DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD | Giving citizens a voice
09 June 2008
Elastic Democracies and Globalization
Chan Heng Chee
Countries can have varying degrees of freedom and democracy, according to Chan Heng Chee, Singapore’s ambassador to the United States. Open markets are necessary but not sufficient for democracy; with the exception of India, recent experience suggests that open markets precede democracy, she says. This essay was adapted from her September 18, 2007, remarks at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.
Anglo-American democracy is based on the United Kingdom’s parliamentary model or the separation of powers of the American political system. Its proper functioning assumes the existence of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, free elections, and the rule of law. Any country that calls itself a democracy must adhere to all of these elements.
But around the world, democracy is elastic. You can have more democracy or less democracy, and you can have greater or lesser degrees of freedom. Malaysia and Singapore are less democratic than Japan and South Korea but more democratic than Thailand and Egypt.
My view is that markets are necessary but not sufficient for democracy. We have never seen a country that is democratic that does not have some degree of open markets, and we have never seen a country that is totally closed to the outside world that is not also authoritarian or totalitarian. Myanmar has hardly any markets really and no democracy. North Korea has no markets and no democracy.
Which comes first, markets or democracy? What is or should be the sequencing?
The Four Tigers
Observing political developments in Asia, I would say markets come before democracy. The four tigers -- South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore -- were authoritarian and became more open systems with adoption of an export-oriented, market-based economy. All became highly successful economically, achieving average growth of 8 to 9 percent a year over a decade or two.
Entering world markets requires discipline, rule of law, transparency, and access to information. These changes lead to a prosperous middle class to serve as a firm foundation for a stable democracy. Countries that embrace the world economy also embrace globalization, leading to democratization and equalization.
Compare the paths of Russia and China. The Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev chose glasnost (openness) before perestroika (economic restructuring), hastening the Soviet collapse. But today Russia has become more centralized, and the United States is uncomfortable that it has retreated from democracy.
China chose perestroika first. Since 1978 China has been going through breathtaking economic growth. The middle class is growing, the Internet is buzzing, and social freedoms are allowed. Foreign travel is allowed, and ideas flow in along with foreign direct investment. I believe the Chinese political system will change to cope with the economic system that is fast evolving. Competition demands it. Chinese democracy may not look like Anglo-American democracy, but elections, free speech, responsiveness to the people will come.
India is one country in Asia where democracy came first and the opening of markets later. Now India is opening its markets and participating in the world economy in full measure. It will boom. India may be the rare exception where democracy became successfully established before markets.
The U.S. Role
Since the end of World War II, the United States and its European allies have endeavored to set up an open and fair global trading system and a stable system of currency exchange. International agreements have led to huge growth of trade, banking, and finance throughout the world. They allow newly independent and sovereign countries that buy into this system to develop and prosper without having to think about resorting to conflict to achieve their economic goals.
In tandem with open markets and open trade, the United States led in the promotion of democracy. For countries to accept and succeed with the democratic experiment, open markets were seen as essential. The United States kept its markets open while exporting capital markets and technology. In Asia, when we think of America, we think of democracy and free markets.
Since the Cold War, the United States and Europe set out to promote democracy and human rights along with economic deregulation in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. This was the Washington consensus. In Asia we link the aggressive promotion of this consensus as hastening and contributing to the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
I believe the United States is still interested in promoting democracy. But paradoxically, the United States is turning protectionist. If the United States wants to see democracy flourish it cannot close its markets. New democracies will be choked off if they cannot work and prosper through being productive and play by the globally established rules of the game.
When the Chinese students stood up against the authorities in Tiananmen, they erected a Statue of Liberty as their icon. That is because the United States stands for freedom and liberty. That is what you export. If the United States were to become protectionist, I wonder what icon would be held up. It cannot be what the United States wants as its image.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.
