I. Introduction
Contemporary debates in democratic practices tend to occur along with public discourse and real-world dilemmas. There have been prevalent discussions about why the United States struggle to resolve the effect of polarization; tensions in international affairs, exemplified by the ongoing discord between Israel and Palestine, reveal how differing opinions can escalate to international conflicts and domestic violence. In more politically active Western societies, the various manifestations of political participation seem to collectively contribute to the divergence of political opinion, attitude, and behavior, all of which appear to be vulnerable to manipulation. As such, some critics demand a reassessment of the role of political engagement, questioning whether there is excessive access to democratic practices for the public and who should partake in decision-making processes.
Taking a step back, it is worth noting that these critics overlook the prevalence of anti-democratic ideology and authoritarian governance in many geopolitical regions. This paper argues that there is no such thing as “too much democracy” on a global scale, not only due to the inherent justifiability of mass democracy, but also because the stark lack of democratic practices in many geopolitical areas has been taken for granted. This argument accepts Robert Dahl’s Idea of Intrinsic Equality and the Presumption of Autonomy. With the two premises, this paper holds that a democracy ruled by the people is an attractive ideal.
II. The Idea of Intrinsic Equality
Democracy, originated from the word “demos”, conceives of a political system aspired to the organized power of citizenry. Back in ancient Athens, democracy strictly demanded every functioning adult in the society to participate, so that the Greek Demokratia was effectively ruled by the people[1]. The concept of democracy is not unique to the West, evidenced by “people-based politics” proposed by Chinese philosopher Meng-tzu, who argues that the will of the people is the will of Heaven that should be executed unconditionally[2]. As of today, many theorists would agree that democratic governance may take various forms, while still reaching some level of consensus regarding the basic principles of democracy.
In Democracy and its Critics, Robert Dahl uses analytical philosophy to define the Idea of Intrinsic Equality, arguing that “[all persons] are, or ought to be considered, equal in some important sense”[3]. For Dahl, all human beings are of intrinsic equal moral worth, so the fundamental principle of a democratic society is to regard one another as political equals. This has gradually developed to an uncontroversial premise that many modern political philosophies take for granted. Dahl also proposes the “Presumption of Personal Autonomy”, which assumes that each individual is the best judge to determine what is in their own best interest[4]. There is natural cohesion between the acknowledgement of personal autonomy and democratic governance, given that the very definition of democracy assumes the decision-making processes and political outcomes best reflect people’s will.
Let’s imagine the development of democracy as a spectrum. On one side of the spectrum, there lies the conception of basic democracy, where the society in interest is ruled by its citizens and guarantees the “freedom of speech and association, political equality and civic dignity”[5], yet the citizens have not agreed upon many civil principles such as their state religion, electoral system, the principle of justice or social cooperation. On the other side of the spectrum, people conceive of a perfect democracy that is healthier than basic democracy. It promotes political rights in correlation with civil liberties on a maximum scale[6]. Along this spectrum, democratic regimes “does not consist of a single unique set of institutions”[7]; with two important premises from Dahl, we may argue that no matter which forms a regime takes, democratic involvement is inherently justifiable, which leads to the conclusion that a regime ruled by all people is an attractive ideal.
III. East Asian Societies: Where Democracy is Absent for Granted
While the dimensions of democracy are based upon the ideal that every opinion is important, they appear to be inapplicable with collectivist cultures. One of the most prominent counterexamples challenging the Idea of Intrinsic Equality is the Confucian model in East Asia, which has largely asserted authoritarian values over liberal democratic frameworks. Like how we define democracy, decoding the core values of political Confucianism from original Confucian texts helps us understand how Confucianism has functioned as ideological values in Asian politics. Let’s look at an excerpt from the Analects, a famous political discourse written by Confucius:
“Those who are filial to their parents and obedient to their elder brothers but are apt to defy their superiors are rare indeed; those who are not apt to defy their superiors, but are apt to stir up a rebellion simply do not exist. The gentleman applies himself to the roots. Only when the roots are well planted will the Way grow. Filial piety and brotherly obedience are the roots of humanity!”[8]
Noticeably, Confucius assigned unchallengeable moral authority to certain groups of individuals: parents are morally superior to his children, the elders are morally superior to the younger, and the state holds supreme authority over every other subject in the regime. By connecting the familial realm to the political domain, Confucianism envisions strict hierarchical structure as a normative picture of society, which impels us to argue that Confucianism is “inherently anti-democratic”.[9] Because the “Mandate of Heaven” automatically conferred the cosmic power to the king of the country to be the “Son of Heaven”, he shall not be elected by the general public or constrained by the general will; no one is not entitled to break the social boundaries, which put the ruler of an authoritarian regime on the highest end of the spectrum[10].In connection to our definition of democracy, Political Confucianism falls short of the criteria of the Idea of Intrinsic Equality and the Presumption of Personal Autonomy, as it deprives basic political rights and civil liberties from the masses and upholds an authoritarian regime. Some progressive Confucians have attempted at a more liberal interpretation of the texts, but they usually fail to prove that Confucianism “should and could have a role in a rapidly modernizing society”[11].
As an anti-democratic governing ideology that emphasizes social harmony and diligence, Confucianism has been widely adopted in East Asia. The most famous example might be Singapore, which adopts the Confucian model to grow economically. Lee Kuan Yew, the former prime minister and founding father of Singapore, firmly held that the “Western concepts of democracy” are inapplicable in East Asia[12]. For Lee, the social-political conflicts brought by democratic elections and civilian protests are inconsistent with their political culture that emphasizes social harmony. On the other hand, the Confucian idea of The Three Principles holds that “the ruler should regulate his minister, the father should regulate his son and the husband should regulate his wife”[13], which is coherent with Singapore's family-centered historical and philosophical underpinnings. In effect, traditional family structure is manipulated as a model for state governance, and as Singapore citizens actively embrace the philosophical foundation of Confucianism, the hierarchical nature embedded within eliminates social unrest and paves the way for economic prosperity in the country.
Singapore is not the only region in East Asia adopting anti-democratic policies that achieve economic success. Kung’s study identifies “four little tigers [or dragons]” in East Asia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and Korea emerging as powerful competitors to Western economies, and he found a correlation has been found between their rapid economic development and the Confucian model of governance[14]. Other theorists like Jung show optimism in the prospect of democracy in East Asia because they see democratic progress in Japan and India as reflective of “the increasing awareness of the importance of democracy and human” in the masses[15]. However, Jung overlooked the fact that the Western liberal criterion of democracy is never a pluralistic public culture in many of the East Asian countries[16].
The dominant supportiveness of authoritarian policies in these East-Asian regions post a direct challenge to democracy. Given our assumption that a system powered and governed by the people is most desired, their economic success may paralyze the masses, prompting them to dismiss the value of democratic regimes.
IV. Islamic Societies: Where Democracy Struggled to Progress
Democratic practices struggled to thrive in Islamic societies, which further distances us from the privilege of having “too much democracy”. As Elie Kedourie said, “[democratic practices] are profoundly alien to the Muslim political tradition”[17]. Due to the predominant religious authority in Islamic cultures, the public find it difficult to accept the sovereignty of the demos but the sovereignty of Allah[18], the God in Islam. Some modern theorists challenged the idea that the legitimacy of the government was solely dependent on teachings of God, which prompted them to seek the potential of Islamic democracy. Kaled Abou El Fadl famously questioned the Islamic political tradition, arguing that the public do not have perfect access to God’s will, nor do they know whether God would hope to regulate all human interaction[19]. A promise in democracy pushed forward the first local and municipal elections in Tunisia in 2011, transforming the country from dictatorship towards democracy.
“We must all learn the art of governing by compromise, negotiation, and consensus…and it is the first time in the Arab world that citizens will experience decentralization”[20]. In 2011, Rached Ghannouchi recognized that Islam and democracy could be compatible; since the democratic traditions in the country were weak, her priority was to cultivate democratic culture and institutions in Tusania. However, it turned out that the current president in Tunisia has been heading towards autocracy by taking control of the country's judiciary and shutting down its parliament. A poll on Twitter hashtag #Tunisia and #Future of Democracy demonstrated that 77.9% of the respondents answering “yes” to the worry of the civil rights movement and democracy in the country since Tunisia’s July 25 Referendum [21]. The recession in democratic qualities showed that the reformers may be too optimistic about the democratic prosperity under the Tunisian government.
V. Future of Democracy
In conclusion, given the variations in governing ideology and social-cultural underpinnings of different geopolitical regions, it is imprudent to claim that democratic practices are excessive either in Western societies or on a global scale. The domestic popular support for authoritarian and religious regimes stands sturdily in the way. Not only is it a culturalist evidence against the excessive argument of democracy, but also invites theories and activists to consider whether the idea of global democracy is inherently achievable. On the other hand, issues stemming from polarization, manipulation and ineffective participation in major Western societies do not negate the intrinsic value of democracy. Instead, they further strengthen the importance of applying democratic principles for better democratic outcomes, which is beyond the scope of this paper.
[1] Dahl, R. A. (1989). Chapter 15: The Second Democratic Transformation. In Democracy and its critics. essay, Yale University Press.
[2] Jung, K. D. (2022, January 3). Is culture destiny? Foreign Affairs. Retrieved February 5, 2023, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/southeast-asia/1994-11-01/culture-destiny
[3] Dahl, R. A. (1989). Chapter 6: Justifications: The Idea of Equal Intrinsic Worth in Democracy and its critics, 85, Yale University Press.
[4] Dahl, R. A. (1989). Chapter 7: Personal Autonomy, 100, Yale University Press.
[5] Ober, J. (2017). Democracy before Liberalism. In Demopolis (pp. xiii-xvi). preface.
[6] Bova, R. (1997). Democracy and liberty: The cultural connection. Journal of Democracy, 8(1), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1997.0016
[7] Schmitter, P., & Karl, T. (1970). What Democracy Is…and Is Not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3), 75-88.
[8] Sturgeon, D. (n.d.). The analects : Li Ren, Chinese Text Project
[9] Schuman, M. (2015). Confucius: And the world he created. Choice Reviews Online, 53(01).https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.191471
[10] Qing, J. (2013). A Confucian Constitutional Order: How China’s Ancient Past Can Shape Its Political Future, trans. Edmund Ryden, Princeton University Press
[11] Jiang, D. (2021). Defending Constitutional Democracy on Confucian Terms: Progressive Confucianism and Its Debate with Traditionalist Confucianism in Contemporary China. Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture, 35(Feb), 159–191. https://doi.org/10.22916/jcpc.2021..35.159
[12] Jung, K. D. (2022, January 3). Is culture destiny? Foreign Affairs. Retrieved February 5, 2023, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/southeast-asia/1994-11-01/culture-destiny
[13] Lai, C. (2017) Gudai zongjiao yu lunli (Ancient religion and ethics), Beijing, Shenghuo dushu xinzhi.
[14] Kung, P. P. (1997). Confucianism and economic dynamism of Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, R.O.C (Order No. 1387355). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304407764).https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/confucianism-economic-dynamism-singapore-hong/docview/304407764/se-2
[15] Jung, K. D. (2022, January 3). Is culture destiny? Foreign Affairs. Retrieved February 5, 2023, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/southeast-asia/1994-11-01/culture-destiny
[16] Jiang, D. (2021). The Place of Confucianism in Pluralist East Asia, Comparative Political Theory, 1(1), 126-134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/26669773-01010009
[17] Islam and democracy: Is modernization a barrier? (n.d.-a). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227685409_Islam_and_Democracy_Is_Modernization_a_Barrier
[18] Struhl, Karsten J. “Is Democracy a Universal Value?” Radical Philosophy Today, vol. 5, 2007, pp. 3–24., https://doi.org/10.5840/radphiltoday200752.
[19] See above
[20] Ghannouchi, Rached. “Islam and Democracy in Tunisia.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 29, no. 3, 2018, pp. 5–8., https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2018.0040.
[21] Schaer, Cathrin, et al. “Who Will Save Tunisia's Democracy Now?” Dw.com, Deutsche Welle, 27 Apr. 2022, https://www.dw.com/en/who-will-save-tunisias-democracy-now/a-61599094.
Comments