Everything must pass
Thursday, 18 December 2008, 8:07 am | 1,625 views
Timothy Tan
Why authoritarianism in Asia has met its death knell
In 1997, the American political journal The New Republic ran an article by Nobel laureate and economist Amartya Sen. In the article, bluntly titled Human Rights and Asian Values (1), Sen launched an unreserved attack on a concept which had recently gained currency – a concept then known as “Asian values”.
First articulated in the mid-1990s at the height of an economic cycle, its foremost evangelists were our Minister Mentor, and former Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad. Having emerged from a period of record growth in their respective economies, both leaders spoke from deeply fortified positions in regional and international politics. Deep enough, that they could afford to mount what sociology students might call a dialectical challenge: an alternative to the perceived hegemony of Western civilisation.
Returning to the article in question, Sen devotes a large part of his argument to examining the historical precedents, or lack thereof, that would point toward a unity of cultures and mores across the Asian continent. Not surprisingly, there is little evidence to support this claim. For instance, both Taiwan and Singapore have at one time or another appropriated the teachings of Confucius as part of national ethos, but toward vastly different ends and political outcomes: one to foster a blend of corporatism and paternalism within the state, and the other in support of civil discourse and an open political environment.
These conclusions are not news to anyone with the barest knowledge of history. Revealingly, a homogeneous Asia is actually an inherited colonial myth, reaching back to a period where countries either belonged to “the Orient” or “the Occident”. Also, such an artificial dichotomy conveniently leaves out the continents of Africa and South America – two continents which have been home to political systems of every imaginable stripe, from the dictatorial regimes of Zimbabwe or Sudan, to the socialist republics of Venezuela and Cuba, to the liberal democracies of South Africa or Colombia.
Amid all this misinformation, Sen places some of the blame, at least, on the parade of intellectuals in the Western tradition that have sought patent for every value and institution that makes up our present understanding of human rights. Ancient Greece and Rome, Sen reminds us, were cultures that openly endorsed slavery, sexism and racism – hardly a suitable candidate for the cradle of democracy. Contemporary Europe may have its human-rights monitors and commissions, but it was not too long ago that Fascism had marched into (almost) every corner of this continent, under the banner of Militarist and Nationalist values. Clearly, tracing the roots of democracy and human rights is more a question of when, not where.
But Sen demolishes a myth that is much less mundane, forcing “Asianists” – a term as inscrutable as it sounds – to finally admit their emperors are wearing no clothes. One may surmise, in fact, that “Asian values” has simply become the latest euphemism for autocracy and blatant disregard for the democratic process. The ideology co-opted by the state may be different in each case, be it Confucianism, anticolonialism, or ethnic pride, but the reality is that they are all ciphers. Ciphers that divert attention from the fact that what these “mavericks” (to borrow a catchphrase from Sarah Palin) want is their own brand of exceptionalism, in order to rationalise their resistance to accepted international norms. Which turns out to be really ironic, considering that exceptionalism itself is what the United States is often berated for.
While Sen does go on to give many more salient examples to support his argument, drawing from artefacts as disparate as the Indian classical epics and the religious profile of the Japanese, events and problems of more recent history give his thesis an empirical triumph. Though the ascendancy of the East Asian economies was halted by the financial crisis of the late 1990s, the old rhetoric did return as growth resumed and incumbents swept elections in Malaysia and Singapore.
But in cases like Indonesia, the opposite has happened. Despite repeatedly being on the precipice of civil war or economic ruin, its numerous political reforms in the last decade have brought national unity and steady economic growth. As unlikely as it may seem, with proportional representation and a free media, Indonesia is now the one member of ASEAN that most resembles a functioning liberal democracy. The Indonesian model is an especially poignant one for another reason. The democratisation process, far from being exacerbating instability in the wake of the Suharto era, has been a vital counterweight to radically divergent factions within Indonesian politics, between secularists and Islamist reformers, civilian and military interests, supporters of regional autonomy and those of centralised government.
A further blow to the case for a coherent Asian consensus comes in the form of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. An emerging front in the modern human-rights movement, some consider it to be a solely Western preoccupation. However, in the year since our own Parliament voted to keep homosexuality illegal, Nepal’s Supreme Court ruled to overturn sodomy laws (2), while cities across India held inaugural gay pride parades. In Taiwan, presidential candidates debated same-sex marriage, and marchers marked gay pride in such proportions that would put many European cities to shame.
Here again, though, Indonesia is the surprise. Yogyakarta hosted an international conference of human rights experts in 2006 that culminated in the adoption of a document entitledYogyakarta Principles on the Application of Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (3), which affirmed that GLBT rights involve not an expansion of human rights but an enforcement of pre-existing principles against all forms of discrimination.
Even in Malaysia, political realities have begun to chip away the monopoly of the ruling elite. Its social contract is now in tatters after landmark March elections, as multiparty democracy begins to take root. Once a bastion of so-called “illiberal democracy”, the ideology of its founders has apparently been unsustainable. Despite appearing insuperable, the ruling grand coalition became the victim of its own bloated excesses – steadily extending the powers of government while ignoring growing dissension within Malaysian society. Contrast this with another federated political system: that of the United States of America. Often a subject for political cartoonists, its tripartite system of government has nevertheless had remarkable longevity: weathering deep racial and class divisions, a Civil War, numerous political scandals and failed military campagns.
Yet, as support for the authoritarian model wanes throughout Asia, our government, primarily through its Foreign Service, has been trying to push the opposite case. In fora ranging from academic journals to press statements, our diplomats tirelessly refute the notion that democracy and development have any link at all. Often the response involves retreating behind a cringe-worthy combination of alleged Western conspiracy and neo-conservative posturing.
The most recent of these gaffes came in the form of an op-ed piece in the Straits Times (4) by former ambassador to the UN, and foremost disciple of the Lee-Mahathir doctrine, Kishore Mahbubani. After an obligatory round of West-bashing, the article made the bewildering claim that China was the world’s “most geopolitically competent” nation. China – whose actions in the international arena have often made it an easy target for activists and NGOs, who see the Chinese government as an enemy of freedom and human rights. Whose voting record in the UN General Assembly and Security Council has consistently been in favour of rogue regimes in Sudan, Myanmar and Zimbabwe. And whose exports are now synonymous with shoddiness and corruption, not least due to a tolerance of lax regulation, labour and environmental standards.
Back in 1993, Wong Kan Seng, speaking then as Minister of Foreign Affairs, was one of a handful of vocal objectors at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna. In a perversion of semantics, he told assembled delegates that the “universal recognition of the ideal of human rights can be harmful if universalism is used to deny or mask the reality of diversity.” Apart from being a logical failure (should we then tolerate intolerance?), this kind of talk misses a larger point. No less than the equal dignity of each human life is enshrined in the language of human rights – one that exists regardless of cultural or geographical context. It is only when these universal truths are ignored, that the diversity of human expression and experience is truly in danger.
(1)http://www.brainsnchips.org/hr/sen.htm
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7156577.stm
(3) http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/
(4) http://cagcorridorchat.blogspot.com/2008/10/eternity-of-geo-politics.html
———-
Email this article to a Friend
Bookmark this
A decade ago, the ‘End of History’ – a prediction that western democracy would sweep across the world with the end of the Cold War – was a sexy idea indeed. I think the author overlooked the entrenched-nature of 1-party systems throughout Asia and Africa (some communist, and some even ‘democratic’) that would make them ‘immune’ to liberal democracy. Just like the old addage that ‘Money makes money’, it would appear that flying in the face of becoming ‘history-less’, the powerful can only get more powerful as they burn themselves into the pages of history.
Ya it is sad that we are going backward in democracy despite making firm grounds economically.
Even countries like Indonesia and Malaysia have move up the notch in democracy.
What happened to us? Can the whole government thinks so painfully alike? It is true that groupthink has taken over our governance and even experts could not distinguish between true democracy and the adaptive one.
Shame on us.
during the tienanmien square tank incident
our mental1 also says
if singapore have the same situation
he too
wouldn’t hesistate to send in his personal army
the tanks/f18 and his daughterinlaw 106 bofor guns
to squash 200 thousands of us peasants
just to save himself/his family and his precious foreign talents slaves
as for the other singaporeans peasants
he would just point the finger @ them for being complacent
Don’t bother reading The New Republic. It’s a Zionist neocon vehicle. See http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/06/24/the-new-republic-is-an-evil-jewish-neocon-rag/
let’s face it….there’s no turning back for them…will they discard their ideology? no way! we need to hit hard all the way! i think we are pretty naive to believe they will bend over for us.
Behind the transitional shades of politics and ideology is a very simple and eternal fact of life our politicians try to defend: their own Greed, self-interest and unlimited powers. the grand words and power speeches our diplomats and leaders make about ideology, Asianism and othr forms of of pseudo-intellectual arguments are really just a smoke-screen to hide their self-centredness, self-interest and fear of being exposed as charlatans. but self-interest is like rain-water, it seeps through even the hardest rock…
their behavior is nothing new…history has shown us that men like that behaves like that…and eventually gets thrown out no matter how many speeches they make.
Great article Timothy — glad you’ve put all this into a solid argument.
I was shocked at the op-ed as well – the Soviet Union a 2? The US a 7? And Singapore a 10? Incredible.
You’re absolutely right, anyone with any sort of understanding of history knows how weak these statements are.
how many of you have seen modern russia today?
except kalistan
every city is liked shanghai
even their taxis are mercedez
their night lives?
boatquays eat your heart out
and modern russians are great shoppers
they even buy ORIGINALS
not fakes
Thank you for this wonderful article. It has great content, but it will be easier to read if it uses simpler words and structure. I find the complicated expressions did not help to add value.
“And whose exports are now synonymous with shoddiness and corruption, not least due to a tolerance of lax regulation, labour and environmental standards.”
Be fair. The computer you wrote this rant on – whether PC or Mac – was likely 90 per cent made in China. Since you completed it I presume it wasn’t that shoddy?
Nobel Economics Laureate Paul Krugman once described Singapore’s economy model is the very same one adopted the Stalin in Soviet Union. Just like the Soviet Union, Singapore’s economic demise is inevitable.
Good Afternoon,
To me it’s very simple really.
You know every time someone rolls out some old man with a long beard wearing period costumes; it always pays to be slightly skeptical and mistrustful.
IMHO that’s usually the cue, when someone somewhere has probably run out of ideas and is trying real hard to sell you and me the whole idea of a super duper man or some homily sugary golden age that never once existed; someone who is probably Gandhi, Kennedy, Britney Spears, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffet and Mickey Mouse all rolled up into one nice happy package.
And the reason why they usually have to do that as I said is because there is no other way to convince you; they can’t sit down and work it through and tell you the fail safe systems or standard operation procedures etc – they just cannot – if they could why do they even need to mythologize their legitimacy with loads of kudos and pyrotechnics?
I mean smart people don’t ever trust smart people; they usually put their faith in smart systems; the man is dispensable. And I tell you; if you mix this rule so much as even once; don’t be surprise; if you end up fat, lonely and poor one day, surviving on Khong Guan biscuits.
I mean if you really sat down and thought real hard about this whole idea of Asian values; it doesn’t mean parochial, blind obedience and the nail that sticks up will be hammered down and all that sort of thing; if you really bothered to work things through from the inside out; you’ve probably discover the direct opposite; that real Asian values has always meant embracing diversity and differences.
I am reminded just around the time; when Protestants in Europe were busy burning heretics on the stake; Emperor Akhbar Khan had passed the most comprehensive set of laws in the world safeguarding freedom to worship; along with funding exploration of the sciences and the cultivation of the arts along with encouraging intellectuals of every ilk to gain entry into his court; so maybe you can just as well draw the straight line reference that the version of Asian values Mahatir and LKY were spouting once upon a time, never ever existed.
Thanks, this was a great article.
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the Brotherhood)
Obama will visit of not?
Hi Gilbert Goh;
Indonesia and Malaysia will not embrace Confucianism as they have a totally different cultural foundation.
They were feudal before been colonized and will probably be run much in the same ways their former colonial masters are running theirs’(Europeans) now and You are right to say ‘more democratic’.
patriot
The whole concept of “Asian values” was originally a concoction of the international media to describe the justifications offered by autocratic regimes in Asia to deny the applicability of universal humanistic values to their political practice.
It was meant to be a derogatory characterization of an inadequate political philosophy. Not realising this, these Asian leaders embraced these “Asian values” wholeheartedly but are now finding it increasingly difficult to defend their coherence. They are caught in a bind as to whether they should continue in obstinate defiance or not. The more and more desperate and outlandish claims made by their spokespersons are evidence of increasing self-doubt.
Singaporedaddy #12
“I mean smart people don’t ever trust smart people; they usually put their faith in smart systems; the man is dispensable. And I tell you; if you mix this rule so much as even once; don’t be surprise; if you end up fat, lonely and poor one day, surviving on Khong Guan biscuits.”
I am surprised this came from you. Tripe from such an intelligent man. Tell me Singaporedaddy, what makes up a “good” system? People right. So if you have “good” people, a corollary of that is of course “good” systems. How could they even be treated differently. Aren’t they for all intents and purposes, one of the same reality?
I readily admit Asian values has often been abused in some quarters, notably in Burma and maybe even China, but if you look at the fundamental message of Confucianism as a comprehensive Chinese ethical and philosophical system. I dont believe it can so readily replicated, it is a product of social evolution. It stands probably in equal stature to maybe the bill of rights and the declaration of independence. It would be silly for us to throw away something that was endured the test of time.
This article is typical of what is usually produced online.its anti-establishment with a slant against PAP. The way I see it, there are some good things abt the West, but also bad. It is important to pick up the former and leave the latter alone.
Dear everyone,
Some comments have been disallowed because they do not refer or relate to the issues in the article.
Please refrain from bringing in other issues unrelated to the article or personal scores to settle.
Thanks.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
“Recorded” histories do provide us all a glimpse of how things evolved and can serve as a guiding beacon. The complexity issues and intricacies of democracy freedom are in fact very nation subjective. How it is adopted in different countries largely dependent on the choice its people are accorded to make. Because of its complexity values that to some countries it may curtail its planned development due to its geographical size, natural resources deposits and more importantly the teachings, culture, religious, and believes its people are associated with or coerced into accepting the way of life by its “selected”, “appointed”, “self proclaimed” or “elected” leaders so to speaks, makes it hard to clearly defined a fine line what is a “right” system.
From the dawn of human intelligence, we have been seeking the right way of life and debates have been played out through centuries to hammer out a set of governing rules that hope to protect the interest of the people but as we all know no rules or regulations can cover 100% of its people interest regardless of the system each country adopts, simply because we are HUMAN BEINGS with a thinking mind of our own. The values of anything we see vary widely. Ideologist and Pragmatist simply cannot co-exist.
In today’s term; if and only if we can break down the levels to state and family rules we may see a different perspective. What is good for one state may not apply to the neighboring or other state as again, it could be due to circumstance that engulf within or the cultural believes or the liking of “self proclaimed leaders” who prefers tyranny rule. Similarly, the teachings each family imbibe to their siblings varies from one another. Some inadvertently exercise authoritative and dictatorial approaches and others are more liberal and democratic.
However, fundamentally (speaking for myself), if and only if a balance of power can be drawn to ensure that there is sufficient transparency and accountability to guard against any system abusers, that in itself can be considered as the right and proper system to adopt. Whether calling it a democracy, dictatorial, communism or whatever name we accord to it becomes insignificant. What may seem to work today may become obsolete in the next century to come. The importance is how can or do we re-adapt and whether can we make the influence. It is indeed an individual’s choice to make it a reality.
The ultimate doings fall in the hands of the willingness and determination of each nation’s people with voting rights accorded making this choice and if given a chance to cast that sacred vote. Some or in fact many can argue that the lack of experiences of candidate seeking office had all but casted doubt in them. True, it is worth the while to consider this as one of the many selection criterions. However, when faced with a difficult choice of step taken towards seeing the light at the end of a tunnel versus a dive into the infinite black hole, I think the writings are on the wall.
Good Afternoon lou #16
It surprises me that you find what I say so surprising.
“I am surprised this came from you. Tripe from such an intelligent man. Tell me Singaporedaddy, what makes up a “good” system? People right. So if you have “good” people, a corollary of that is of course “good” systems. How could they even be treated differently. Aren’t they for all intents and purposes, one of the same reality?”
You have absolutely no idea what you are saying; let be paraphrase you: what you’re saying is you can put the cart before the horse and somehow manage to break the land speed record. Well, I’ve got news for you; you CANNOT.
And there is a very good reason why that’s impossible; if you look at the winners, doesn’t matter whether it’s a country, political party, hedge fund, family unit or even a chocolate cake deli; the system MUST always come FIRST; once some idiot circumvents the system; that’s when all the problems comes in; doesn’t matter; whether its an investor who just decides to plonk all his nest eggs into a fund bc he liked or trusted someone; two pilots who decide to skip the checklist during take off, a hedge fund investors who didnt bother to drill deep enough or even a pastry chef that decides to wipe his ass with a chocolate cake instead of toilet paper; MY POINT is this; when someone, somewhere shortcuts the system by skipping a step; that’s when everything just unravels and goes to the dogs.
And why do I consider Confucionism such a decrepit and lousy thoughtware?
Bc it’s simply the preferred tool of how bent politicians, businessmen and wife abusers usually jimmy the system; they use confucionism in the way a con man uses hypnosis to confuse you and rip u off, its really not so different from trying to explain every malevolent happening in human history by using the quatrains of Nostradamus; it can be interepted to justify virtually ANY imperative under the sun from why my car didn’t start today to why an pint sized auntie in SUV from hell tried to run me over this morning to why the ice in the polar ice cap is melting – so to me not ONLY is it worthless, it’s DANGEROUS – as that also means it can be also used to justify everything from why you should just shut up and never question your leaders (elders); to everything from condoning mass genocide in the name of Mickey Mouse.
What you need to understand abt the analects of Confucious is they will always remain DANGEROUS; only bc they aren’t nearly whole disquisitions as they are vignettes. And that means whatever meaning they are supposed to convey lies in the interpretation and NEVER the text / So what you need to understand here is they are very different from something like Isaac Newton’s The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy where if you are stuck in lets say page 70; you can go and refer to the bibliography to flesh out the missing links. Not at all; Confucionism is management by fortune cookie wisdom e.g Man who fight with wife all day get no piece at night – Passionate kiss like spider’s web, soon lead to undoing of fly – so on and so forth.
I mean if this was such a great social evolutionary thoughtware as you said; have you ever considered why did the Magna Carta even bother to run the full gamut of 63 clauses? Why did the Bill of Rights have to have nearly 340 appendixes and annextures? Why do you think we build high powered telescopes and regularly send space probes to discover more about the Universe? Could it be because we can never crack the mysteries of life by just reading the words at the back of a chewing wrapper?
What do you think?
SD
To put the referenced Sen’s essay in context, it was first distributed in May 1997. During the few decades before 1997, the western world watched the growth of the Asian Tigers – Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. The past of Japan’s sudden rise of economic power, and the future of China’s potential circumscribed the present.
The western world, steeped in capitalism, raised the question of whether there existed an alternative to democracy. This came against the backdrop of the democratization wave, of which one result is the notable failure in (Post-Soviet) Russia.
Democracy as the one and only government-type for economic development was taken down from the pedestal and put on trial ; the Asian tigers and the failed democracies were put on the stand.
However, 4 years ago (1993), Paul Krugman, an economist like Sen, refuted the idea that the Asian economies were different in any special way. What the empirical evidence pointed to was a very high savings rate (with the savings used for investment), increasing labour force participation (more people worked, more females worked, and people worked longer hours), and a sudden spurt of education. Not that these are bad (nor are they good), but as a method of economic growth, they are unsustainable – for savings cannot exceed 100%, labour participation cannot exceed the number of working adults, and where can we go after every citizen has a degree?
— Link To: The Myth of Asia’s Miracle http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html
It should be noted that Sen’s essay was an argument against the prevailing confusion regarding the hype of what was called the (East) Asian Miracle. (As smallvice commented,) Paul Krugman noted the similarities of the Asian Miracle to the growth spurt in communist Soviet. At that time, the alternative was communism. Now, it’s “Asian Values”.
More importantly, Sen’s (as well as Krugman’s) essay gave a broad and reasoned refutation against a post-hoc conclusion drawn from the Asian Miracle. By deeper analysis, they clarified whether the correlation of Asian values with exceptional economic growth was indeed imitable causation, or merely coincidence.
And this is where I have to disagree with the author, for the author, while being similar in thesis to Sen’s essay, does not follow its spirit. Sen concluded the non-significance of “Asian Values” in economic growth as well as in history. The author has furthered it, and concluded against “Asian Values” (espoused by our governments), but with the same fallible post-hoc method that Sen argued against.
Curiously, 3 months after Sen gave his paper to a lecture, the Asian financial markets coughed (July 1997, The start of the Asian Financial Crisis 1997).