|
|
|
|
International Forum >> The Democracy Forum for East Asia>> Inaugural Conference
|
|
|
SESSION I Economic Crisis and the Future of Democracy The multi-faceted relationship between the recent East Asian economic crisis and East Asian political systems, especially the development of democracy, is complex and ambiguous. No direct causal link between economic crisis and democratization can be claimed in East Asia as too may contradictory cases exist. The effect of the economic crisis seems to have advanced the development of democracy in South Korea and Indonesia but has had a detrimental effect on democratization in Malaysia. In Singapore and Taiwan, however, the economic crisis appears to have had no effect on democratization at all. However, in spite of the difficulties that arise from generalizing about the relationship between the economic crisis and democratic development from these conflicting cases, certain intervening factors have a bearing on whether the crisis has had a negative or a positive impact on democracy. One of these factors is whether or not the crisis occurred during an expansionist phase of capitalist economic growth. A second and more important explanatory factor is the character of the political system at the time of the economic crisis. In regimes where power is concentrated in the hands of a single person or an "official" party, and in which the political and economic spheres are intertwined by ties of cronyism, corruption, and nepotism, economic crisis has precipitated varying degrees of social pressure for democratization of the political system. The pressure for democratization was at its most intense in the repressive one-man government of Indonesia, and thus led to Suharto's overthrow. Although the pressure was relatively less intense in the one-party state of Malaysia, the magnitude was enough to precipitate a political crisis. In short, the pressure for democratization is mediated by the political structure in which the economy is situated. Quite apart from the issue of whether or not the economic crisis has had a negative or positive impact on democracy, the ramifications of the crisis on the ability of East Asian democracies to cope with the enormous strains placed upon them in effecting reform must also be considered. In the case of Korea, the government has been forced to carry out not only structural economic reform, but simultaneously political and social reform in an effort to lift the country out of the crisis, which many Koreans feel can't be overcome without sweeping changes throughout society. If the government is not able to carry out broad institutional reforms, this will feed political cynicism and apathy on the part of its citizens, in turn hindering the consolidation of democracy. How effectively democratic governments in Korea and Thailand, most directly hit by the crisis, respond to the challenging task of broad based institutional reforms will determine whether or not they will emerge from the crisis with a stronger, or indeed weaker, democracy. Going beyond the issue of whether the economic crisis has had a negative or positive impact on democracy, or of whether the crisis has stretched the capacity of emerging or young democracies to govern effectively, is the more fundamental issue of identity. Countries that have been hardest hit by the economic crisis, and are thus in greater need of overhauling not only their economies but also closely related political and social structures, are faced with the dilemma of what kind of society they ultimately wish to create. They will have to decide which beliefs and values should guide them in reforming their societies. Because this involves refashioning their identity, it is perhaps their greatest challenge. In this regard, their commitment to principles and values of democratic governance may be their most effective tool in meeting this challenge because, as noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, there is nothing that a consensus forged by the will of free people cannot accomplish. |
|
| |