The Myth of Asian-Style Democracy

Abstract

In recent years, there has been significant scholarship and discussion devoted to the study of the so-called Asian-style or soft authoritarianism.1 At the heart of this controversy is the claim that Asia is a different place from the West and therefore must construct political regimes that suit the unique conditions of its cultures. While it makes sense to nurture market economies by government and business working together, politics must reflect the group orientedness or communitarian concerns of Asia's Confucian cultures. This means certain liberties such as freedom of speech, assembly, and competition for political office are sharply limited and government intervention in private interests may occur in an effort to preserve cultural attributes East Asians admire. Some leaders such as Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew argue that Asia's communitarian values are superior to the values of the West and can keep Asia from having to deal with the problems the West faces such as economic stagnation and dislocation, violent crime, and general social malaise. For this reason, governments in East Asia-most notably Singapore and Malaysia-and some commentators in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the West have argued that a political system that is part-democratic, part-authoritarian is still highly developed. In fact, they say, it is an improvement on the typical liberal form of democracy found in the West.