For many Asian nations, the pursuit of a true democratic system has been a mirage
To produce a list of “top x of something” is arduous, but that has never deterred discussion of who has made the list. In the infinite connectivity of social media we see many “top 10s.” Ramachandra Guha, an Indian columnist and historian, has produced a list of modern Asian leaders in his recent book, Makers of Modern Asia.
The 11 luminaries in Mr Guha’s list include obvious names such as Gandhi, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Sukarno or Lee Kuan Yew, and it omits some otherwise negatively notables: Park Chung-hee, Kim-il Sung, Ayatollah Khomeini, or any of Japan’s nationalist leaders.
In assembling these names, one gets a flavour of what the region was trying to overcome through different leaders and diverse methods, from pacifism to bloodshed – post-colonial imperialism, economic disadvantage, salvation of the peasants, inadequacies on many fronts: Food supply, governance, infrastructure, legislature, but above all, political freedom.
But if those were the aspirations of recent Asian leaders, what do leaders or would-be leaders aspire to now? Over half a century later, stark similarities remain in their goals, especially their efforts to overhaul political systems.
The region has progressed economically; parts of it have made stellar economic advancement, matching or surpassing developed economies. Still, across the continent, political unrest stemming from quests for power is ubiquitous. For many Asian nations, the pursuit of a true democratic system has been a mirage, and also a disruption of ordinary life.
In the sub-continent, two names threatened to change everything. Their campaigns were filled with a puritanical urge to cleanse the system of corrupt politicians, and promises to break the unholy nexus between cronies, business, and administration, which perhaps appeal to some young urbanites. But neither Imran Khan nor Arvind Kejriwal has been able to garner the mass support needed to fulfill their promises.
While Imran Khan won provincial government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and secured the second highest votes in the election, he has been leading a month-long protest preferring agitation over governance. Observers think this is undermining the democratic process in the country.
If his claims of massive electoral irregularities and his demand for overhaul of the electoral system may be valid, his decision to quit parliament (although choosing to maintain his party’s governing position by not quitting in KPK) and to take to the streets exposes issues in an immature system: Most importantly, lack of trust in electoral processes.
Thailand has seen extraordinary events, muddling its efforts to continue on a democratic path during the last decade. The streets of Bangkok may be calmer now, but debilitating face-offs forced the military to intervene, perhaps giving them moral underpinning to revise the constitution.
This may be followed by a fresh election and civilian rule but fear remains that this may not happen, or what will be the result if the desired party does not win, once more. This is particularly important given the differences in support among urban and rural Thais, and how the ruling class has been able to annul election results. The doldrums are likely to leave Thais worse off.
Protesters in Hong Kong have been demanding their democratic rights for years. Strong annual democracy marches and intermittent Occupy movements have not proved successful. Their demand to choose the chief executive through universal suffrage has been deferred until 2017, and negotiations between the Chinese and Hong Kong governments are unpromising.
The recent Chinese proposal insists that the candidates have the endorsement of a “nominating committee,” similar to that which picked the present chief executive. However, such proposals will need to gain a two-thirds support in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, where half of its 70 members are directly elected, and pro-democracy parties hold 27 seats.
The common theme in these examples (and there are others – eg Malaysia or Myanmar) is that regardless of complex issues, history, culture, and most importantly economic prosperity or struggle, citizens want democratic freedom – they want to be able to choose their governments.
But the events in which they had little role forces them to live under tyranny. For nations to get to a point where elections are conducted on time by an apolitical Election Commission where winners and losers accept the verdict and move on – akin to the Indian system, which manages this basic step reasonably fairly, given its diversity and the sheer numbers of voters, parties, candidates – seems a very long journey.
The idea that citizens can shape their own destiny should be exhilarating for leaders and their supporters. Yet, only a few Asian nations have been able to implement it.
To what can this be ascribed? If the nationalistic spirit was a key reason for the economic success of past leaders, their inability to relinquish power – only a few Asian leaders have left office before their death – has delayed or prevented the formation of democratic and transparent succession procedures.
A common but essential feature of past leaders was their ability to quash their rivals. Current leaders seem solely focused on that attribute.
There is great variation in the circumstances where demonstrations have occurred, but they are led by elites, involve the urban middleclass and face the challenge of turning slogans to reality. Then there are personality clashes in lieu of ideologies or values, simply perpetuating the agony.
Further, economic stability and progress are lethal tools for the incumbents. People want economic prosperity, rather than being concerned about who is at the helm as long as they are not overly-oppressed and being skillfully managed.
Agitations, marches, sit-ins and fasting seem to lose their usual appeal, particularly among the less well-off. Their immediate priorities are food, clothes, shelter, or jobs – not, for example, freedom of speech or disproportionate defence spending.
This is why aspiring leaders could do worse than demonstrating their ability on the ground; there was one such example this year.
The Indonesian election, like Pakistan’s last year, saw a democratically elected leader making way for another. The winner brings unprecedented credentials to the job. Jokowi, the president-elect, has not risen through the ranks of the military, nor does he share a hereditary line with past rulers.
His ascendance adds to testimony for democracy in the country – showing that individuals can work hard with innovative problem-solving skills at the grassroots, win nominations from major political parties, and showcase their governance skills to win votes.
Yet the loosing candidate, Prabowo Subianto, is set to take his revenge using his party’s majority in the parliament. On September 25, 2014, the Associated Press reported that Indonesia’s parliament voted to abolish the direct elections of local officials, the method which has helped aspiring but little-known politicians like Jokowi to show his leadership and governance skills. This bill will take away electoral authority from people to party leadership.
As in Asia, democracy is yet to become entrenched in Indonesia, but is there a lesson for others to learn from Jokowi’s success?
Source: Dhaka Tribune
