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.
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
