Chaos comes of leaders' failure

By Christopher Lingle

DENPASAR, Bali (JP): Images of bloody street confrontations in Indonesia provide an unavoidable impression that the country may be slipping into chaos. With the removal of the strong hand of President Soeharto at the helm, there are several interpretations of why the country moved so quickly from order to disorder.

It could be claimed that it is simply a matter of the strains of the economic crises that has led to these outbreaks. Yet healthy democracies seldom see the breakdown in law and order that is being threatened.

A reversal of cause and effect might provide a better under standing of Indonesia's unhappy experiences. This alternative view suggests that the institutions of Asian democracy and policies justified by Asian values have retarded the transition to more modern systems of governance. Decades of autocratic or authoritarian rule under the guise of democracy have kept Asians from participating in self-determination. Distrust of the legal and judicial systems as well as finding their voices at the ballot box to be ineffective have made manning street barricades seem a logical step. Unfortunately, safety valves like organiza tions of civil society that monitor or limit government power tended to be systematically aborted or allowed to survive only if they serve the ends of the regimes.

Either through action or deed, it is clear that many leaders in the region believe that their citizens are not suited to the rough and tumble uncertainty of democracy. These same Asian lead ers have promoted Asian values or insisted on the viability of a regional variant of Asian democracy. Reflecting a mixture of paternalism and cynicism, this racially derisive view portrayed Asians as incapable or unworthy of being involved in decisions that affected their destinies. Happily these views have themselves became a casualty of the economic crises affecting the region since most supporters have become silent in the wake of the ongoing turmoil.

Asian values and Asian democracy were predicated upon several dubious premises. Both relied upon an assertion that Asians possessed an unshakeable preference for order that justified limiting their freedoms. In turn, the individual was subordinated to the community and individual rights were seen as foreign intrusions. It is no accident that this interpretation conveniently supported the sort of autocratic, single-party states and long-serving rulers that have dominated East Asian politics.

Several myths were promoted about life and business in Indonesia and much of the rest of East Asia were supported by these political conditions. First, many believed that (at least a little bit of) authoritarianism was beneficial in promoting economic growth. A corollary was the most important determinant of success in business or life was having the right political connections. These deceptions had resonance when times were good and economies were booming. In the long run, the stark reality is that authoritarian government are unstable and political connections provide no protections when speculative bubbles burst or when export markets evaporate.

Then there was a belief that political rights were less important to Asians than were economic conditions. This notion was based upon a false dichotomy of economic and political free dom. These rights are mutually supportive. Restraints on one will impact upon the other. In all events, the retreat from politics arose from the understanding that the costs of being involved in opposition parties were high and painful while the benefits were low. Now as economic uncertainty grows, it becomes rational to express disfavor with the political status quo since the losses are reduced.

Current instability in Asia is due to the lack of extensive democracy. This will be a problem that will plague more regimes in the future. There are several missing components in so-called Asian democracy. In the first instance, suppression of opposition parties has deprived most Asians of the sort of experience in multiparty democracy. Without this, it is almost impossible to develop a sense of political maturity and self-confidence.

Similarly, there are few active elements of what is known as civil society. These are often spontaneous and voluntary group ings that emerge to moderate the arbitrary exercise of power. Asian democracy was about politicizing most elements of life that led to high costs of standing up to the abuses of powerful individuals or governments.

Another problem is that given the long tenure of specific leaders or the dominance of a single party, it is not surprising that the judicial systems are not fully independent. Instead of the rule of law in many Asian countries the law was bent to serve the purposes of a dominant leader or party.

Yet the struggle in Asia also reflects an inevitable and universal process where the primacy of the collective over the individual is increasingly seen as obstructive to progress. The history of the evolution of social and political institutions of mankind suggests a trend towards arrangements that assign a greater role to the individual as the basis of community values and a force for positive change.

In other words, moving from feudalism towards self-ownership is a universal phenomenon. From a macro point of view, this is seen in the widespread acceptance of democracy. Supporting the micro basis is the development and implementation of individual rights, including property rights to insure the compatibility with pricing market structures. In the future, successful communities will be those that facilitate rather than obstruct this movement towards a greater role for the individual.

The transition process that has begun in Indonesia and elsewhere reflects a fundamental shift arising from the conflict between universal forces of modernization and embedded conserva tism. However, it does not support the widely discussed images of hidden hands and shadowy conspiracies that are seen as being behind the violence. It is simpler than that. In sum, unrest and political instability in Asia is not so much driven by economic collapse as it is by leadership failure.

The writer is a Hong Kong-based independent corporate consultant and adjunct scholar of the Center for Independent Studies in Sydney who authored The Rise and Decline of the Asian Century (Seattle: The University of Washington Press, 1998). His E-mail address is: CRL@po.cwru.edu.