How viable is democracy in Asia?

[Hiss]

Democracy does not work! It is a short term proposition. Ultimately a power imbalance occurs, where corporate forces, or the socialist left gain the upper hand and wreck the joint for self interest. Democracies around the world have failed by most measures. Major critical infrastructure rarely is delivered on time, on budget, if at all. Social disruption occurs more and more, with debt ridden governments having to sell critical assets, with unmaintained essential services charged to consumers at excessive unaffordable prices. Most important projects to advance our economies, like educational reform, high speed rail, universal medical care, aged care, etc are all derailed by secular vested corporate interests and corrupted governments. The net effect is nothing gets down to build our future. That's our democracy!

[pietillidie]

Not to rain on the parade, but no matter how many qualifications we make, the term "democracy" is still too imprecise for a serious discussion of the matter and carries too many fantasies along with it.

I would take many aspects of Asian democracies (ahem, there are already democracies in Asia, you know) over that devolving shambles known as the US. Japan and Singapore put many "Western democracies" to shame, while many elements elsewhere, such as South Korea's healthcare system, put the US to shame.

Try asking a question less laden with tribal dogma instead: Can Asia become less authoritarian? My answer is yes, because a decline in authoritarianism is the natural corollary of increased economic independence. This model sees greater freedom as something which is more easily grasped from a position of security and stability, much as happens in individual human development.

This is the same question without hangups over surface forms. Anyone on earth aside from oppressors and those absolutely beaten to a state of personlessness would take a less authoritarian society any day.

Genuine freedom is an ongoing effort; insecurity and instability not only hold human development back, but they can cause things to devolve in a jiffy, especially when good structures have been tossed out in favour of the unreliable whims of either elite capital or the mob. But lower people's sense of fear and self protection and they will almost always kick on for the better.

[ronrat]

Democracy sucks when they shut all the bars in Thailand this weekend and next because of an election that 30 percent of the people will boycott and are demanding an unelected "House of Lords" type set up. On Australia day but luckily some places could still trade (if the bribe was big enough).

[David]

[pietillidie]

^I think it probably shows nothing is a foregone conclusion, though I hasten to add Russia is one of those places which probably can't be understood very well from afar. Certainly it seems to have nothing like open competition despite some opening up; instead, it looks to be a highly authoritarian oligopoly.

Despite democratic forms such as elections, parliaments, and economic progress, the wealth and power gap can still be sufficient enough to sustain insecurity and instability, albeit at a higher income level than in the past. Remember, I'm arguing it's the economic independence of people based on security and stability which is critical to development.

But you're right, Russia also had a massive police state apparatus, so that might take quite a while to breakdown. Note, most countries hit huge corruption problems in the early stages of development, lasting until the old ties that bind give way to something less nepotistic and cronyistic. (And if I recall the research correctly, Russia is a far "tighter", group-oriented culture than we might assume).

I think it also shows how relative development is; Russia started out with some opening up, which was an improvement. But that initial progress, in real terms, was still well below the standards we're used to. So it was hardly a raging success story.

The moral of the story? Development is capable of going in fits and starts, while in other cases it's capable of going off the rails altogether. Progress isn't a foregone conclusion at any stage, including the fortuitous one in which Australia finds itself. Disappointingly, the last two conservative governments here in SK have done their best to halt progress (free speech, as ever, being the first casualty), though I'm still optimistic history will steamroll over their efforts regardless.

And the less said about progress in Europe and the Anglosphere over the last decade or so the better. In relative terms, the results are extremely disappointing; and in the case of the US and Southern Europe, they're extremely disappointing in real terms for huge swathes of the population.

[David]

ABC's Q&A program travelled to China last night for an unusually interesting episode. Anyone interested in this topic should give it a look:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3962636.htm

Here's a shorter excerpt, specifically on the issue of whether China will become a liberal democracy:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-08/will-china-become-a-democracy/5373806

[think positive]

Bing

[stui magpie]

bing Sucks, google Rules.

Doing some reading before about Korea. Couldn't be a starker difference between what democracy vs totalitariansim and capitalism vs whatever the hell the "ism" is that the USSR gifted to North Korea when they were formed is.

Summary, democracy and capitalism works just fine. You do get varying layers of wealth though. So if you want everyone to be as wealthy as each other, the North Korea model works fine. Everyone (except the rulers, friends and family) are £$%$ed.

[David]

It's worth pointing out that South Korea was a virtually totalitarian police state for many years. It was only the last couple of decades ago that something resembling democracy began to come together. I guess PTID would be able to give a more nuanced overview.

[think positive]

They need McGyver