DEMOCRACY, EAST & WEST



DEMOCRACY, EAST & WEST

by Lam Le Trinh

When it was invented in Athens in the 5th century BC, democracy was a form of government very different from what it is today. In its etymological sense, democracy means “ rule of the people”, direct participation of the citizens in the running of the day to day affairs of the city state. This was possible due to the small size of Athens and its citizenry which included only free - born male Athenians and excluded women, slaves. Today, democracy no longer implies that the citizens participate directly in the decision making process; rather, it stands for a form of government in which the election of a small number of the citizen’s representatives is a key element. From direct participation, democracy has gradually come to mean indirect participation through representation.
If it seems that in the Western world democracy is the only plausible form of government, it has not always been so. Throughout the centuries, the greatest Western thinkers, from Aristotle to Augustine and even the Fathers of the American Revolution, have always considered democracy with a great deal of suspicion. They have all equalled “ the rule of the people” with “ the rule of the mob”, the ignorant mass as opposed to the rule of the enlightened and educated elites. It was only with the French Revolution that the people really experienced a sense of empowerment.
It can be argued that democracy today is conceptualized in two ways:
1)   Formalist: In this perspective, a regime is democratic insofar as it guarantees the existence
`of political parties and allows elections to be held at regular intervals. This is the traditional way in which Western thinkers, in general, and political scientists in particular, think of democracy.
2 ) Substantivist: This is an approach which looks beyond the purely formal aspect and inquires into the realities behind the form. In which sense can we say that the results of elections are really the expression of the people’s will ? How representatives are the political parties ? How much power does the people really have over their rulers ?

The democracy versus development debate

Concern about realities behind the form was given concrete expression in the long-standing debate on the relationship between democracy and development. This debate reached its peak in the 1960’s and 1970’s, following the emancipation of the European colonies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Upon withdrawing from their former colonial territories, the European powers saw to it that the new nations adopted a democratic form of government, which they embraced in Europe, but ironically enough, did not establish in their overseas dependencies. As a result, an overwhelming majority of the so-called Third World nations have formal democracy. It quickly became obvious, however, that there can be vast discrepancies between this formal democratic facade and the local realities which are often characterized by poverty, illiteracy and lack of infra-structure.
In the 1960’s, the dominant view among experts on politics and development was that no democratic rule can be achieved as long as the basic conditions of development have not been realized. It was also during this decade that the socialist countries of Eastern Europe reached the height of their economic and military power. While democracy was still absent from these nations, their leaders presented its advent as something that can be realistically expected in the near future. A state of affairs which seemed to justify the “no democracy without development” view.
By the 1980’s, however, more and more analysts became sceptical of this perspective. It was thought that the best way to fight against poverty and under-development is to arm the people with democratic institutions which can effectively prevent authoritarian regimes from draining the country resources. India is often cited as the example par excellence of a democratic regime which did not have to wait for development. The fall of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites consecrated this view and turned it into a postulate. By the early 1990’s, few analysts are left who still argue in favor of the “ no democracy without development” position. On the contrary, the current trend says that it is a democratic government which paves the way to sound development of a government.

Two points need to be made here:
First, this argument is based on the implicit assumption of a close relationship between democracy and market capitalism, what President Clinton often refers to as “ market democracy”. Democracy, in other words, means first and foremost freedom for individual initiatives in the economic sphere rather than political freedom. This strategy may be successful under some but not all circumstances. Introducing total market liberalism into a context where no legal regulations previously exist for a state’s measure of price and distribution control can lead to market anarchy and pronounced social inequalities, a situation which aggravates rather than improve the prospects for real democracy. This is ilustrated by the case of Russia and other former communist countries.
Second, the argument for democracy as the condition for development seems to be in contradiction with events in East Asia. Here, we have the examples of the NICs (new industrialized countries, i.e. Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia) where remarkable economic development has taken place under a system of government considered by the West as autocratic. In these NICs, a movement toward democratization has been perceptible in the 1990’s after the uninterrupted boom of the 1980’s. This seems to support the old view that development encourages democracy rather than the other way around. We also have the case of the the People’s Republic of China where full market liberalism has been introduced in the new economic zones under an authoritarian communist regime.
In the early 1990’s, a wave of democratization swept over most of the African continent. This is related to what is often known among experts as “ aid conditionality “. The Western aid donors have begun to link their aid to conditions that the regimes open the way for elections and political parties. The African nations, burdened by debts, have relented one after the other. It remains to be seen whether externally imposed democracy will bring about the deep structural changes necessary for socio - economic development.

The dilemmas of democracy

There are many dilemmas attached to the notion of democracy. Succinctly, these are:
1 ) The free play of political parties implies that the party whose programme is most appealing to the voters is likely to win their votes. As a corollary, the party which suggests budget cuts, increases tax, austerity, etc…., has fewer chances of winning. Here lies the crux of the “ democracy versus development “ problem. Can a country which is caught in the circle of poverty and under- development afford to build its political system on the free play of political parties in elections ?
2 ) Insofar as political participation requires access to information rather than disinformation, a certain level of education / literacy is a necessary condition for democracy. However, even when this condition exists, a certain level of socio - economic stability is also required, to prevent extremists from gaining votes from those sectors of the population which may be alienated by unemployment, generalized lack of opportunities, social instability, etc..Under such circumstances, free and perfectly democratic elections can bring to power undemocratic forces. This was seen in 1930’s Germany with the electoral victory of Hitler and the 1990’s Algeria with the victory of the Islamic Front of Salvation (IFS). Is it democratic to ignore the outcome of elections if this outcome threatens democratic liberties ?
3 ) Finally, as mentioned above, Western democracy is a form of government particular to the West - born, developed and experimented in the West, by Westerners, for Westerners. To transfer this model to societies with different cultural traditions and histories can be problematic. We must be prepared for the need for extensive adjustments. We must be willing to consider the range of cultural variations as the differences in historical contexts and material resources. Otherwise, democratization becomes westernization and cultural imperialism. The danger for this is real. A mere decade ago, the countries which today champion the cause of democracy and human rights had no qualms in supporting oppressive regimes. The champions did not worry too much about their commitment to democracy. Democracy and human rights may be intrinsic values; but because the western powers often make an arbitrary use of these concepts, the credibility of their motivations is often weak among the non- western world.
4 ) Over and beyond the problems of cultural traditions and historical contexts, it remains true that the world in the last decade of the century is very different from the world which emerged after World War II. The immense progress in telecommunication during the past twenty to thirty years means that authoritarian regimes no longer have the same control over their populations as they did in, for example, the 1950s. People are gaining more access to information from external sources, which totally escape the censorship of the national authorities. In this globalized context, ideas such as democracy and human rights become just another item to export, exchange, borrow and copy. Dictatorship and other forms of authoritarianism become more costly and cultural arguments against democracy become increasingly difficult to sustain.

Vietnam’s transition to democracy.
Like Russia and the other eastern european countries, Vietnam is emerging from half a century of communist rule. In addition, it has been through a series of devastating wars. The Vietnamese leaders seem reconciled with the idea that economic liberalization is the only way to go. Since 1978, through the policy Ñoåi Môùi, Vietnam has adopted a de facto market economy rather similar to that of the People Republic of China. What may be the outcome of Vietnam’s present course of action ?. Several scenarios are possible. Here are two of the extremes;
1 ) Best case scenario: Economic liberalization triggers general development, which in turn leads to social stability and political liberalization, thus paving the way for democracy.
2 ) Worse case scenario: Economic liberalization is not accomplished by constitutionally and legally guaranteed political liberalization (multi- party politics, free elections, human rights and the right to private property etc…..). This situation can create deep social inequalities, corruption, and radicalization may settle in, thus impeding a genuine, home- grown democracy and the establishment of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Lam Le Trinh
Huntington Beach, California