Dilemma of Asian liberal democracy

The collapse of Soviet Union allowed Mongolia to go free. The country has now emerged as a leading democracy in the mainland East Asia. President Elbegdorj Tsakhia has been promoting the Mongolian brand of democracy with strong advocacy on corruption eradication and promotion of democratic education and women rights. Doubtless, he has been one of the strongest supporters of Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, having written several letters appealing for her release during her year-long house arrests. He is currently serves as chair of the Community of Democracies, which allows him to demonstrate his commitment at the global level.

Besides Suu Kyi, the name of Elbegdorj does not ring any bell in the rest of Asia. Of course, Mongolia is relatively well-known in the West than in Asia, especially in the US and Eastern Europe.  The country’s strategic location – bordering China and Russia coupling with its abundant mineral resources – has made Mongolia the focal point of Western democracies. Of late, Mongolia has been trying to connect this agenda with the rest of Asia through the new initiative, known as the Asian Partnership for Democracy, backed by South Korea.

Under President Lee Myung Bak, South Korea also has been expanding its influence at the global level. Over the past decade, Seoul has been quite successful with export of “hallyu” – the Korean wave – a cacophony of Korean-style pop culture made up mainly of pop music, TV and film series as well as food. However, the South Korean leadership thinks the country can broaden its current niche into something more substantive in terms of standards and norms setting, especially in terms of democratic development and governance. After the Asian economic crisis of 1997, the then president Kim Dae Jung told his peoples that only democracy and transparency could save the country from the economic decay. After that South Korea has been progressing and consolidating further its democratic values. Again, it is still confined to its own territory. Lee, who is seeking a re-election later this year, would like to leave a legacy of democratic footprint in Asia. He has joined hands with Elbegdorj to promote democracy education and widen the space for civil society organizations in the region.

Both Mongolia and South Korea – with their close proximity with China – have one common concern – the political development inside its giant neighbor. If there is any eruption of political order there in the future, it will impact on developments at their home-fronts. Decision makers in the two countries believe that democratic developments, albeit snail-pace, are evitable in China. The best way, they concurred, is to help promoting Asian democracies, using their relevant experience through democracy education, so that it would resonant in the middle kingdom. They also realize that imparting democratic norms and values in China would not be easy.

While Taiwan’s democracy has matured after the island took up presidential election in 1996, its influence beyond its border is very marginal – if at all – even though it is the only Asian country that has an institute to promote democracy. The conventional wisdom that Taiwan’s democracy would eventually help inspiring the mainland to become more democratic does not work. Consistent media portrayals of the island’s politics are all about insinuation, mayhems and instability – which does not augur well with the mainlanders. This could be attributed to the island’s lack of connectivity with the rest of Asia as its concentration has been on US and Japan.

Down south, Indonesia has been the only – and by far the most ambition – Southeast Asian country to promote democracy with its own distinctiveness. For the past four years since it inauguration, Bali Democracy Forum (BDF) has burgeoned from a small group of liked-minded leaders and policy makers to a multi-national platform for democratic exchanges of ideas and best practices. It was ironic that Indonesia – once ruled by the strong Indonesian army – would now epitomize the rapid democratization in Southeast Asia and beyond. The BDF will take up a higher profile by holding a democratic summit at the end of this year, the first of its kind in Asia. After the people’s power pushed out the dictatorial system in 1998, Indonesian electoral process has progressed and relatively violence-freed. The Indonesian army has become more professional by returning to the barrack and pulling out from civilian affairs.

The BDF has moderate objectives which can easily be taken up by the Asian countries. Enhance people’s political participation and respect the rule of laws is the two key elements. Most importantly, the BDF realized that the best way to promote democracy with Asian characters is to identify political and economic model and governance that promote economic development and democracy within respective countries’ socio-economic conditions. That helped explaining why in the previous meetings, some of the non-democratic leaders and representatives were invited to take part in the BDF. Even the most dictatorial countries have their own ideas of promoting democracy which might not be palatable to the mainstream democratic believers.

Since last August, the drastic change in Burma has been noted widely. However, its sustainability and region-wide implications is still hard to assess.  For Suu Kyi, she has a simple ambition of seeing Burma ahead of all the Asean countries. It can be fulfilled only through democratic progress, which can be fast forward than any other areas. Thailand, with a history of 80-year democratic journey, is still struggling to establish a stable and functional democracy. Once hailed as a political model in developing world, Thai democracy has slipped into anarchy after the 2006 coup and has been unable to climb up the democratic ladder. Its future is bleak due to deep and irreconcilable political interests perpetuated by various contesting pressure groups.

Within Asia, the world’s largest democracy, India, is still standing alone. New Delhi has yet to find a role it deems appropriate within the Asian context in order to go beyond its border. Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize laureate, said succinctly that Indian democracy works well inside the country as it helps to mitigate all sorts of political and religious differences to maintain peace and stability. As a rule, India does not promote democracy abroad despite lots of pressure from other democracies. Of late, however, India has taken a rightful step by providing assistance in electoral process including the monitoring know-how to some Asian countries.

Asian liberal democracies have not yet join force together. Their leaders have to talk and promote democracy more as well as increased consultations with one another as each region still maintains its own unique socio-economic environments. However, without common visions, it would be difficult for the Asian democracy to prosper and contribute to the global democratic trends.