How democracy is dismantling Asian values

Perhaps the most striking example of this development was the regional response to Cambodia's recent election.

Although the joint international observer group found that the elections were acceptable, ASEAN postponed Cambodia's membership of the organisation.

In a break with its previous inviolable policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of a neighboring state, Thailand and the Philippines muscled ASEAN into demanding greater political freedom and stability in Cambodia as a precondition of membership.

Kim Dae Jung, a former dissident who once faced the death penalty for alleged treason, is now president of South Korea. His election was the first transition from opposition to government since the generals seized control almost 30 years ago.

Democracy exists today in the Philippines and Thailand, each previously ruled by autocrats who brushed off concerns about human rights with talk of the Asian way.

Indonesia's president, B. J. Habibie, has endorsed, if not embraced, the notion that human rights need protection. although this year's elections have been forced on him by popular protest, preparations for the poll indicate that appropriate checks and balances will be put in place.

Taiwan has also entered the democratic fold through vigorously contested elections.

Yet some Asian leaders still hold against change. The Burmese regime holds Asia's most famous activist for democracy, Aung San Su Kyi, a virtual prisoner.

The Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, has used the concept of Asian values to limit democratisation. Yet even in his government there has been strong support for human rights.

Before his imprisonment, Malaysia's former deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, was a passionate advocate of rights. in his 1996 book the Asian Renaissance, he wrote: ``no Asian tradition can be cited to support the proposition that in Asia the individual must melt into a faceless community.''

There are three reasons why the days of Asian values are numbered. First, the idea that the general population supports restraints on basic speech and political freedom runs counter to human experience. Popular protest brought down Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, South Korea's line of military rulers and President Soeharto.

In a recent speech in Melbourne, former Philippines president Fidel Ramos spoke of signs that ``in east Asia the time of authoritarianism is past and popular participation in national politics has become the wave of the future''.

Second, there is increasing public resentment that the main proponents of collective values over individual rights are those who directly benefit from such rule. Yet without criticism there can be no accountability, which helps explain the destructive spread of crony capitalism throughout much of the region. The inquiry into ``Soeharto's millions'' is evidence that even the most revered leaders are no longer immune from scrutiny.

Third, economics drives openness. Economic progress now depends upon effective communication. In turn, political legitimacy depends on economic performance. A government can open its economy and therefore its information channels to the world at large, as China and Vietnam are doing, or it can choose to suppress communication, as Burma is doing, with devastating effect on its economy.

For Australia, the task of dealing with autocracy is delicate. there is little to be gained from a direct assault on the leadership of Asian countries, as al gore did at apec in November. This played directly into the hands of Dr Mahathir who was able to paint America's stance as colonial interference in the affairs of a sovereign state.

The prime minister, John Howard, tried to distance himself from American methods, saying Australia did not see its ``prime role in the world as lecturing others on how they should run their system of government''.

Australia must support institutions of democracy and of civil governance. The work of Indonesia's increasingly independent national human rights commission shows that such institutions can help transform both standards of accountability and government thinking on individual rights.

As the structures of authoritarianism are dismantled and competing political forces grapple for power, the movement towards political liberalisation may be a force for instability. Yet democracy breeds transparency and accountability, creating in the long term a platform for better relationships between states.

Even more importantly, the movement speaks to us of our common human aspirations and affirms that we should never accept that any person has a lesser claim to freedom simply on the basis of their culture, geography or economic condition.

Greg Hunt is a senior fellow at the centre for comparative constitutional studies at Melbourne university. Joshua Frydenberg recently completed a Masters in International Relations at Oxford University.

Published in The Age. (Melbourne) Jan 13, 1999.