, Asian societies still place too much focus on strong leaders and their leadership. Beyond this observation, some societies have developed a strong respect for the rule of law, which is especially true in Hong Kong and among the middle and upper echelons of Indian society, which relate to their British colonial experience. In the case of Taiwan, where there is political turmoil over the DPP government, there is a fear that past gains in the rule of law are eroding. c) What democracy means Democracy is seen as an opportunity that people decide whether to take advantage of. Democracy is not just about establishing democratic institutions; but also about people sharing democratic values. Democracy is multi-dimensional and should bring justice, i.e. substantive equality, to society. If it cannot do that, democracy will not be seen as sufficient or legitimate. Democracy is about fairness of opportunity, openness and a sound rule of law. A constant effort is required to sustain the benefits of a democratic 3
system. The major challenge ahead for Asian jurisdictions is whether democracy can address the problems brought by economic inequality and globalisation. In the case of Singapore, Singaporeans now want the government to deliver something more than just economic benefits. They are beginning to demand equality in power. In India, people enjoy democracy, but democracy has not yet led to good governance. For Japan, people have to address a new question concerning how Japan should be governed in the 21st century. d) Achieving democracy In developing democracy, Asian societies need to consider the relevant experiences of other countries, both Eastern and Western, although every country needs to find its own unique version of democracy. Hong Kong is seen to already possess the necessary conditions for democracy to flourish, including respect for rule of law, property rights and freedom of speech. However, while Hong Kong is seen to have the idea of democracy, there is no leadership to create it and Hong Kong people may not be doing enough to pursue it for themselves. In the case of Mainland China, questions were raised as to the influence of those who had spent time studying and working outside the country and how it may change the ‘imagination’ of what China can be. In Malaysia, people recognise the need to deal effectively with religious and ethnic diversity through institutionalising tolerance. Moreover, just having elections is not sufficient to bring true democracy because there is still a strong attachment to distributing power and influence through other means. Besides, some have also argued that it was Islam that unified the Malay sultans in confronting the encroachment of western imperialism.
V. Conclusion Six papers will be published in November 2006. There is a high level of interest to continue using a cultural perspective to explore democratic development in Asia by deepening the research, involving more jurisdictions, and taking the current work to other parts of Asia, as well as outside Asia, for deliberation and debate.
4