Elections are great -- when they work

If an 'Asian' perspective of democracy exists, it's one that's driven by pragmatics, says Tom Plate

By Tom Plate
Pacific Perspectives Columnist

Monday, November 6, 2006

Bangkok --- In its pristine state -- in its absolute theoretical purity -- the election of office-holders by direct vote of the people cannot logically be a bad thing. Democracy makes absolutely no sense at all only to the most hopeless elitist or most feral fascist.

But in instances of more shabby execution, when elections produce considerably less than ideal results for the very people for whom they are designed to benefit, democracy has a lot of explaining to do. What I am saying is that people are not going to vote for the democratic way of doing things if that process does not help the people who are voting. The burden is on the champions of the democratic way is to produce proof in the pudding -- positive outcomes obtainable no other way.

If there is such a thing as an "Asian" perspective on elections, then this may be it. Seen from this teeming and restless capital city in Southeast Asia, therefore, the U.S. legislative elections this week are important not as proof of the theoretical wonders of democracy but as an opportunity for America to right itself.

Thais, for sure, are not rooting for America to fail -- not at all. As famously optimistic as they generally are about almost everything, including the positive value of the rise of China, they realize the powerful value of a strong America. They need the United States to make good and wise international decisions and to maintain a strong economy that benefits all, especially Thailand's exports. Besides, only the United States has the heft and geopolitical gravity to serve as the profound and healthful counter-weight to China.

Thais would mainly say that getting back on track for the United States means getting a better perspective on the Iraq War, mainly by de-prioritizing it and re-focusing on more important issues, such as developing a better relationship with the Muslim world. Thais would be the first to admit that they have their own problems in this area but note that they are now working on it.

Thais recognize that elections can be either powerful tools or tools for the powerful. The military generals here who ousted Thaksin Shinawatra, the sleazy, demagogic, elected prime minister, aren't exactly being cheered, but neither are they being dismissed as coupsters-without-cause. Thailand, though bannered by its American ally as a shining example of democracy, is as accustomed to the military coup as Bangladesh to the flood or Indians to the monsoon.

It is understood here that Americans swear religiously by their legislative and parliamentary elections but Asians take a more resigned, worldlier view. They look at Pakistan and note how pathetically little its elected parliament did for the people when in power. They look at wealthy Taiwan and note that its oh-so-pro-democracy elected president now stands dramatically accused of serious corruption.

The leaders of mammoth China do not care much for elections, and yet they have delivered economic growth greater than that of India, whose leaders make so much of their elections. Singapore offers the world a version of people's participation that somehow manages to insure the predictable predominance of the People's Action Party. Hey, you have a problem with that, American idealist? Too bad. The Singaporean people enjoy fine pudding indeed: one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Asians do not resent the American preference for elections if that is what makes Americans happy. What they resent is the pushy export of a system that perhaps works very well in some places but not so well in many others.

They remember the obnoxious wave of self congratulation in America in the heady days after the first elections in Iraq. They remember how the Americans viewed the high Iraqi participation rate as a vindication of their invasion and of the preeminence of their system. But in Asia, where whole countries and whole civilizations have been in existence for a lot longer than two hundred or so years, people said: Just wait.

Today the world can see clearly that Iraq was not ready for democracy; indeed, it may be that the world will come to see that the Iraqis were not even ready for a unified Iraq, as a solitary state of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, and will split into three parts, like ancient Gaul.

I cannot possibly count -- Dear Reader -- the number of Asian leaders, experts and academics to whom I have spoken over the last few years who express utter amazement at the American naiveté about democracy and elections. They will never say this to our faces, of course -- they know all about the need not to lose face in public.

But that is exactly what America has lost -- its public face -- because of its wrong turn in Iraq, and now people region-wide want the United States to straighten out and get things right. If the U.S. nationwide election proves to be the turning point and moves America away from the Iraq folly and back toward reality, then Asians will cheer this election like no one else. But if the election does not yield that result, then the process will seem like an exercise in futility -- as indeed it often is here in Asia.

The views expressed above are those of the author and are not necessarily those of AsiaMedia or the UCLA Asia Institute.

Date Posted: 11/6/2006

Printer friendly version