Promoting Liberalism in Asia

By Ronald Meinardus

In past decades, liberal democracy and economic freedom have made great advances in all parts of the world. This general trend also applies to Asia, as is documented in the annual "Freedom in the World" surveys published by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation and the "Economic Freedom of the World" reports distributed by the Canadian Fraser Institute.

Interestingly, the Heritage Foundation survey now rates the Asia-Pacific region as the third most politically "free" region of the world — behind the Americas and Western Europe and ahead of the states of the former Soviet Union, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East/North Africa. In the Asia-Pacific region, only eight states (a quarter of the region's total) were rated "free" in 1972, while 13 were "partly free" and 11 "not free." Today, 18 are rated free, 10 partly free and 11 not free. As documented by the Fraser Institute, two East Asian economies once more take the lead in international ratings: Hong Kong and Singapore (followed by the United States, Britain, New Zealand, Switzerland and Ireland). The rankings of other East Asian countries regarding "economic freedom" are as follows: Japan (24), Taiwan (30), Philippines and South Korea (38), Malaysia (51), Thailand (56), Indonesia (77) and China (101).

The expansion of democracy and the market economy are good news for the peoples of the region. It is an empirical fact that economic and political liberalization has created wealth and thus alleviated poverty. "The truth is that some large parts of the poor world are pulling themselves out of poverty while others are not," The Economist opined some weeks ago in an article titled "Liberty's Great Advance." Importantly, those that are pulling themselves out are following the liberal paradigm. This is an ongoing — and highly dynamic — social process of revolutionary dimensions, if viewed in an historical context.

Still, it would be inaccurate to describe East Asia as a liberal paradise. Myanmar and North Korea, two of the worst dictatorships in the world, don't even pay lip service to democratic or economic freedoms. While significant democratic progress has been achieved in many countries in the region, political and economic liberalization is a never-ending process.

In East Asia, as in other parts of the world, domestic as well as international forces are pushing for political and economic reforms. Domestically, these are civil society organizations and political parties, enlightened governments and parliaments, the business community and trade unions, the media and religious groups. In the age of globalization, national affairs are increasingly influenced by international factors; outside actors play an ever greater role. Although some governments are slow in acknowledging this reality, national sovereignty (as a concept developed in the context of the formation of the nation state some 200 years ago) is increasingly being eroded. This also pertains to issues of democracy and human rights, which many democratic governments have included in their foreign policy agenda.

In a recent survey titled "Defending Democracy: A Global Survey of Foreign Policy Trends 1992-2002," American scholars have analyzed how well the governments of 40 countries from different parts of the world have lived up to their commitment to advance the cause of democracy and human freedom.

From the many interesting findings in this report, two are relevant for this commentary: First, the authors ascertain "a strong direct correlation between the level of a country's internal democratic development and its support for democracy abroad." Second, they argue that the so-called established democracies do a better job than other states of promoting and defending democracy abroad. They add, though, that "in practice few regard democracy promotion as in their vital national interests."

It is noteworthy that, following 9/11, security considerations tend to trump democracy promotion concerns in the planning of many governments; this has become particularly clear regarding the U.S. Apart from the reshaped strategic priorities of the sole superpower, domestic forces and factors in some East Asian countries hinder the promotion of a liberal agenda in the region. Foremost is the principle of non interference in the affairs of other countries, which is a "sacred cow" for the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The much-quoted "ASEAN Way" has effectively prevented members from publicly criticizing the policies of other members in public. Efforts by the former government of Thailand to interpret the non interference principle in a more flexible manner ("flexible engagement") were not acceptable to a majority of ASEAN governments. This conservatism explains why this important grouping has yet to come up with any activity related to promoting democracy in the region.

In the 40-country survey, promotion of democracy abroad is graded in four categories (very good, good, fair, poor). South Korea is the only Asian country rated "good" — together with Germany, Spain, the U.S. and Britain. This could be attributed mainly to personal initiatives by former President Kim Dae Jung, who hosted a series of important democracy-related conferences in his country and played an important role in supporting independence for East Timor. Meanwhile, India, Japan, the Philippines and Thailand are graded as "fair," together with France, Nigeria and South Africa. And Indonesia is ranked as "poor," with Jordan, Kenya and Russia.

Aside from the ASEAN principle of non-interference, the weakness of democratic institutions and lack of financial resources are also factors.
There is also a cultural dimension. In some East Asian countries, influential circles contend that democracy and human rights are Western concepts and not suitable for the political and social orders of this part of the world. Fortunately, the notion that Asian and liberal values are not compatible has been dismantled in a convincing manner by Kim. In his article "Is Culture Destiny? The Myth of Asia's Anti-Democratic Values," he has argued that Asians have their own democratic traditions to be proud of. He also refers to a set of "indigenous" Asian democratic ideals. It is worthwhile going back to this text published at the height of the so-called Asian values debate 10 years ago.

As in other parts of the world, it is not cultural values that stand in the way of liberal democracy and market economy in East Asia but political and economic interests of local elites who are afraid of losing their unmerited privileges once a truly liberal order sets in.

Dr. Ronald Meinardus was the former Resident Representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines and will leave Manila late September for a new posting in the Middle East. He writes a blog at www.myliberaltimes.com