Tradition v. Modernity in Public Policy

Abstract

A common theme in the study of Asia has long been the question of modernity versus tradition. To what extent have specific countries in this vast region caught up with the demands of the “modern” age, or is there even agreement on what constitutes “modernity” in an Asian context? On the other hand, to what extent does tradition continue to underpin structures and processes of governance, and do history, values and culture remain enduring influences on public policy decisions and their implementation? These are old questions that many scholars (and philosophers including Friedrich Nietzche) have struggled with in their time. The diversity across the continent clearly prevents generalization, and the controversies about essentialism caution us against even trying. Yet this perspective somehow continues to infuse not a few of the articles published in this journal, and the politics and policy literature in general. In this issue of Asian Politics & Policy, Iran-based scholars Yahya Kamali and Sedighe Cheikhzadeh Jooshani examine how Iran’s leaders and foreign policy influencers rely on historical analogy as a source of wisdom, wisdom that is used both to inform policymaking as well as to rationalize and explain to the public their preferences and decisions with respect to the nuclear issue in that country. Titled “Reasoning in Foreign Policy-Making from the Analogy Perspective: The Case Study of Iran's Nuclear Issue,” they use psychology and cognitive reasoning as their conceptual frame, but nonetheless end up pointing to particular significant episodes in the past that decision makers are known to highlight as relevant points of reference. These include the Hudaybiyyah Peace Treaty between the Prophet Muhammad and the heads of the tribes of Mecca in the year 628, the peace treaty between Imam Hassan and Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan written in the year 661, and the 1828 Russo-Iran treaty, among others. Chinese leaders and intellectuals, with their country’s long recorded history, also often tend to fall back on history and the comfort and familiarity of cultural traditions in order to understand complex challenges of modern-day existence. James de Shaw Rae and Xiaodan Wang, in the 2016 APP article titled “Placing Race, Culture, and the State in Chinese National Identity: Han, Hua, or Zhongguo?, argue in their research that “popular and official nationalism are impacted by the historical conceptions of Chineseness (civic, cultural, and racial).” Then in a review essay, Matteo Fumagalli refers to author Feng Zhang’s, 2015 book on Chinese hegemony as putting forward claims that “the regional order in East Asia is based on the distinctive nature of China’s imperial order (tianxia), the role of Confucian ethics in shaping China’s conduct with its neighbors, and the importance of a whole range of relationships ….” On the other hand, Ning Liao, writing for APP in 2013, talks about collective memory as indeed being an effective instrument of regime legitimacy. This reminds us of a September 2018 study by the Stephen Muers of the Institute for Policy Research of the University of Bath, which argues that “culture and values need to be at the heart of thinking about public policy. Policy is more likely to be successful (however success is defined) if policymakers take these aspects into account” (p. 4).” In a literature review on the role of national culture in shaping public policy published by the Australian National University in 2014, the authors highlight that “(c)ultural factors influence economic behavior, political participation, social solidarity and value formation and evolution, which are closely linked to how and why public policies are developed in different ways in different countries” (p. i).” The return of culture and values to the forefront of policy studies (as in many other fields) may be part of the backlash against globalization, another theme in this issue’s subtexts. In this current edition of APP the influence of neoliberal ideology over trade policy in Malaysia (in the article by Rakhmat Syarip) and over higher education policy in Indonesia (in the article by Nurdiana Gaus) is portrayed as being mediated and qualified by practices and ideas encouraged by an interventionist State. This results in some internal tensions and contradictions in how policy is formulated, and again in how it is implemented on the ground, but adaptation inevitably occurs. Is the interventionist State cultural artifact or part of the modern order? There is much we need to ponder.