What East Asia Really Needs Is More Democracy
International Herald Tribune
December 11, 1997
Patrick Smith

With South Korea's rescue package now outlineds, advanced nations and multilateral institutions have committed more than $100 billion to East Asian countries which, less than a year ago, were among the cornerstones of the new global economy.

Fifty-seven billion dollars to Seoul, $23 billion to Jakarta, $17 billion to Bangkok, where the crisis began — these and other sums may save banks, finance houses, industrial conglomerates and, not least, ruling elites. But they are unlikely to do much to solve the region's most fundamental problems — which are neither economic nor financial, but political.

From Seoul to Jakarta, it is already evident that East Asian governments will have trouble navigating the rough political seas that recent economic storms have stirred. South Korea, in particular, may not be able even to keep its bargain with the IMF.

To one degree or another, these nations have never developed the strong, supple democratic institutions they now need. And to an extent that may shock many of us in coming months, East Asia is leaderless.

Those may seem harsh judgments, but consider the administrations of President Suharto in Indonesia, Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad in Malaysia, or numerous other presidents and prime ministers, past and present.

Few top officials in any of these nations have displayed much understanding of the stresses and strains of young democracies. Their dealings with opposition parties have been something less than nuanced. Their flexibility in the face of political and social complexity has been virtually nil.

Under the social contract by which East Asia's political elites rule, fast economic growth is conferred in exchange for deferral of democratic government. This simple formula may have worked for a while, but it is now a hindrance. The sooner it ceases, the better.

Bribing electorates unfamiliar with the workings of democracy is not a mark of leadership. Neither, of course, are the varying degrees of coercion that East Asian elites have routinely employed to prod the recalcitrant and impose "Asian values."

Asia's political elites are best seen as custodians. Their primary task is to reshuffle favors among rising and falling special interests, while de-emphasizing, and sometimes discouraging, the development of civil societies.

Thus, President Suharto's chief concern now seems to be his children's investments. As to Prime Minister Mahathir, not even his own cabinet appears to take seriously his rantings against Western investors.

While East Asia's leadership crisis has many roots, the U.S. role cannot be overlooked. Throughout the Cold war era, Washington too often encouraged inflexible rulers with anti-Communist credentials instead of those who could have advanced their societies along authentically democratic paths. Whether one agrees with the strategy or not, the price for it must now be paid.

The United States has long cast Japan as the exception among Asia's politically underdeveloped nations. As the current crisis unfolded this fall, Washington wanted Tokyo to take a major part in resolving it.

False expectations born of bad history. Absent the open political conflict found elsewhere, Japan suffers the same leadership deficiency as the rest of the Pacific region — and for the same reason.

Yes, Japan is a leading contributor to the South Korean rescue plan. But Japanese banks hold a quarter of South Korea's foreign debt, and South Koreans consume some 8 percent of Japan's global exports.

It is logical enough for Japan to provide nearly a fifth of the bailout funds (twice the U.S. share), but that is not leadership. It is asset protection.

In Southeast Asia, by contrast, Tokyo has tagged along as it usually does in global affairs.

It is essential to recognize East Asia's leadership vacuum if we are to understand events in the region. Bailout programs may ease short-term economic emergencies, but Asia's most basic problems are a half-century old.

East Asian nations are likely to emerge from their present problems either as more authoritarian or more democratic. It is difficult to discern much middle ground.

But the desired outcome demands a transition to the region's first generation of genuine leaders with broad, mature vision. And rescue packages cannot create them.

The writer, a former Asia correspondent for the International Herald Tribune, won this year's Kiriyama Pacific Rim book prize for "Japan: A Reinterpretation." He contributed this to the International Herald Tribune.

Copyright © 2006 the International Herald Tribune