Institute of East Asian Studies
Gerhard-Mercator University
New Research Projects
Beyond the purely economic dimension of the financial and economic crisis in Asia there is also a political dimension which has generated a discourse on the political reasons for the crisis and thus the future of political structures and systems. Even though the common may take different turns in each of the countries involved, emerging transnational processes and discussion contexts can still be discerned.
* By THOMAS HEBERER
Project 1: 'Discourses on Political Reform and Democratization in East and Southeast Asia in the Light of New Processes of Regional Community Building' (funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).
This project intends to:
- trace and analyse the conceptions on the political future evolved since the mid-nineties at three levels:
1) the political elite;
2) the intellectual elite;
3) NGOs;
- look at the influence exerted on the political reform process by political discourse;
- discern whether a second debate on 'Asian values' is emerging, or has emerged, on the basis of democratic values;
- analyse whether the conceptions formed by political discourse tend to be 'Asian', 'Western', or syncretic;
- provide an exhaustive answer to the question of whether political discourse is contributing to a debate reaching beyond the earlier one on 'Asian values' and whether a common identity oriented towards democratic elements is formed.
These points will be analysed in two authoritarian states (China, Vietnam), a multi-ethnic, formally democratic state with strong authoritarian features (Malaysia), and a democratic state with significant parochial structures and patterns of behaviour (Japan).
The research objectives in the field of comparative politics have two aims: the analysis and categorization of the recent debate on democracy, participation and conceptions regarding the political future, and examination of the differences and similarities of this debate in its respective contexts something which has so far received insufficient scholarly coverage in the West. As an expression of increased self-assertiveness, the 'synthesis debate' is of particular interest. As opposed to approaches aiming to reveal empirical evaluations of democracy through quantitative computations based on an explicit democracy/non-democracy dichotomy, this project intends to reflect the procedural character of political discourse and of political exercise within the framework of its stated research objectives.
The following questions will be examined and analysed:
1. Which conceptions regarding the political future have been discussed since 1990? How has the Asian crisis affected the character of the debate and which levels of discussion and changes in perspectives can be discerned? We are particularly interested in: a) ideas for a future political system such as concepts of democracy, ideas concerning the political order, forms of participation; b) How are events leading up to the crisis viewed? Where and when do we see a recognition of faults, and where is the status quo of political and structural relations defended?; c) Which reform concepts are introduced and discussed? Which ideas, principles, values and traditions do political actors rely on?; d) Are there any attempts to achieve long-term democratization and, if so, which forms of democracy are regarded as emulative?
2. This will be analysed at three levels: a) the political elite (both governing and non-governing); b) NGOs, with a distinction between external and internal spheres of influence, i.e. foreign and domestic impulses; and c) the intellectual elite.
3. Is there any link between the level of political discourse and the change in political structures (such as the emphasis on village and communal elections in China and Vietnam)? Can we expect a form of 'intellectual mobilization' (Bendix)?
4. Are there any signs of an emergence of a second Asian values debate on the basis of democracy-oriented values? Does this lead to an application of Western democratic concepts or are there any efforts to draw a boundary between those concepts and syncretic indigenous conceptions?
5. Are these 'Asian' concepts truly Asian in the sense that they are democracy-inducing concepts and factors drawing on a reservoir of indigenous elements which can be viewed as local thought products deviating from Western ideas? Within this context, we understand 'indigenous concepts' to mean ideas about political change born within the respective cultural realm which need not necessarily be compatible with Western ideas. We do not subscribe to a homogenous notion of culture in this context, but rather to different cultural traditions that may produce competing concepts and contending theories.
6. Does the discourse on democratization and participation contribute to a discourse beyond the earlier debate on values within the region, and is it possible, on the basis of the mentioned synthesis debate, to ascertain new signs of a common regional identity more definitely marked by elements of democracy?
The future course of the Asian crisis notwithstanding, we believe that the discourse on the political future in East and Southeast Asia is an expression of growing democratic self-consciousness and self-assertiveness among the political and intellectual elite. This research project goes beyond the discourses on currently practised forms of political exercise, since it is an inquiry into the historical place occupied by the respective discourses, which looks for specific future-oriented elements within them while at the same time attempting to extract constituent transnational elements. *
A special 'Discussion Paper' series related to this project (No.1 was published in June 2000) is available at Http://www.uni-duisburg.de/ Institute/OAWISS/publikationen/ index.html
Further information:
Professor Thomas Heberer
Institute of East Asian Studies, Gerhard-Mercator University Duisburg, Germany.
E-mail: heberer@uni-duisburg.de