This way
of thinking that basically claimed democracy is ideologically impossible for Asian
nations came to be known as “The Singapore School.” At heart, the political
philosophy endorsed by Lee and others stated that the majority of Asian
nations, at least those influenced by Chinese and Islamic cultures, were
dominated by a traditional culture that viewed the “interests of society” as
more important than ideals such as “individual rights” and the inviolable rule
of law. In these Asian societies, public order naturally arises from an unquestioning
acceptance of authority and an overriding commitment to family — with the
Confucian extension of filiality to the patriarch being expanded to include the
official ruler of the state.
Proponents
of this way of thinking argued that economic success was linked directly to discipline:
without order there can be no progress. The “four tigers” of the time were
pointed at as living proof that authoritarianism and financial success are
inextricably entwined. Western advocates of human rights were chided as “arrogant”
for challenging this centuries-old cultural assumption, and derided as uncaring
for advancing social theories that could potentially impoverish citizens whose
only wealth would become their freedom to complain while their children went hungry.
The writer
of the Utne Reader piece, Kevin J. Kelley, noted that many scholars
throughout Asia had long been arguing that “this great distinction between a
libertarian West and an authoritarian East is overly simplistic and at least
partially false.”
Here comes
the gratitude: Three decades later, the ideals advanced by Lee Kuan Yew and his
fellow authoritarians have been proven less viable as liberal democratic
principles and economic prosperity today walk arm-in-arm throughout much of
Asia. Islamic-majority states such as Indonesia and Malaysia appear to have moved
beyond the ethnic crises that were used to justify strongarm leadership, and
are today considered economically stable, if not “robust.” Even Singapore seems
to have molted somewhat and grown a new coat of liberal sensibility.
While Korea
and Thailand remain reasonably constant in terms of economic growth, both
states have also over the past few years experienced serious political
disturbances that could have clawed away the health of their democratic bodies.
Is it the economy unsettling the political, or vice versa?
The Philippines,
on the other hand, has been on the rise both economically (albeit cautiously)
and democratically.
As the
world’s fourth largest economy, Japan’s GDP continues upward despite ongoing stumbles
and crawls. Politically the nation remains solidly democratic, with opposition
parties recently demonstrating growth and challenging the historically dominant
ruling party that is itself struggling to transform itself.
And then
there’s Taiwan. Why bother stating the obvious?
It is true
that the island faces future crises, both economically and politically. But at
the moment Taiwan remains a vibrant democracy, so much so that it can be raised
up as the most vibrant evidence that it is the advocates of “the Singapore
School” who are arrogant and uncaring. Taiwan peacefully transitioned from a
blood-drenched history of authoritarianism into a brilliantly shining democracy
in which diversity, justice, and respect are revered as guiding social -civic
principles.
The Asian
experience seems to be proof that democratic principles and economic growth are
allies. This modern encounter with liberalism and prosperity across the region suggests
that it was the Singapore School of sociopolitical theory, with its argument
that traditional Asian cultures are incapable of changing for the better, which
was indeed the most arrogant philosophical approach.
Unfortunately,
old notions of authoritarianism never entirely go away. Today it is China (PRC)
that raises the ideological banner of progress as an outcome of authoritarian
control. What the Chinese Communist Party advanced with the slogan “Socialism
with Chinese Characteristics” is now being touted as “smart authoritarianism.”
The
Chinese Communist Party’s principle of “the democratic dictatorship” and the
past decades of China’s economic growth have empowered the global distribution
of “smart authoritarianism.” Most ominously, this updated version of the old idea
that authoritarianism breeds prosperity is finding more and more adherents
among the citizens of nations that were once bastions of liberal democracy
around the world. From the United States to India, the notion that only a
strongman can march us into the future has become increasingly acceptable.
But are we
marching forward or backward?
No comments:
Post a Comment