Week 11 Authoritarian Rule & Democratization (II)

1. Week 11Authoritarian Rule & Democratization (II) (1) What kinds of cultural conditions are necessary to consolidate democracyor to enhance the quality of democracy? social capital (Robert Putnam) (2) (some) Asian leaders’ cultural backlash against “democratic offensive” by the West (US) & their critics Asian Values debate (Fukuyama, Mahbubani, Aung-Thwin) Americans’ critique of US democracy – (Putnam)

2. Democratic transition • Huntington: wave of democratization (since 1970s) • Fukuyama: End of History • Many countries have achieved democratic transition fit Robert Dahl’s classic definition of democracy polyarchy= pluralist rule - diffuse, not monopolized by a few - universal suffrage – all adults - freedom of expression & choice - leaders – elected in free, fair & competitive elections • Then, do Indonesia & Thailand qualify as “democracy” (like US, Canada, England)??

3. But … • quality or substance of democracy is questionable, in some/many cases endemic corruption economic crisis/stagnation electoral fraud riots, protests, demonstrations violence(assassinations) insurgency coups & countercoups high crime rate, etc. “Political decay”

4. examples Indonesia: “democracy” since fall of Suharto in 1998: • meet Dahl’s criteria of democracy Congress, competitive election, free press, etc • But serious conflicts: separatist movement in Aceh, religious conflicts in Maluku islands between Christians & Muslims Thailand: “democracy” since 1973, but highly unstable • coup-prone； 2 successful coups in the last decade 2006 – ousted Thaksin (= most popular PM) May 2014 – ousted Yingluck (Thaksin’s sister) • Thaksin’s supporters organize “red shirt” protests • repressed by “anti-red” government (2009) • retaliation by red-shirts: assassination attempt on politicians • occupy central Bangkok  set Bangkok on fire (May 2010)

5. Back to square one … • adopt democracy in immediate post-colonial period, but beset by political decay •  a motive/justification for “strong government” (authoritarian rule) achieve order in short term but long-term instability • rise of pro-democracy protests e.g., People’s Power Rev. (1986)  democratic transition • Political decay – back again … What’s wrong with these countries? They are back where they started…

6. I thought that once democratic institutions were put in place in Iraq, everything would work well... • These countries have … institutional formsof democracy e.g., Congress, parliament, parties, elections • But these institutions do not function well • Democracy exists more in name or form than in substance = proceduralor minimaldemocracy not substantivedemocracy • Qualityof democracy differs

7. Democratic transition & consolidation Democratic consolidation is more difficult to achieve than democratic transition. • Achieving transition to democracy = one thing Stabilizing democracy and enhancing its quality = another = more time-consuming • How to make a democratically elected government perform well? Why democratic institutions govern their societies well in some countries but poorly in others? What explains the difference between stable mature democracies and unstable immature democracies?

8. Robert Putnam • Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy(Princeton U Press, 1993) Puzzle: Italy: fascism under Mussolini  democracy (1945-present) • But, great variation in the institutional performance of regional governments in Italy The governments in northern Italy perform far better than those in southern Italy The form of institutions is the same (= all democracy), but actual performance is different • Northern Italy (e.g., Milan) – prosperous, safe, orderly, clean • Southern Italy (e.g., Sicily) – poor, chaotic, dirty, dangerous; hotbed of mafia crimes; resembles Africa rather than Europe

9. Why?What explains the variation? The institutional form can’t be the reason. All regional governments in Italy have the same forms. Cultural explanation • Max Weber – famous advocate • values, beliefs & norms held by individuals  behavioral patterns  shape politics, economy & society • Putnam highlights cultural basis of well-functioning democratic institutions • variation in political culture  variation in institutional performance • the higher stock of social capital the better performance Political culture differs from region to region in Italy.

10. What is Social Capital? • differs from “economic” capital • interpersonal norms of trust & reciprocity • You trust other people in general (who make up society), and they trust you = “generalizedtrust” • You do something good for other people, because you trust they will reciprocate • and they do reciprocate because they know you trust them • “generalized trust”  “political trust” = trust in state politicians & bureaucrats

11. Political trust That’s the case in northern Italy. • People with high social capital trust that politicians and bureaucrats will use their public power to serve the common good • cooperate with each other to observe state policies  high institutional performance • If social capital is low, people are distrustful & cynical about the intentions of politicians and bureaucrats • unwilling to cooperate  poor institutional performance Social capital is the cultural fabric of efficient democracy.

12. Southern Italy From now on, please dump all garbage in a place designated by the government. Please cooperate to make our city cleaner! None of my neighbors will do it. So why should I do it? Cynical, apathetic, suspicious & hostile reactions from public Citizen Politician The dumping place is far from our home, but is close to the politician’s home. He is serving his family needs. Disgusting! Low level of cooperation Citizen

13. Please dump all garbage in a new place designated by the government. Please cooperate to make our city cleaner! Northern Italy It’s kind of far from my home. But I’ll do it. You’ll do it, too, right? Politician Understanding & cooperative Yep! Let’s cooperate to keep our city clean. It may be a coincidence that the new dumping place is near the politician’s home. Citizen

14. Similar to moral economy … ?(week 04) Remember this concept? Moral economy • social norms of mutual help & reciprocity • developed (mainly) in peasant society to minimize each other’s economic insecurity • Poor people help each other Jim Scott, Moral Economy of the Peasant

15. You bet. I’ll help you. We are fellow villagers. Your father had helped our family many years ago. It’s time to repay our debts. My family doesn’t have much food this month. Could you share yours with us? My tool is broken. Can you lend me yours? peasant peasant Thanks! I’ll help you out if you fall on hard times in the future.

16. Three Key differences 1. Time period & relationship to the state: • Moral economy (ME) – exist (mainly) in PRE-modern society before the modern state appears destroyed by the modern state (Scott, Hobsbawm) ME & modern state – mutually exclusive • social capital(SC) – exists in modern societyruled by modern state makes the modern state “tick” helps state institutions perform better = a source of state capacity to govern society well SC & modern state – not incompatible, mutually reinforcing

17. Key differences (continued) 2. Types of functions: • ME– perform economic functions for economically vulnerable (or poor) people (esp. peasants) - essential for poor villagers to survive economically - unites poor villagers together - share scarce resources with each other e.g., food, tools, animals, manure, water, land, labor • Social capital – NON-economic social functions - helps all people, both poor and well-off, establish a vibrant & well-governed democracy

18. Key differences (continued) 3. Type of social setting • ME– exists in a small, relatively simple, highly personalized agrarian social setting - People have known each other for generations - People (e.g., poor farmers) were born & raised in the same village - Most people engage in the same occupation (e.g., farming) – belong to the same social class - easier for social norms of reciprocity to develop • SC– wider, more complex & modern social setting - People from diverse backgrounds live - People may not know each other directly - yet still embrace norms of mutual trust & reciprocity have “generalized trust”

19. How is social capital nurtured (in northern Italy)? • vibrant “associational life” & “civic engagement” • = extensive involvement in voluntary & horizontalnon-politicized associations & groups NOT hierarchical politicized groups created by the state e.g., sports clubs (e.g., football) neighborhood watch groups, senior citizens’ groups youth groups, parent-teacher association • seemingly insignificant, but facilitate social interactions  get to know people from different areas & backgrounds come to instill the values of interpersonal trust, tolerance, patience, cooperation, etc.

20. Example of dense associational life More FCs in northern Italy = more kids involved You can’t play football alone. You must TRUST your teammates, OK? Football players and coach We play as a team and for the team! One for all, all for one! If anyone makes a mistake, someone else will cover up! Develop a sense of responsibility to the larger collective group

21. Other examples of dense associational life: Citizens’ Groups & Youth Groups A few Black kids in my neighborhood are dropping out of school. I’ll visit their homes and see if they have any family problems. If they have financial problems, we can solicit donations to give scholarships to them. What do we do at the annual city festival? Maybe we can do something for our senior citizens. Good idea! When we get older, the younger people might do something for us, too.

22. Get involved in many horizontal groups  interact with people from various backgrounds on a regular basis • Through these kinds of dense associational life sustained over the years since childhood, people come to accumulate high stocks of “social capital.” We may disagree on many things, but we are ultimately all bound by the same social norms. That’s the case in northern Italy!

23. Southern Italy • Little associational life & civic engagement • Most people live in physical & psychological isolation from each other • an atomized society

24. Atomized society A • Citizens lack organic connections to each other • exist as if they were freely floating particles • Not interdependent • remain self-centered & distrustful of other people (including politicians)  low stocks of social capital Political outcome? • Government fails to function well because citizens don’t trust the govt, and don’t cooperate with others to comply with any policy C E D F

25. Putnam’s Theoretical Contribution • Proposes a solution to Olson’s collective action problem • Everyone agrees, in principle, that achieving A is desirable, but all rational human beings end up in D • because the benefit of successful CA is non-excludable & non-divisible  uncooperative folks will be free riders They cooperate They don’t cooperate A I cooperate B I don’t cooperate D C

26. Distrust & suspicion of others’ intentions What if I cooperate and Nobita doesn’t? He will be a free rider. I could be a sucker. I never know if Doraemon will cooperate, given all the risks and opportunity costs involved … Given this mutual distrust, rational human beings choose not to cooperate = the source of CA problem

27. But what if that mistrust doesn’t exist? There would be no collective action problem! That’s the case in northern Italy. • Social capital provides a viable solution to collective action problem • because it minimizes mutual distrust – a fundamental cause of CA problem! Putnam Nobody will be a free rider in our community, and nobody will be a sucker! Many people cooperate to make any government policy work on the ground, because they trust each other. Good bye to Mancur Olson! 

28. Upshot … • Social capital = cultural foundation of vibrant well-functioning democracy • Making a transition to democracy alone does not guarantee that democratic institutions will perform well Democratic institutions of the state Solid cultural basis = social capital

29. Cultural Justification for NOT Adopting Western Democracy • social capital = cultural foundation of vibrant & effective democracy • Vibrant democracy needs a sound cultural basis • Democracy would NOT work in a society that lacks the “right” cultural values • Some politicians in Asia have turned this cultural explanation against Western democracy to resist “democratic offensive” by US • “Asian Values” debate in early 1990s LKY, PM (1965-90) Mahathir,Malaysian PM (1981-2003)

30. Asian Values debate • Western democracy will not work in Asia because Asian cultural values are different from Western values Malaysia – under attack for: • Internal Security Act (1960) – arrest & detention without trial • Mahathir – invoked ISA to detain pol opponents e.g., Anwar bin Ibrahim Deputy PM (1993-98) under Mahathir  fall out  detained in 1998 under ISA • Criticized by West, but justified with reference to Asia’s “unique” culture Each country has a political system best suited to its culture!

31. Other defenders • Kishore Mahbubani = Singapore diplomat Can Asians Think? Understanding the Divide Between East and West defends alleged human rights violations in Asia and critiques of Western hypocrisy “[I] suggest that neither the West in general nor the United States in particular should take on the self-appointed role of guardian of free press in societies around the globe. Let each society decide for itself whether it would help or hinder its development if it decided to have a free press. … In short, live and let live.”

32. More quotes from Mahbubani • “I am … convinced … that the aggressive Western promotion of democracy, human rights, and freedom of the press to the Third World … is, a colossal mistake. ... Asia needs governments that are committed to rapid economic development”. • “Sporadic instances of political crackdowns should be criticized, but these governments should not be penalized as long as their people’s lives are improving. Only societies such as North Korea and Myanmar, which have let their people stagnate for decades, deserve such disapproval.” • econ growth = No 1 priority for Asians • DAS has done a good job – “Why should we be criticized?” • lack of complete political/media freedom = a price to pay for econ growth; there is a trade-off • Asians hold materialist values, not post-materialist (Inglehart)

33. Michael Aung-Thwin • Burmese scholar/historian at U of Hawaii • “Parochial Universalism, Democracy Jihad, and the Oritentalist Image of Burma: The New Evangelism” • Critiques moralistic Western democratization • Defends longstanding Burmese military regime from local perspective • coup by General Newin (1962) enforce mil rule (to present) • resolve political decay before 1962 (e.g., rebellions by ethnic minorities) and restore political order • crush pro-democracy protests • commit HR violations (e.g., house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, 1989-2010) • Yet defended by Aung-Thwin • Criticized by HR activists in Burma as a “traitor” and an “apologist” for repressive military rule

34. Quote from Aung-Thwin • “[Democratization] in the Burmese context – and I would extend it to other parts of the world as well – means social and political anarchy. [In these countries] anarchy is feared far more than is tyranny…”(emphasis original). • anarchy = chaos, conflict, lack of political order • echoes Huntington’s argument The authoritarian state that can establish pol order is more desirable than weak democracy that can’t establish pol order • The military regime has restored pol order That is what most ordinary Burmese (except fanatic democracy activists) want The military regime should be praised, not criticized

35. Core “Asian” Values These are what Asians have in common. • more emphasis on group (or community) than the individual • Social order & material well-being come first before personal freedom not given to politically destabilizing debates & conflicts • hierarchical – respect for & loyalty to authority (= Confucian value) • “Asia is special, unique & exceptional. Leave us alone. Live and let live!”

36. “Pathologies” of American Democracy Would anybody dare take a walk on the streets of New York after 9 p.m.? • allows “excessive” individualism or freedom e.g., Ordinary citizens are given “freedom” to carry guns • high rate of (violent) crimes students shot dead on campus • US is undermining individual citizens’ right to safety in the name of individual freedom!! Mahathir (known as an anti-American) In Malaysia, people can go out even at midnight without having to worry about being mugged. Which country is better, Malaysia or US?

37. Advocates of democracy retort … • criticize the defenders of the Asian values • include prominent Asianscholars & politicians • Some (or many?) Asians are for democratization • Not all Asians are united in opposing “democratic offensive” by the West! • Asia is NOT monolithic! • Diversity of political views in Asia • Asians don’t speak in one voice

38. Why should Asia be an exception? Main Critics/Skeptics • Francis Fukuyama – Japanese American - “The Illusion of Exceptionalism,”Journal of Democracy (1997) pp.146-149. • Amartya Sen (1933-present) - Indian, Nobel Prize in economics (1998) - “Human Rights and Asian Values: What Lee Kuan Yew and Li Peng Don’t Understand about Asia,”The New Republic (1997) • Fareed Zakaria, - Indian, Editor for Newsweek - "Culture is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew," Foreign Affairs, vol.73 (1994), pp.109-126. • Michael Barr - Australian scholar - “Lee Kuan Yew and the ‘Asian Values’ Debate,”Asian Studies Review, vol.24, no.3, pp. 309-34. Cultural roots of democracy can be found in both Asian and Western cultures.

39. Kim Dae Jung (1925-2009) • pro-democracy activist • No. 1 rival of General Park Chung Hee • kidnapped by Park’s agents from Tokyo (1973)  imprisoned (till 1976) • Korean president (1998-2003) • Nobel Peace Prize winner (2000) • “Is Culture Destiny? The Myth of Asia's Anti-Democratic Values," Foreign Affairs 73 (1994), pp.189-194 Democracy is destiny!

40. Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) • Taiwanese President, 1988-2000 • credited with democratization in Taiwan • Taiwan – no longer ruled by developmental authoritarian state Aung San Suu Kyi • pro-democracy leader/activist in Burma • opposed to longstanding military rule (1962-present) • put under house arrest by military regime (1989-2010) • Nobel Peace Prize (1991) for pro-democracy activism • "Freedom, Development, and Human Worth." Journal of Democracy, vol.6, no.2 (1995), pp.11-19.

41. Is there really a unique Asians’ IDENTITY? Do all Asians think alike? Critique (I) over-simplifying, over-generalizing • construct the spurious notion of singular “Asian identity” • There are no unified "Asian" values in reality • does injustice to the enormous cultural diversity that exists within Asia • detached from complex reality “There are no quintessential values that separate the Asians as a group from people in the rest of the world and which fit all parts of this immensely large and heterogeneous population.” Amartya Sen

42. Critique (II)Who are the “Asians” (& “Westerners”)? Who am I? What kind of values do I have – Asian or American? • Boundaries between Asia & West have become blurred as result of migration & marriages (esp. in the age of globalization) • Asians who have emigrated to the West • Westerners who have emigrated to Asia • Asians who have married Westerners • Their children & grandchildren? Fukuyama Asian on the outside But American on the inside?

43. Critique (III)Culture is not immutable • Cultural values constantly change • If “Asians” really have distinctive “Asian” values, they can be Westernized as the result of globalization (and vice versa) • esp. affluent middle class watch Western movies travel & study in West Culture changes, just like everything else.

44. Critique (IV)Ideological construct/tool • a convenient concept devised by political elites in Asia to justify their rule • Do the elites’ views represent the views of ordinary people? • Ordinary people may want democratic rule The Asian values serves a political purpose for the elites in power. That’s what Fukuyama means by “the end of history.” Democracy has won as an “ideal.”

45. Critique (V) Selective manipulation & arbitrary interpretation of “Asian values” • Selectively pick some cultural values that would help justify authoritarian rule e.g., • respect for & loyalty to authority  Asians prefer following strong leaders • other “Asian values” – ignored e.g., hard work, thrift, etc. • There is nothing inherently anti-democratic about these values Asians may respect the authority, but why should it mean that democracy is not suitable for Asians? There is a leap of logic. The argument is contrived.

46. Selective adaptation, manipulation or interpretation (continued) • “Confucius did NOT recommend blind allegiance to the state” (Sen) • But proponents of Asian values (purposely?) ignore this • Construct “obedience” or “loyalty” to authority as a unique “Asian” value Confucius actually said that if the ruler is wrong, people have a right to “tell him the truth even if it offends him.” Sen

47. Critique (VI)A False Choice/Dichotomy between economic growth & democracy • A stark choice invoked by DAS in Asia • “If you want material well-being, you must be willing to sacrifice democracy” • There is an inevitable trade-off between economic growth and democracy • Why should that be the case? Asians can & should have both economic growth and democracy, just like Westerners. The trade-off may be inevitable at the initial stage, but once the economy has grown, DAS can & should go! This is what has happened in Taiwan and South Korea! They have set good examples to follow.

48. Critique (VII)Freedom & Human Rights are UNIVERSAL Values • Why construct them as “Western” values? • The notions of individual liberty & democracy may have originated in west • They may have been “championed in Western writings and by some Western political leaders” (Sen) BUT… • These facts “can scarcely compromise the claim to liberty that people in Asia possess” (Sen) ALL human beings, whether Asians or Westerners, are entitled to enjoying freedom & HR.

49. Proponents of Asian Values retort … The US is a hypocrite & opportunist! They used to support authoritarian regimes that violated HR, but now they have the nerve to tell other countries to protect HR. Mahathir Malaysia is “not a client state of America.” We are not going to bow to the US. We are not inferior to Americans!

50. Sen’s rejoinder (I) “There are many skeletons in many closets throughout the world.” • The fact that the US condoned HR violations in the past does NOT mean that other countries can violate HR US wrongdoings in the past = not a valid justification for HR violations by ANY country at present • HR violations must be condemned across time & space • Human rights are universal values “But, no matter what the West’s guilt may be, the human rights of Asians can scarcely be compromised on those grounds.”