27-30 October, 1995
Copenhagen, Denmark
IIAS / NIAS International Workshop

DEMOCRACY IN ASIA?

Most of Asia has resisted the waves of political
liberalization that have characterized world politics during
the past 25 years. While pluralist democratic systems have
been adopted in many parts of southern Europe, Latin America,
Eastern Europe, and Africa, only few pluralist gains have been
made in Asia. Procedural democracy has survived in India and
Japan, and the Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea have
established or re-established multi-party systems with
reasonably free elections. A protest movement prevented the
military from seizing power yet another time in Thailand. But
demands for pluralism have been suppressed in many other
states, most notably China and Burma. Many Asian regimes have
made it clear that they prefer social stability and controlled
development to the adoption of western style individualist
pluralism. The Islamic world has been characterized by the
challenge from various kinds of 'fundamentalist' movements for
whom a pluralist democracy does not represent a goal. From a
western, liberal perspective Asia is today thus the least
democratic of the world's five continents.
Western dissatisfaction with the lack of freedom in Asia has
posed a challenge to Asian state leaders, politicians, and
intellectuals to formulate ideas by which they can defend
their political systems in relation to those of the west. The
need to do so has been strengthened by economic success and
the rapprochement between socialists and non-socialist regimes
in the wake of the Cold War. There are discussions about such
issues as the 'Asianization' of Japan and a 'greater China'
(Zhonghua minzu). Malaysia has taken the lead in trying to
establish a political and ideological profile for Asia,
clearly demarcated against the west, and in India a powerful
movement wants to build the state more clearly based on
Hinduism.
Part of the effort has to do with defining 'Asian forms of
democracy', more suitable to Asian cultural values than the
western ones. This immediately entails the problem of defining
what 'democracy' actually is. So far there have been two main
kinds of definitions. The most widespread is the liberal one
which may be called 'procedural'. It defines democracy as a
political system based on the basic freedoms, with free
elections, and a mechanism for peaceful transitions from one
government to another. The other main definition, which has
dominated the communist movement and has a strong influence on
social democratic thinking, is 'participatory'. It focuses on
the actual participation of the population in political
decisions.
Can 'Asian democracy' be based on any of these definitions, or
does it need its own definition based in Asian philosophical
traditions? Will the reasoning behind Sukarno's 'guided
democracy' or Suharto's 'new order' be applicable in other
Asian countries, with emphasis on methods of
consensus-building? Will a more Confucian definition emerge,
emphasizing stability, harmony, and virtue? Or will the
definition be based on governmental performance in terms of
economic growth? What will the catchword be: 'benevolent
democracy'? 'Developmental democracy'?
IIAS and NIAS wish to organize a discussion of democracy in
Asia, on the basis of papers dealing with struggles about
democracy and perceptions of democracy in the Asian countries.
The papers should be written from various scholarly angles and
within different scholarly disciplines.
Proposals for papers should be submitted not later than June
15, 1995 to the NIAS. The IIAS and the NIAS expect to be able
to provide free accommodation and meals for the selected
participants during the workshop.

Address all correspondence to:
NIAS, att: Dr. Hans Antl”v
Njalsgade 84
2300 Copenhagen S.
Denmark
Tel: +45-31-548844
Fax: +45-32-962530
Email: sec@nias.ku.dk