'Starbucks Formula': Liberalization equals liberalism
'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.