How Far Can Democracy Ever Work - In Asia ?

[rafval]

I dont think it has anything to do with asian values, if you take a look at democracy it only can work in places with high urban, hence middle class populations, thailand has a very high rural population and I doubt there is any country with a high rural population that has a working democracy, the difference in interests between the poor rural and the more wealthy urban people is too great

[jdinasia]

I dont think it has anything to do with asian values, if you take a look at democracy it only can work in places with high urban, hence middle class populations, thailand has a very high rural population and I doubt there is any country with a high rural population that has a working democracy, the difference in interests between the poor rural and the more wealthy urban people is too great

History in developed countries with a democratic government would not prove that out

but it just isn't about Asia

[rafval]

I guess the question is, did they become developed because of democracy, or did democracy work there because they were developed?

I dont think it has anything to do with asian values, if you take a look at democracy it only can work in places with high urban, hence middle class populations, thailand has a very high rural population and I doubt there is any country with a high rural population that has a working democracy, the difference in interests between the poor rural and the more wealthy urban people is too great

History in developed countries with a democratic government would not prove that out

but it just isn't about Asia

[jdinasia]

I guess the question is, did they become developed because of democracy, or did democracy work there because they were developed?

I dont think it has anything to do with asian values, if you take a look at democracy it only can work in places with high urban, hence middle class populations, thailand has a very high rural population and I doubt there is any country with a high rural population that has a working democracy, the difference in interests between the poor rural and the more wealthy urban people is too great

History in developed countries with a democratic government would not prove that out

but it just isn't about Asia

Well I would say that the USA became developed because of natural resources ... but it wasn't THAT many years ago that 50% of the country worked in farming

[Prakanong]

I guess the question is, did they become developed because of democracy, or did democracy work there because they were developed?

I dont think it has anything to do with asian values, if you take a look at democracy it only can work in places with high urban, hence middle class populations, thailand has a very high rural population and I doubt there is any country with a high rural population that has a working democracy, the difference in interests between the poor rural and the more wealthy urban people is too great

History in developed countries with a democratic government would not prove that out

but it just isn't about Asia

Read Amyarta Sen - he won the Nobel Prize for his work on development and things like democracy.

[ColPyat]

Hey, who said benevolent dictatorships don't work?? You've never been to my home, have you. I dare you to say that to 'she who must be obeyed'

That's still an ongoing war of attrition in my home.

[rafval]

true, but doesnt Thailand have something like 70% working in farming? I could be wrong there

I guess the question is, did they become developed because of democracy, or did democracy work there because they were developed?

I dont think it has anything to do with asian values, if you take a look at democracy it only can work in places with high urban, hence middle class populations, thailand has a very high rural population and I doubt there is any country with a high rural population that has a working democracy, the difference in interests between the poor rural and the more wealthy urban people is too great

History in developed countries with a democratic government would not prove that out

but it just isn't about Asia

Well I would say that the USA became developed because of natural resources ... but it wasn't THAT many years ago that 50% of the country worked in farming

[jdinasia]

I guess the question is, did they become developed because of democracy, or did democracy work there because they were developed?

I dont think it has anything to do with asian values, if you take a look at democracy it only can work in places with high urban, hence middle class populations, thailand has a very high rural population and I doubt there is any country with a high rural population that has a working democracy, the difference in interests between the poor rural and the more wealthy urban people is too great

History in developed countries with a democratic government would not prove that out

but it just isn't about Asia

Read Amyarta Sen - he won the Nobel Prize for his work on development and things like democracy.

will do ... some day but I'd think that free-market economies <more common in democracies> has more to do with development than the form of government

[Prakanong]

I guess the question is, did they become developed because of democracy, or did democracy work there because they were developed?

I dont think it has anything to do with asian values, if you take a look at democracy it only can work in places with high urban, hence middle class populations, thailand has a very high rural population and I doubt there is any country with a high rural population that has a working democracy, the difference in interests between the poor rural and the more wealthy urban people is too great

History in developed countries with a democratic government would not prove that out

but it just isn't about Asia

Read Amyarta Sen - he won the Nobel Prize for his work on development and things like democracy.

will do ... some day but I'd think that free-market economies <more common in democracies> has more to do with development than the form of government

Aha - but are most (not all) free market economies not democracies?

"Development as Freedom"

"Sen here argues that open dialogue, civil freedoms and political liberties are prerequisites for sustainable development. He tests his theory with examples ranging from the former Soviet bloc to Africa, but he puts special emphasis on China and India. How does one explain the recent gulf in economic progress between authoritarian yet fast-growing China and democratic, economically laggard India? For Sen, the answer is clear: India, with its massive neglect of public education, basic health care and literacy, was poorly prepared for a widely shared economic expansion; China, on the other hand, having made substantial advances in those areas, was able to capitalize on its market reforms. Yet

Sen demolishes the notion that a specific set of "Asian values" exists that might provide a justification for authoritarian regimes. He observes that China's coercive system has contributed to massive famine and that Beijing's compulsory birth control policyAonly one child per familyAhas led to fatal neglect of female children. Though not always easy reading for the layperson, Sen's book is an admirable and persuasive effort to define development not in terms of GDP but in terms of "the real freedoms that people enjoy."

The book is ten years old now and the research is older so the Indian comparison might need to be updated although i would say the Indian economic growth is still rather skewed.

Good luck with Sen - he writes a paragraph where a sentence will do but he does try to be exact.

a bit more

"In chapter five Sen ventures into some of the most contested areas of economics. He surveys the role of markets, their efficiency, their ability to provide public goods, and their relationship with the state. And he considers the targeting and means-testing of welfare, suggesting that capability-directed provisioning may create less distortion of market incentives.

Economic needs are considered by some to be more important than political freedoms, but the opposition is, Sen argues, mostly illusory. He also reminds us that democracy, as well as being an end in itself, plays an instrumental role in giving people a voice and a constructive role in shaping values and norms.

"Political rights, including freedom of expression and discussion, are not only pivotal in inducing social responses to economic needs, they are also central to the conceptualization of economic needs themselves."

It is also important to support the effective functioning of democracy: formal rules are not enough without good democratic practice. "

This last bit is very relevant to thailand yesterday, today and tomorrow - the formal rules mean sweet FA if the practice of democracy is as it was yesterday, today and how it is to be practiced in the future.

Edited June 8, 2007 by Prakanong

[jdinasia]

That first paragraph seems to address development

the second one human rights etc ....

(and I noted that free market economies --- or at least mostly free--- are more common in democracies)

[Prakanong]

That first paragraph seems to address development

the second one human rights etc ....

(and I noted that free market economies --- or at least mostly free--- are more common in democracies)

Yes - he argues that but i edited and put in a bit about chapter 5 where he does address the role of markets - I think he does beleive that markets do indee provide the best ay to supply more of the common good to everyone but targetting and means testing of welfare will mean less distortion of market inefficiancies.

Its just at what level you put thatsafety net?

Northern Europe want it pretty high, the UK less so and the USA even less - in Asia its almost non-existent but even Singapore has some help for its poorest.

[jdinasia]

and Sg is far more developed economically than Thailand ....

but the point of it being democracies as the be all and end all of governments? Not my viewpoint!

By nature I AM very egalitarian ... but I know that is a dream that has NEVER seen reality

[Prakanong]

and Sg is far more developed economically than Thailand ....

but the point of it being democracies as the be all and end all of governments? Not my viewpoint!

By nature I AM very egalitarian ... but I know that is a dream that has NEVER seen reality

Egalitarian - I am too

When I was young and a socialist I dreamed of everyone being equally poor (or rich)

Now equality of opportunity is what I believe in and a meritocracy - never going to totally get it but its a nice aspiration - more so in some laces than others.

[Plus]

Asian Values was ripped apart and seen to be a passing fad with no substance.

Though I generally agree that the so called Asian values are just the same Western values from six centuries ago I wouldn't hurry to dismiss them outright.

There was no visible democratic improvement comparing to economic strides in ten years passed since the book was published and was taken up as a banner by western ideologists.

It appeared that Lee Kwan Yew was finished but let's see who's going to have the final laugh. So far it's Lee's house all the way.

Ten years ago everyone thought that China's open economy would lead to open society. How wrong was that! All throughout Asia people look up to Chinese model now, not to America's.

Who knows what Chinese will do in the next ten years, next twenty? It's entirely within their powers to cause a worldwide economic collapse, you can't bulldoze them with ideology or Nobel winning books. We leave at their mercy.

Seriously, predicting the future of Asia is such a complex task with so many variables that anyone who speaks with any conviction on that is fooling himself.

One thind is certain - Aians are not going to retrace our steps and arrive exactly at where we are now. It's impossible because the world is changing, they live under different influences than 16th century reformists, they have all the history to learn from in front of them, and, most importatnly, "where we are now" point doesn't even exist - our democracies are not fixed in stone, contrary to text books, they always move and fluctuate. Past ten years, the second Clinton and two Bush's were rather depressing from democracy point of view. We presume that it will rebound, but I don't hold my breath yet.

[jdinasia]

Hey now! I LIKED Slick Willy!

[Tilokarat]

I forgot about democracy in Taiwan. In other words, democracy can work in Asia, be it a large country like India or a small one like Taiwan. Nevertheless, it is not easy to move from a 'soft' political system to a 'hard' political system. It does not always matter if the country is predominantly rural or urban.

Burma's problem is that it is difficult to have a unified nation state in which there are so many different and competing agendas depending on whether you are Burman, Shan, Padaung, Karen, Mon, Kachin, Chin, Wa, Chinese and so on. Laos might also face this problem. In Indonesia, the national slogan is pancasila - 'unity in diversity' - a Javanese concept focusing on harmony through consensus. There is tons of diversity, but little unity. Pancasila does not sit well with the devout Muslims in the northern part of Sumatra - Aceh. How does one unite so many different islands, cultures, and religions into one national state.

Britain made the transition from the soft political system of Old Corruption under Sir Robert Walpole to a hard political system of the nineteenth century with much less corruption and more responsibility. The Americans got the 18th British system of Walpole. Canada, Australia and New Zealand got the 19th century British version of responsible government. Even so, it took until the 1920s before all British males had the right to vote, and until 1929 or so before all British women could join the men in casting a ballot.

[Ricardo]

The premise of the thread is arrogant and a touch racist.

Show me a properly operating democracy in the west first, then we can worry about these fellas over here.

Sorry if it seemed so - that was definitely NOT intended.

I tried to make it clear that I don't regard the UK as being anywhere near a perfect democracy, I don't know of one anywhere, but still currently believe it is better than other systems, when it comes to delivering personal freedom to the individual.

And I am a human being first, a Brit or white man second, as far as I can overcome the cultural values that I grew up with, fifty years ago.

But asian culture isn't always the same as western, this may alter the way democracy is viewed or the level which can be achieved, and I wanted to generate a discussion about this, and hopefully to learn something.

I hope that something isn't - that I'm arrogant or racist.

[kdvsn]

I myself come from what I'd describe as a 'semi-democratic country', where we have no contitution (just a parliament elected every 4-5 years, timed whenever the current PM feels they might get re-elected), and media-control lies in relatively few hands who seem to encourage dumbing-down ahead of informed-debate. Most of the people seem not to care about this.

I personally feel that I can live with a less-than-perfect democracy, as long as it permits the maximum achieveable freedom for individuals, including of course myself.

Looking at Thai society, and from a sketchy knowledge of other asian countries, I see a shaky semi-democracy trying to emerge from a recently-feudal past. With many problems along the way.

How far do ThaiVisa members think that any democratic-model can really take hold - and overcome whatever cultural barriers - here or in the rest of asia ?

Japan is in Asia, is it not? At the conclusion of WWII there was no shortage of people who thought that democracy could never catch on in Japan because it was fundamentally in oppostion of it's values and its history.

[Tilokarat]

The reason why I left Japan out is that in India and Taiwan, one has seen parties rotate in power through elections. I cannot remember if Japan has just had one party win elections or not, but the Liberal Democrat Party seems to have monopolised political power in Japan from day one. Without a change in the ruling party at the top, Japan is not very different from Singapore or Malaysia in that you see one-party rule. I do not know enough about South Korea to make a proper analysis. The Philippines...well, an argument could be made, sort of, that there is a kind of democracy there, but the roots seem to be shallow as it is based more on the wealth that certain Sino-Filipino families can spread around at election time.

[kankaroo]

Well considering democracy doesn't exist, I'd say no !

[artao]

Isn't India the largest democracy country in the world? Doesn't India belong to Asia?

Edited June 12, 2007 by artao

[canuckamuck]

I'd say that Democracy as it is in the US or even the UK is not lilkely anytime soon .... Democracy like Mexico? LOL Maybe!

Unlike many people I didn't bring in the baggage of assuming my way is best (or the way I grew up with!)

I'd rather see a benign dictatorship than a callous democracy ... but that is just my opinion!

<edited>

Where does one get one of those benign dictators! are they mail order or can you go to a showroom?

[canuckamuck]

and Sg is far more developed economically than Thailand ....

but the point of it being democracies as the be all and end all of governments? Not my viewpoint!

By nature I AM very egalitarian ... but I know that is a dream that has NEVER seen reality

In reality, Singapore is more like a city than a country and the population has very similar needs and interests. Not a very realistic comparision to most of Asia.

[Mid]

Isn't India the largest democracy country in the world? Doesn't India belong to Asia?

we have a winner ladies and gents