Philip Bowring: Some
messy votes, but better than none Asian elections By Philip Bowring (IHT) Friday, April 2, 2004
Taiwan is deadlocked over the result, the loser being unwilling to
admit defeat. South Korea's president is in limbo after impeachment by the
National Assembly. Indonesia faces six months of electioneering, costing
much money and changing little. The Philippines again demonstrate that
democratic politics is often little more than showbiz. Malaysia had an
orderly election, but hardly a fair one. The same party has been in power
for 50 years. Sri Lanka's democratic system may have sunk chances of a
peace deal with the Tamil Tigers.
Is democracy itself at fault? Are the democratic institutions too
immature? Are the systems inappropriate? Are the electorates too poor or
uneducated to make reasoned decisions?
One theme running through most of these cases is the division of power
between a directly elected president and separately elected legislatures.
In Taiwan, opposition control of the legislature is one part of the
impasse of President Chen Shui-bian's re-election. In Korea, the president
has been impeached on frivolous grounds by opposition lawmakers trying to
score points in the run-up to legislative elections. The April 2 election
in Sri Lanka is a result of the power struggle between a directly elected
president and a prime minister appointed by Parliament. The Philippines'
two-chamber legislature has long been a barrier to effective governance.
In Indonesia, the separation of the presidential and legislative elections
makes for a drawn-out process and feverish horse-trading.
But these are not fatal flaws. They can be addressed. Democratic
systems can and do change in ways that produce more stable governments.
Another problem common to several countries is the weakness of
political parties, which results in personality-driven politics. This is
pronounced in Korea, Thailand and Indonesia and goes to extremes in the
Philippines, where television personalities top the polls and party
loyalties are nonexistent.
This is discouraging for those hoping elections will bring forth
leaders, not actors. But at least Philippine politics are no longer
dominated by the landlord class.
Nor are Asian elections all about personalities. Parties in Taiwan and
Malaysia are strong and reflect genuine ideological differences. Parties
are strong too in India and Sri Lanka and there is a veneer of ideology on
Indonesian ones. Even Korean parties have a regional dimension as well as
a left-right divide.
Ideological differences may seem divisive. But in practice, democratic
politics force compromise. Taiwan may appear to be deeply divided, but
policy differences between the two camps are actually quite small.
Ideology is kept in check by the need to occupy the electoral middle
ground. Democracy must also grapple with long-hidden problems, such as
separatism, and the huge debts left by the likes of Suharto and Ferdinand
Marcos. It has also proved more effective than authoritarianism in keeping
fundamentalism at bay in Pakistan, Indonesia, India and Malaysia, and
wrestling with it in Iran.
The inadequacies of governments are more the result of weak
bureaucracies and corrupt judiciaries than of poorly functioning
democracies.
Democracy is indeed a flawed system in Asia, as elsewhere. But look
around Asia at the alternatives on offer. Burma? Vietnam? North Korea?
Look even at Hong Kong, where entrenched business interests resist
democracy to protect their own oligopolies.
Finally, look at China. Whatever its political future, the party which
brought China the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and
Tiananmen is scarcely in a position to deliver lectures on governance.
Recent economic achievements are the result of a loosening of party
control. Self-perpetuating party rule is a major factor in gross
misallocation of resources and an income maldistribution which makes the
Philippines look like a peoples' republic.
The nexus between political and economic power has created instant
multimillionaires and, as in Hong Kong, networks of nepotism. President
Vladimir Putin is trying to keep the oligarchs out of power. China is
inviting them in. The system works, but for how long?
Democracy is messy, costly and unfair. But at whatever level, it
involves the people in their own government, competent or not. The
evidence in Asia is, on balance, positive. |
Subscriptions E-mail Alerts | About the IHT : Privacy & Cookies : Contact the IHT |