Trend toward more democracy continues in Asia

Trend toward more democracy continues in Asia

By Olaf Jahn

HONG KONG (DPA): The collapse of the Soeharto regime in Indonesia was only the latest chapter in a pro-democratic domino effect that has been transforming Asia for a dozen years.

The People's Power movement which swept Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos out of power in 1986, and mass demonstrations the same year in Taiwan which forced the first steps toward democracy there may have seemed isolated developments at the time. But they were the birth pangs of a new, modern Asia.

They gave encouragement to the fledgling pro-democracy movement in South Korea, a country which has since elected its first democratic government. And in 1992 the people of Thailand -- with the help of their revered king -- ended military rule in that country. The next year saw Cambodia's first free elections, which forced Hun Sen, the authoritarian protege of the Vietnamese communists, to share power.

These last two countries show the process has not been without reverses: Thais have lamented the instability caused by several chaotic changes of government in recent years, while violence has plagued Cambodia, and democracy there has appeared to be under threat.

Yet the overall trend in the region remains that of increasing participation by the people, with Asians demanding a say in the political process and the right to control their politicians through elections.

Despite this pressure from below -- and from the West -- a number of Asian governments have tried to slow the process towards democracy and basic human and political rights, usually by wielding the cultural stop sign of "Asian values."

But even the term is nonsensical, attempting as it does to lump together societies as diverse as animist Borneo, Shintoist Japan and caste-riven India.

Asia, after all, is a continent where Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism and Catholicism all have their strongholds, where there is an endless variety of customs and religious rites and practices.

Asians even eat differently from each other; some with knives and forks, others with chopsticks, and yet others with their fingers.

Yet the term "Asian values" was a handy political instrument which allowed certain leaders to claim that the people of Asia put common interests ahead of individualism, preferred consensus to confrontation, and were loyal to the family above all.

In addition, it was claimed, Asians were willing to work harder than others and save more, in order to generate the huge pools of savings which were said to be a key to the region's stunning economic growth.

These traits had once been known in the West as the "Protestant work ethic," of course, but were expropriated by some Asian leaders in an effort to refute those who argued that democracy and individual rights were universal values just as applicable in Asia as anywhere else.

In contrast to the liberal West, with its high crime rates and broken families, it was argued that Asians were willing to give priority to the overall good ahead of their individual desires and accept without question the leadership of "benevolent" patriarchs.

Or so it was said -- not by ordinary citizens, but by people like Soeharto, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia and the representatives of other authoritarian regimes in Singapore, Myanmar and China.

That Indonesians have now used violence to force the ouster of their president is a good indicator of how little validity the "Asian values" theory really has.

In the end it was always Soeharto, from Java, who decided everything of importance in Indonesia. He ran his vast and diverse country as though it was one big family and he was the patriarch, which left him at the mercy of those with whom he had the closest direct contact -- namely the members of his real family.

They had their own interests, though, and exploited their proximity to the president to profit personally from his decisions and change those which did not suit them. And with his family there to help him run things, Soeharto dismissed critics who said the country needed a functioning, independent legal system.

It was nonsense, of course, to try to run a country like a family; it is simply too complicated, and those without the ear of the patriarch lack any reliable means of being heard or appealing decisions which hurt them.

Not surprisingly, corruption, nepotism and arbitrariness were the order of the day under Soeharto. His form of government was above all aimed at legitimizing the authority of the president and his circle at the expense of individual rights.

It lasted so long because Soeharto was able to base his control on two pillars: the military, which he was extremely careful to keep on his side (as Chinese President Jiang Zemin still is), and a growing economy which allowed a steady improvement in living standards for most Indonesians.

Yet, as is now apparent, Asia's undemocratic governments were far less responsible for their countries' once impressive economic growth than they liked to claim. Indeed, the favoritism they showered on the chosen few actually weakened their economies.

The consequences, when they came, surprised Soeharto; once the masses discovered their strength, it took them less than two weeks to topple a regime which had endured for more than three decades.

And the demands of the Indonesian people have been identical to those made in other countries: a real say in government, public debate of important issues, freedom of speech and an independent system of law.

Are these "universal values?" Not that Asia's most aggressive defender of the alleged Asian variety, Mahathir, is already feeling the pressure as his people begin to ask the question more insistently.

Many Malaysians already feel their aging patriarch has been running their country too long, and even his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, was forced to acknowledge after Soeharto's downfall that "A wave of creative destruction is inundating Asia."

So is it time for Mahathir's resignation, as well?

The march of time and events is also heading for Beijing. That an economic crisis emboldened and enabled Indonesian students -- supported by the middle class -- to successfully topple their government will not have gone unnoticed by the Chinese leadership, or by other authoritarian regimes in the region.

An ominous trend may have been announced in the recent Hong Kong elections where, despite every possible manipulation by its loyalists, Beijing saw its local representatives rejected in favor of democratic forces.

The lesson from Indonesia is ringing out a loud warning: if authoritarian governments refuse to change, the people will do the changing for them.

Asia's authoritarian dominoes are all, sooner or later, destined to fall.

Window: That Indonesians have now used violence to force the ouster of their president is a good indicator of how little validity the "Asian values" theory really has.