'Starbucks Formula': Liberalization equals liberalism

By Karim Raslan

KUALA LUMPUR (JP): Recent events in the region from the election of the morally compromised Thai billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra after a cynical, cash-infused and irresponsibility populist campaign, to the restiveness in Indonesia's provinces and the continuing impasse in the Philippines have led me to question Asia's reform movement.

However, before damning the progress to date and in particular the tragic rejection of Chuan Leekpai's Democrats (Asia's cleanest and most reform-minded party) our initial assumptions were wrong: an increase in political and economic liberalization does not automatically lead to an age of liberalism.

The primacy of liberalization and liberalism -- which can be dubbed the Starbucks Formula (because it is applied in a cookie- cutter fashion with little vacation from country to country) -- is due in part to the currency crisis of 1997.

Hitherto, the gradualist approach to political and economic reform and its emphasis on a respect for indigenous cultures and local needs had drawn its moral legitimacy from sound economic management.

However, in the face of wilting exchange rates and crashing economies the gradualist approach was discredited. Interestingly words and phrases associated with that period such as "Asian values", "Malaysia Inc." and "Singapore Inc." have also disappeared from the political lexicon.

The Starbucks Formula (liberalization equals liberalism) leapt into the breach providing commentators and policy-makers alike with an easy alternative in their search for a solution to Southeast Asia's problems. Unfortunately the equation whilst neat is both simplistic and incorrect.

The Starbucks Formula is surely vital for a country's long term stability and prosperity. But the formula must be tempered by a good deal of domestic fine-tuning. In Starbucks parlance, a latte has to be blended to accommodate local tastes, combining in turn the oiliness of Malaysia's Kopi O and the acidity of Kopi Bali with the creaminess of a cappuccino.

On a more serious note there are these points to make: firstly the key semantic differences between the words liberalization and liberalism: secondly the danger of knee-jerk and unthinking liberalization and its unintended consequence, the liberal regime and thirdly (citing regional examples), a plea for greater sensitivity in this discourse.

"Liberalization" merely means the process by which policies or laws are eased and or relaxed. However, ideologically driven media, such as the Asian Wall Street Journal and The Economist with their fixation on the moral primacy of the market have tended to promote trade and tariff liberalization above all other issues.

Liberalization in their eyes is purely a master of easing the path for the movement of capital, goods and knowledge but not of people. Sovereign states, cultures and religions are both dispensable and regressive, mere barriers to profitability. Thus the word liberalization assumes the guise of globalization, of which nothing bad can be said.

They see the resolution of economic issues as being the foundation for socio-political stability.

Their calls are often in complete disregard to a country's socio-economic conditions. In the case of Indonesia, a torrent of cheap sugar or rice imports at this juncture might spark off even greater social dislocation in the rural economy.

Sugar farmers led by the Indonesian Farmers Association chairman Siswono Yudohusodo argued in Tempo weekly recently that too large a reduction in the duty on sugar imports could jeopardize the livelihood of over 9.4 million people.

When a country's economy is verging on collapse such a reform would be comparable a Soviet-style collectivization of the rural sector.

By way of comparison liberalism connotes a very specific set of political and moral philosophies (championed by men such as Rousseau, Goethe and Kant). Evolving in 18th century Europe, these ideas ware chiefly concerned with the application of science and reason to the study of mankind and all other academic disciplines -- including most importantly -- the Bible and Christianity.

Known subsequently as the Age of Enlightenment, the period was to witness an unprecedented erosion in religious faith as the scientific method, that now lies at the core of the secular western civilization and the political system we now describe as a liberal democracy, was brought to bear on all forms of religious worship and scripture.

Clearly such secular political philosophizes are abhorrent to the prevailing Wahhabi interpretations espoused by the conservative Islamic forces in both Indonesia and Malaysia. This begs the million dollar question: how would liberalism fare under an avowedly Islamic regime?

As the Starbucks Formula is applied across Southeast Asia, many of the noble sounding reforms -- the granting of regional autonomy and increased media freedoms are crumbling under the weight of excessive expectations.

For example, it is unlikely that the granting of autonomy to provincial governments in Indonesia will result in a decrease in corruption or an improvement in standards of governance.

Jakarta's failure to match the varying provincial demands will undermine the process nationwide, turning a high-minded reform into yet another crisis for the embattled President Abdurrahman Wahid, or Gus Dur.

In Irian Jaya for example, the West Papuans, led by the colorful Theys Eluay have called for outright independence.

I doubt whether the recent decision by the troubled province of Acheh to institute the Sharia law will not bring about the long-awaited peace. Instead, the move will embolden forces elsewhere in the archipelago to promote sectarian interests over reconciliation. This could well lead Indonesia into chaos, thus permitting the forces of liberalism an opportunity to step in.

In this way, an impractical and hastily implemented reform agenda that ignores previous centers of authority can result in what is now termed in Indonesia as a return to neo-tribalism.

Encouraged by the military, the different peoples of the Republic have already (especially in Maluku) made a worrying return, to an atavistic past settling scores in the bloodiest of fashions.

Liberalization, whether it be of political or economic, has deep and wide-ranging local implications. These have to be dealt with in a responsible and flexible "manner if the overall experiment is to succeed.

The mistiming of a sequence of reforms can lead to a backlash and a rejection of the reform process. In Thailand, for example Chuan Leekpai is paying the penalty of too slavish an acquiescence to the SMF and World Bank.

Faced by a candidate who had no compunction in buying control of leading media groups, Chuan was -- ironically -- hampered by his disdain for money politics and high ethical standards.

It is clear then that the process of liberalization has to been introduced with reference to a societys educational, cultural and ethical standards.

Disregard these factors at your peril. If the Starbucks Formula is to succeed in making Southeast Asia a liberal redoubt there has to be a balance of culturally specific policies alongside the tried and tested formula: the one without the other is doomed to failure.

The writer is a columnist of The Business Times in Singapore and The Sun in Malaysia.