Democracy as an idea is not new to Asia – in fact, it was a familiar concept there before it made its appearance in Europe. The common belief in the days of monarchy was that the Supreme Being chooses a sovereign in the name of the people and entrusts him with the leadership of the nation. In theory, the sovereign has a celestial mandate to govern and do the people’s will (tri thien menh in Vietnamese). Of course, in practice, the sovereign would interpret this mandate and wield his unlimited God-given power to suit his own interests and oppress his people. The reality was that the sovereign was not elected by the people and did not tolerate opposition. Monarchies were one-party systems, with the royal family as the party in question and the sovereign as the undisputed party leader.

A century later, another Chinese philosopher, Mencius (372-289 BC) formulated a more daring concept: if the emperor doesn’t fulfill his celestial mandate, if he behaves like a despot, the people owe him no loyalty and are justified in removing him. "The precious people first, then the country, then the king" (dan vi quy, xa tac thu chi, quan vi khinh).

Viet Nam is deeply influenced by Buddhism, Confucianism and Chinese culture. Democratic traditions are not unfamiliar. "Imperial edicts give way to village ways" is a popular saying. The village, traditionally surrounded and defended by its green fortress of bamboo, is truly the basic unit in the nation, with a well-defined judicial identity and status.

There are particularities to the oriental concepts of democracy – whether from China, or Viet Nam, Japan, Korea or Indonesia. They are humanistic concepts, focused on the development of the human being and the safeguard of all on earth. The government – "the father and mother of the people" – has a vital role to play, and the intelligentsia also has great responsibilities. According to Theda Skocpol*, these considerations derive from Buddha Gautama’s teachings – all beings on earth have a "buddha-like quality".

We can see from the above why Asia, proud of its cultural heritage and its own democratic traditions, is reluctant to open itself to Western concepts of democracy. These are considered noxious by some because they are seen as introducing scientific materialism, civic selfishness, unbridled individualism. The autocratic regimes of China, Viet Nam, Burma, Indonesia and Malaysia – to name but a few – exploit this psychosis and deny the most fundamental liberties to their peoples, claiming the need to maintain political stability for the sake of economic progress. The current crisis in Asia is proof of how wrong they are.

Zakaria’s essay prompted a virulent joint response from John Shattuck, US Assistant Secretary of State, and J. Brian Atwood, Director of the US Agency for International Development (AID) (Defending democracies. Why Democrats trump Autocrats? In Foreign Affairs, March/April 1998, pp 167-170). They object on three accounts. First of all, they say, Zakaria is wrong about the level of the current US aid program. Only 25% of the total budget is devoted to the encouragement of elections. The program’s main objectives are to encourage the establishment of legislative, judiciary and executive institutions, of trade unions, of an independent press and a wide range of non-governmental organizations. All this to protect and promote basic freedoms and human rights and the rule of law. Secondly, Shattuck and Atwood maintain, Zakaria underestimates the repressive character of the so-called "autocratic benevolent" regimes. And thirdly, they believe that his argument that democratization heightens social tensions instead of easing them is based on debatable evidence.

Marc F Plattner walks the middle path between Zakaria on the one hand and Shattuck and Atwood on the other in his article Liberalism and Democracy. Can’t have one without the other (Foreign Affairs, March/April 1998, pp 171-180). He points out that democracy first appeared in Western Europe and North America. Democracy is characterized by the acceptance of multipartism, free elections, the rule of law, the protection of individual liberties. The countries which have adopted this form of government are known as liberal democracies. The nations in the rest of the world are by contrast neither liberal nor democratic, and they are ruled by a range of dictatorships – military, revolutionary, Marxist. These countries reject multipartism and free elections. In the early 90s, a surprising number of authoritarian regimes collapsed, and were replaced by governments who aspired to democracy. Samuel Huntington calls this phenomenon "the third wave of democratization". Today, more than 100 nations in the world, some of which violate their citizens’ basic rights and show no respect for the rule of law, call themselves democratic. Larry Diamond correctly describes them as electoral, not liberal, democracies. Samuel Huntington observes that in non-Western societies, elections can lead to the victory of non-liberal forces. In these countries, democracy does not necessarily walk hand in hand with liberalism. Democracy is the rule of the many as opposed to monarchy (the rule of one person), aristocracy (the rule of the best) and oligarchy (the rule of the few). Liberalism is a word that does not apply to the ruler but rather to the ruling method. It implies first of all that the government is limited in its powers and modes of action by the rule of law, the constitution and individual rights. Democracy and liberalism do not necessarily go together – that is why we can speak about "non-liberal" democracies and liberal "non-democracies".

The history of democratization is full of failed attempts. There have been more failures than smooth transitions. However, the general trend has been for nations to choose a democratic system and to want to maintain it. It is also true that those countries which tried democracy and failed have a better chance of success when they try again than those countries which have no prior democratic experience. When social and economic pre-conditions for democratization do not exist, it is not surprising that elections do not have the desired results. Plattner’s hope is for electoral democracies to turn into liberal democracies – in today’s world, the path to constitutional liberalism goes through governments that have been freely elected by their citizens, not through irresponsible autocracies.

The term "democracy" has been used and abused by politicians. Few are those who have tried to understand its true meaning. East and West can disagree about what it means, how it should come about and how it should be applied, but democracy has some universal characteristics. The fundamental criteria are free and honest elections, a division of power between the various governmental institutions, a system of mutual checks and balances, multipartism, the rule of law and the acceptance of a basic political code of ethics.

Democracy cannot be imposed. A "one-size fits all" kind of democracy will not work. Democracy has to be freely chosen, freely adopted, it has to be customized. Otherwise, people cannot be expected to fight and die for it.

In an Asia in political and economic ferment, the Socialist Democratic Republic of Viet Nam is showing the sorry spectacle of an "illiberal" democracy. Electoral, certainly, democratic, not at all, socialist, yes, but a small minded backward kind of socialism. The Vietnamese Communist Party represents no-one but its own narrow self. It betrayed long ago the masses of workers and peasants it was meant to represent. The Vietnamese government is not of the people, by the people and for the people. It is time to hand power back to its legitimate owners.

Reference:

* "Social revolution in modern world" by Theda Skocpol, NY, Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Huntington Beach, California