FDL - AP QUARTERLY
Autumn, '97
 | There is nothing peculiar about the fact that culture is one of the issues around which the debates over democracy in Asia revolve. It has happened in other places too where people were engaged in a 'rattrapage', an arduous work of catching up with those who had gone far ahead of them in modernization, while coping with all the shocks inevitably accompanying its progress. In Germany, the familiar tune in the course of the last century and also in the early period of this century was that Germany had a unique culture, quite unlike those in the 'West' which was a compelling reason for it to have a political system different from the one practiced in democratic countries. Therefore there is nothing surprising that the newly modernizing countries in Asia are resorting to the same kind of argument in a desperate effort to earn time. Recently a Korean scholar made a bold assertion in a paper that Jong Yorip, a Korean Confucian scholar who was executed on a charge of high treason in the late Yi dynasty, was a Korean Oliver Cromwell - a republican in ideas only 60 years ahead of the latter. Likewise, Dr. Kim Dae-jung compared Mencius with John Locke in that both of them were advocating a type of democracy in which the will of the population takes precedence over that of the monarch - only that the former predates the latter by several thousand years. These could serve as effective counter arguments against those who argue against adopting a western type of democracy in Asia on account of differing cultures. Although the cases quoted are not democratic in the sense such as is generally understood in modern times, we could concede that there indeed are democratic elements in Asian culture and that democracy is not totally alien to an Asian way of thinking and living. The point is, however, whether this ! is all that important and whether or not we need to prove that we have democratic traditions in culture in order to argue for democracy in Asia. Those who argue against democracy do so on the false claim of a "unique" culture. However, culture is not necessarily the crucial question in our discussion of democracy in Asia. Asia can indeed be proud of democratic elements in its tradition, both in the intellectual and in the practical realm, which would compare favorably with that of any other regions of the world. Democratic elements in culture had not been any richer in Europe than in Asia. Even as late as the last century, let alone during the classic and medieval times, democracy was taken largely as a threat to civilization particularly among the educated classes - the "blind, unbridled, ferocious sprit", as Francois Guizot remarked. Macaulay, writing in the beginning of the last century, asserted that universal suffrage would lead to the collapse of civilization: "in two or three hundred years, a few lean and half-naked fishermen may divide with owls and foxes the ruins of the greatest European cities - may wash their nets amidst the relics of her gigantic docks, and build their huts out of the capitals of her stately cathedrals." |
|
I believe that both the democratic and
non-democratic elements are inherent in any culture
regardless of time and space. They may be intertwined
with other, often apolitical, elements usually in an
indistinguishable way. But anybody intent on finding
proofs of either elements in the traditions to prop up
his case will surely be able to do so. This does not
necessarily mean that it is totally irrelevant to a
discussion of democratization for us to look into
cultural aspects of a country or a region in question.
As people embark on a journey of modernization they
would inevitably attempt to chart their way relying on
their own experiences at least as much as on the
others. Even in interpreting and learning from the
model derived from others' experiences, people would
still be guided by their own past. Besides, even a
successful management of a democratic polity would
largely hinge upon giving the best expression to those
elements in their traditions in away congenial and
conducive to democracy. Even when we are confronted
with completely novel problems, we may often resort to
our traditions for sources of new ideas for their
solution. However, there is no room for
culture-determinism particularly in modern times. As
Dr. Kim Dae-jung has once remarked, "Culture is not our
destiny". We live undoubtedly in and within our
culture. But culture is not something separate from
us, lording it over us. It is bequeathed to us but
also created by us in the midst of our concrete lives,
constantly made and unmade in the process. There were
some even within Europe who used to argue that
democracy would never be possible in countries like
Germany, Spain or Greece because of cultural
impediments. They all proved to be utterly wrong. The
problem of democracy in Asia should be located
somewhere other than in the realm of culture. The most
crucial question for democracy in Asia at this juncture
is the contact with the existing achievements - how we
evaluate, digest, and adopt what has been achieved by
human species so far in democracy and how we may go on
expanding its frontier further and to which direction.
What have been the achievements? Taking stock requires
a minimum of definition however distasteful or
unproductive the work may be. There still is confusion
surrounding variegated versions of democracy which the
demise of socialism does not seem to have helped much
to clarify despite allegations of the "end of history".
However, we could perhaps agree on two principles as
the minimum basic acquirements of democracy whichever
of its versions we may adhere to. One is that all the
members of any human commonwealth should participate in
a meaningful way in the making of its important
decisions, including the selection of their rulers.
Two, all in the commonwealth should be able to
participate not only in the enjoyment of the values
created through the community in an equitable way but
also in the definition of what values are. I am aware
that this definition is subject to arguments and
objections like most of the others. But I hope that
this would do for the limited purpose of this paper.
Regardless of ideological or "cultural" positions, a
democracy should aim at embodying the two principles
outlined above and realizing them in practice. Human
beings are not mere objects of governing, however
benign, enlightened of efficient it may be. Besides,
what is good for them is not to be left entirely to the
decision of the governing elites. Despite certain
defects, it is in the West that enormous progress has
been made towards the realization of the principles
above not only in terms of enhancing a standard of
political ethics which is universally applicable but
also in the accumulation of concrete experiences -
individuals who can act on their own conscience,
political morality transcending national boundaries,
separation of power, independent judiciary, objective
and neutral state institutions, etc. For one thing
politics is no longer what it used to be like: a
dangerous game in which there are not fixed rules for a
fair play and the loser is to suffer serious setbacks
in person, i.e. loss of prestige, status, property or
even of life itself. There may be accusations that a
so-called liberal democratic system is often
ideologically biased to favor the sinister interests of
the established classes. The representative government
may be liable to distort rather than represent the will
of the people. Constit! utionalism is to warp and
suppress the popular view rather than tame and channel
absolute power. Having originated and evolved mainly
in the West it may be seriously predisposed towards
reflecting only its experiences and culture - like in
too much emphasis on rights and individuals as against
obligations and community. All these critiques stand at
least partially - and probably we could enter even more
serious ones in addition to them too. However, despite
all the defects and deficits, still even the existing
achievements are very much valuable, a common
inheritance of mankind, precious little as they may
appear in view of the principles in absolute terms.
There have been so many contending versions of
democracy since the last century, even after the demise
of popular democracy apart from the main trend of
liberal democracy. None of those deviations promises
possibilities of expansion outside of their own
country. They cling mostly to the status quo clamoring
to be left alone to pursue "their own way" of doing
things rather than to urge on others to follow their
examples. Judging by common sense, a political system
like perhaps most of the things in this world is either
to expand or atrophy. A system which cannot expand
does not stand a good chance of democratization in
Asia. Democracy should be pursued in a way that
inherits the past accomplishments of our species and
developed further in areas which have not been properly
covered. One of those areas may be that of
internalization. Liberal democracies despite its
liberal principles, which are universalistic by nature,
have been largely limited to the confines of
nation-states. Outside of national boundaries
democracy does not apply. Thus it does not scruple a
democratic government to do things abroad which it is
not supposed to do at home - or not to do things abroad
which it is supposed to do at home. One of the innate
limits of democracy since the time of its birth is that
there is a group of relatively small number of people
who enjoy the full benefits of political freedom and
participation while a larger group of masses have to
endure the fate of an underprivileged status. It was
not limited to the times of ancient Greece when only a
minority of the population was able to enjoy the full
benefits of political participation while a larger
group of masses have to endure a fate of
underprivileged status. It was not limited to the
times of ancient Greece when only a minority of the
population were admitted into full citizenship while a
larger group composed of women, slaves and foreigners
had to suffer the ignominies of being a second class
citizen or even of being a political non-person. Has
this been corrected with the modern version of
democracy? We have to look more closely into a
possible link between the enormous political freedom as
well as the high standard of consumption enjoyed by the
middle classes of the first world with the political
and economic hardships of the underprivileged classed
in both the developed and developing countries.
Experiences have shown us that in the long term
perspective the separation of politics and economics is
not tenable at all not only in foreign but also in
domestic politics. Democratization is not something to
be pursued in the abstract, in a void separate from
tradition, concrete problems in the reality such as
security, economic and social development and a general
way of life. Nonetheless, Asians will have realized
that in the pursuit of fulfillment in their daily lives
the common main task incumbent on them is to overcome
one of the innate curses of democracy existant since
ancient times. Democratization in Asia should be
pursued in a way inheriting the best elements from what
has been already achieved and expanding it towards
perfection. Tradition may play an important role here.
If it can be important it is not because tradition is
simply there like a mountain, but because we have a
right frame of problematics, a set of concrete aporiae
related to it, and a will to improve on what we have by
its creative reinterpretation.
.
[Professor Ra Jong-il is a professor at Sogang
Univeristy, Korea
|