Democracy in Asia

Democracy Differs East and West

By Stein Tonnesson

It has become a feature of NIAS conferences that authors are not allowed to read their papers. Instead another participant presents a prepared summary with comments; only afterwards is the author given the floor to defend him or herself. This certainly increases the excitement, and also provides more feedback for each of the paper givers. From the organizational point of view it allows organizers to group related contributions together and get more papers presented in less time. In this case NIAS shared the task of organizing with the Gothenburg University Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, and the International Institute for Asian Studies in Leiden. Conveners were Hans Antlov (NIAS) and Tak-Wing Ngo (IIAS).
Two big controversies dominated in the discussions: how to define 'democracy'; and whether democracy differs in East and West. Some preferred a maximum definition incorporating both institutional and social criteria, whereas others wanted a sharper one. It was also suggested that more than one definition and more than one approach should be as long as the scholar concerned would make quite clear which was being used.
The question about the difference was the one that aroused most heat. Some believed in Asian values, while others accused this discourse of being a tool in the hands of oppressors. Whitehead listened and took notes, and in the end he rephrased the question he had been given: Which Asia? What differences? He did not want to speak about essential differences, only of contextual ones. A good deal of difference has to do with the way we talk to each other, express the concepts we use. When scholars compare, it is important that this be done at the same level. Ideals in one place cannot be compared with actual regimes elsewhere. Robert Dahl spelled out the logical requirements for democracy and ended up with something that existed nowhere. Protagonists of 'Asian Values' can refute critique by asking 'Why don't you live up to your own ideals?' In order to compare democratic states, Whitehead thought, it is important to study their sequence of democratization. Had democracy been imposed from without or did it result from internal pressure? Had democratization been a means of defying external powers or had it rather been a way of placating them? Had it been implemented from above, or as a result of a class struggle? Did it reflect a compromise or the victory of one party?
By asking such questions, and also to some extent answering them, Whitehead surmounted his challenge. He made East and West differ, but each within itself rather than between each other.