Chee Soon Juan

(Ed. Note: Chee Soon Juan is the Secretary-General of Singapore Democratic Party)

There has been much discussion on the process of democratisation in China in the recent past. No matter how much we talk about it, however, no one really knows what is going to happen in the country. China is vast and factors contributing to political development are numerous and complex. Trying to predict the future of the country is indeed a brave undertaking.

And yet, we are not totally blind. There are indications that may serve as a guide. These indicators are not found in the future but firmly rooted in history. In order to look ahead, we sometimes need to look into the past, because, as the saying goes, those who fail to read history are doomed to repeat it.

The Balance of Power and the Power of Balance

It was not so long ago during the Cold War that the erstwhile Soviet Union, during its up and coming years, challenged the United States for global supremacy. The communist leaders were so confident that Nikita Kruschev testily challenged the Americans: "We will bury you!"

We all know now that in the contest democracy emerged victorious. The reason lay in what futurist Alvon Toffler presciently described as the interplay between balance of power and the power of balance. In the former concept, there is balance of power in democratic systems of checks and balance. Because of this, power is distributed between the three pillars of society: the body politik, the economy, and civil society. Such is the case with the U.S. This balance translated into power (that is, the power of balance) when it came to America having to project its might beyond its shores. Whereas in the former U.S.S.R., there was no such balance of power within its society which was amassed under the politico-military complex. The economy was neglected and civil society was non-existent. As with a table with less than three legs, the system was inherently unstable which unavoidably led to the demise of the empire.

A more recent example is Indonesia. Under the Suharto regime, the focus of the system was trained almost exclusively on the economy so much so that political development and societal growth were neglected, even suppressed. Again, with such an imbalance, the system could not hold its own when the economic crisis visited the country. What makes China, and indeed, autocratic societies in Asia, so sure that they are the exception? Leaving aside rhetoric and taking a more hard-headed approach of reading events of the past and analysing the various factors and how they interact, it seems unlikely that sustainable development and progress can be achieved without transparency and accountability of systems and governments, the basic ingredients of democracy.

Tending Towards Democracy

History also shows that there has been a distinct shift of nations towards democracy. In Asia alone, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia have all cast aside one-party rule for a more democratic polity all in the last decade or so. With varying degrees, Burma, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore are also pressing for more openness and greater democracy.

This has given serious challenge for proponents of the "Asian values" argument. If Asian authoritarians are correct in their espousal that Asia and democracy do not mix, then geography would have to be rewritten. The emergence of democracy, however, did not occur spontaneously. It took years of struggle by democratic leaders who made tremendous personal sacrifices to lead their peoples to freedom. Individuals such as Korean President Kim Dae Jung, Taiwan's Shih Ming-the, Indonesia's Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Singapore's Chia Thye Poh and the assassinated Philippine hero Benigno Aquino all came forth to rally their fellow citizens to stand up to undemocratic regimes and, in the process, set themselves up for brutal persecution by their governments.

The Spokescountry

As Asian democracy leaders advocate freedom for their societies, one country stands out as the voice for the "Asian Way" (whatever that is). Singapore continues to maintain that democracy is not suited for Asia. This should come as no surprise. The city-state continues to use the Internal Security Act, which allows for arbitrary arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial, against opposition and civil society leaders. The local media is tightly controlled. An entire generation of younger Singaporeans have read only one newspaper and watched only one television station. As a consequence, many Singaporeans don't know what or how to think. Fundamental freedoms of speech, association and assembly, rights crucial to democracy, are denied the people. All this has resulted in a society run on fear with the government hardly transparent and accountable to the people.

Yet, Singapore is held out to be the model of some Asian leaders. Such myopic and blinkered outlook must - and should - worry democrats in the region. The idea that long-term stability and development can take place independently of democracy, as I have described earlier, is tragically a flawed one.

The fight for democracy in Asia must ultimately come from Asians ourselves. This can be better achieved if democrats from the region come together in a concerted effort to push for change in undemocratic countries and strengthen the fabric of democratic ones. Only then can the collective vision of a peaceful, prosperous and stable Asia be ultimately realised.