An emergence of a new power dynamic in Asia

[Bitko]

I fail to understand your example of India, what is so great about their democracy? Has it decreased the gap between the rich and poor; has it stopped killings of Assamee freedom fighters, who want seperation from India(BTW, in Indian constitution it is illegal for any state to declare independece, and if they hold referendum, that state and her people loses all democratic rights, and the Indian army can do anything in that state); has it made India a good neighbour? Has it made a dent in its corruption level? Has the wealth in that country helped develop a bigger middle-class? The answer to these question is big NO. Not everything you read in News Paper is the truth, not all that glitter is gold.
No system is perfect, and certain system of gov't is simply not suitable for certain cultures. Let me give a south asian example myself, in Pakistan, honour killing, as it was called , was rampant during democratic regimes, because the people running for office, didn't want to challenge the village goons, and their tradition of honour killings, challenging them would have meant loss of votes. But since this present gov't is not democratic, and since they don't need to care for votes, they are doing very well in putting stop to all kinds of uncivilised acts, including honour killings, in the name of religion.
I would urge people to do more examination of the customs, traditions and cultures of different Asian countries before shoving democracy down their throat.  I personally do appreciate the deomcracy that I have enjoyed in Canada, but I am also very aware that if such system is adopted in China, they are going to experience nothing but chaos.

[Joseph27]

Bitko - there is certain some credence in what you say.  Democracy at all cost as sold to us by different parties is not necessary in everyones interests.  Of course we are told democracy must exist above all else but the examples you site are quite relevant.  Things are not always black and white and often though an open pragmatic society is preferred - it is sometimes not practical.  

[This message has been edited by Joseph27 (edited 05-04-2005).]

[Potemkin Cruise]

Sorry, but I can't let that last post pass.  Tribal honor killings are reflective of an overall cultural repression of women which can be seen in their *denial* of representative rights not as a *result* thereof.  In certain tribal areas, if my research is correct, women were not granted the franchise in Pakistan until 1996 -- and even then, certain jirga have ruled that female voting is un-Islamic, in one case holding that the house anybody permitting women to vote should be burned down(!).  Thats not to say that the current government is not doing a good thing by tackling that nonsense, but it is manifestly NOT the case that democracy CAUSES the problem -- cultural attitudes repressing participation do.

As to India, Im afraid that you are incorrect to say that democracy has done nothing for society.  The majority of Indians, based on polling, support democratic processes.  Reservation politics since the Mandal report has led to a marked increase in lower-caste entry into educational and civil service opportunities.  Certain groups remain, of course, dirt poor, but they are beginning to assert their power in numbers to demand a piece of the pie long denied them.  Finally, to assert that there has been no middle class growth in India since 1947 is, quite frankly, bizarre.

To conclude, nobody is trying to "cram democracy down the throat" of anybody -- well, Bush and co are, but I for the record don't agree with that approach.  On the other hand, if China or any other country wants "international respect and dignity" then it ought to treat its citizens with "respect and dignity".  Transition doesn't have to happen overnight, and democracy in Asia doesn't have to look like it does in the West, but treating your own people like morons in the name of avoiding "chaos" doesn't merit much respect and, over the long term, is likely to lead to even greater chaos (witness the historic power transitions in China to date -- not particularly bloodless, no?).

Whew, ok now am done.

[Potemkin Cruise]

BTW, for people interested in this debate, there is a very, very good speech by Lee Kuan Yew in the ST today (don't laugh) discussing the political and economic evolution of India and China.  In a nutshell after repeating the usual about how markets and democracy are not the sole routes to wealth (true), he goes on to observe: 1) China's public sector is more efficient and better governed (true), 2) the Indian private sector is more dynamic (probably true), 3) China has had the advantage of a more homogeneous population (certainly true), and, here is the kicker, 4) that as China develops a middle class, its political institutions will have to evolve -- dipolomatic speak for "become more representative."  That last point is a very, very interesting thing for him to have said at this juncture in history.

Money quotes come from the reactions from Chinese  and Indian commentators at the conference.  Since I don't have a link for the ST article, I'll quote here:

"Reacting to the speech later, Indian parliamentarian Jairam Ramesh shad it was 'great' that Mr. Lee now believed his country could emerge from the shell it had built for itself.  Professor Jia Qingguo of Peking University said China was more democratic than the Singapore leader had suggested."

Interesting stuff.  Prickly, but interesting.

[Bitko]

I agree with you when you said that, "Transition doesn't have to happen overnight, and democracy in Asia doesn't have to look like it does in the West." Whatever systems are there in different asian countries are a result of the religions, social philosophy/culture, and historical even; these are emelments of political cultures in Asia. In the west., the experiences(religions, social philosophy/culture, and historical events) are not the same as Asia, and within Asia itself was not the same.
Democracy, the name itself that has become the dominant religion in the west, requires certain prerequisites to be fulfilled--an enlightened aware population, a population that has sense of civic responsibility, an educated population, and last but least a population that recognises the rights of an individual despite compromises that a society might have to make. When any one of these criterias are not fulfilled, a democracy can become a oligarchy, as it is in the case of the United States. Democracy is very fragile, those countries that are truly democratic are truly worth of praise---Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc.