In Plattner’s, "Democratic Moment" he compared Francis Fukuyama and Ken Jowitt’s views on the triumph of democracy. Fukuyama in his, "The End of History" argued that the liberal democratic idea has definitely triumphed among the advanced nations of the world, and thus there will not again arise a major power animated by an antidemocartic ideology. Jowitt, on the other hand can envisaged the emergence of a new “way of life,” an ideology whose power to move great nations would be comparable to that of Catholicism, liberal democracy, facsism or Leninism .
I disagree with Fukuyama’s suggestion that modern liberalism has resolved all the fundamental “contradiction in human life. As pointed out by Jowittt, liberalism will always leave many human beings unsatisfied and hence will generate powerful antiliberal movements. For Fukuyama’s claim that the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government to hold water, democracy as the “universal” form of government should be defined in universal terms. But upon reading Diamond’s article, we will learn there are tensions between the principles of democracy.
At this point, let us discuss the problems that democracy has experienced in the developing world that spring from tensions which are inherent in democracy’s very nature.
There are three paradoxes that Diamond identified. First is the tension between conflict and concensus. the paradox stems out from the need for a democracy to have both conflict and competition. Without the two, according to the author, democracy will not be possible.
Second is the paradox between representativeness against governability.The two have different requirements. The former requires that parties speak of and for conflicting interest and the latter requires sufficient autonomy to rise above them.
The last paradox is between consent and effectiveness. Consent of the people is very important in a democracy but to achieve it affective performance on the part of the government should be seen. Democratic governments will not be valued by the people unless it deals effectively with social and economic problems and achieves a little of order and justice. These tensions are seen as being faced by developing countries.
Thompson in his article provides evidences of this and argues that even at “high tide,” the worlwide wave of democracy has not reached most of the countries which are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Philippines as a model of democracy in the region has not succeeded in convincing its neighbors that democracy is the means to solve the problems that most southeast Asian countries face given its economic difficulties in the 1980s. Thompson further pointed out reasons why democratization has been limited compared to other world-regions over which the wave of democracy has swept.
He suggests that democratization has not been achieved in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore because-unlike most authoritarian regimes in the developing world that suffered declining legitimacy in the 1970s and 1980s-they still enjoy a high degree of support primarily because of economic performance. In addition to this, he added that by adopting the forms but not the substance of democracy, by pointing to multi-ethnic character of their societies, and by criticizing Western hypocrisy some southeast asian countries have eased the pressure for more democracy .
Philippine Democracy and the ASEAN: Framework and Analysis
Why did the Philippines fail to serve as the appropriate model of democracy in the region? What were the problems that the Philippines face as it democratized? What were these specific problems? What are possible recommendations for the Philippine democracy. In answering these questions, I will be using the framework derived from the above readings on democracy.
I will be using the arguments of Platner in his comparison of Jowitt and Fukuyama, the arguments of Thompson on the wave of democratiztion and the ASEAN experience and the arguments of Diamond on the paradoxes of democracy.
I think that Jowitt’s argument supports indirectly the assumptions of Thompson in the sense that the member counties of ASEAN are not wholly convinced of the argument that democracy is the “end of history”. Evaluating the reasons given by Thompson, I will use the Philippines as a model to evaluate these reasons. The first reason would be the Philippines' economic performance. According to Thompson, Philippines has not shown substantial development compared to its neighbors in the region. Philippine model has failed in showing that democracy yields economic development. It still relies on foreign aid unlike some countries in the region which are less vulnerable to get help from other countries (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand). The second reason why ASEAN countries used to ease the pressure for democratizing is that they have adopted the forms but not the substance. Although, most ASEAN countries have used elections for putting people into power, civil liberties are still constrained and polls are still carefully restricted. The same is true in the Philippines especially during the time of Ferdinand Marcos who has used the term “constitutional authoritarianism.” Third is the multi-ethnic character of most of the ASEAN countries. Ethnic stability is seen as a fragile matter in ASEAN countries. Political oppeness is discouraged so as not to touch ethnic fundamental sensibilities. Finally, several ASEAN nations have not responded to the calls for more democratization while accusing the West of hypocrisy. In the case of the Philippines, some are still doubting democracy primarily because of its Western origins.
As Thompson would summarize, the ASEAN experience is a complicated one. It questions the assumption that democratization should come first before development as seen in the case of Thailand and Singapore. This is also the aspect where the Philippines failed both within and without. Unlike, Fukuyama’s end of history, the ASEAN as Thompson would argue is increasingly becoming a non-democratic club.
Taking off from the failure of the Philippines to be seen as model of democracy in the region, let us now tackle the problems of the Philippine democracy within using the framework of Diamond. The first paradox that Diamond mentions is the paradox between conflict and concensus. The long history of the Philippines would show that its democracy has always been a conflict dominated one. The part of compromise is neglected mainly because democracy is seen as a wide arena for public opinion.
Moving on to the next paradox which is a tension between representativeness and governability. Filipinos wants their interests aired through their representatives in congress. But following the principles of democracy, these politicians should also be able to adhere to the autonomy in order to rise above the rest and be objective in pursuing their plans. In the Philippines, however, both these requirements are not met. Politicians usually comes from a class that does not represent the people. This can be seen from the elite democracy that the country has. From the colonial up to the present time, elites continue to dominate the political arena. Leaders become absorb to pursue their interests.
The third and last paradox is between consent and effectiveness. There is also a failure on Philippine democracy to strike a balance between the the two. The Filipinos have ousted two presidents because they want to practice their consent over government matters. But if this consent is not balanced with giving the government a chance to administer, the Philippines would continue being economically stagnant.
Problems and Prospects of Philippine Democracy
From the analysis made above, I will now identify two most improtant problems that the Philippines face in its democratization. These are economic development and political culture. I will begin by discussing the first problem I have identfied which is economic development. As seen by our neighboring countries, Philippines logs in terms of economic development. The attachments of a poor economy are low literacy rate, more people living below poverty line, no access to information (especially if it costs much), more corruption, high crime rate and low participation. The above attachments are only some of the consequences of a poor economy. These causes both international and local dismay on democracy. Furthermore, this inhibits people to become aware and to participate. Economic development, on the other hand produces the opposites of the above but development should be accessed equally by the people.
The second issue or problem that should be addressed is the problem of political culture which is central to a democracy. From this stems out several other issues of democracy. Examples are issues of accountability, issues of representation, issues of consolidation, issues of corruption, issues of weak institutions, and issues of responsiveness of the government. In terms of accountability, the Philippines faces a problem both on the culture of the candidates and the voters. The popularity mindset should be eliminated from the people and the candidate. Issues of weak institutions is also connected with the culture. The agents of these institution are also the people and the actions and decisions they make affects how institutions would perform.
In my point of view, these two challenges are interconnected. The Philippine democracy needs to experience economic development to fuel its transformation of its political culture towards a modern democracy. At this point, right education will play a key role in dismantling the traditional norms of the society. In addressing the economic development, I think that the governemnt should always strike a balance between the paradoxes of democracy and if this balance could not be obtained, at times cling to the one that would generate efficiency which would mean letting go of some basic principles of democracy.
Professor Quilop made us write individual papers for finals in 5 hours. :)
