Conference explores whether all countries can or should democratize

BY MEREDITH ALEXANDER

Scholars at a recent conference held on campus explored whether countries can -- or should -- democratize. While more nations now have democratically elected rulers than in the past, researchers debated the possibility of transforming other countries into democracies -- especially China.

The scholars appeared at the World Association of International Studies (WAIS) conference on "Globalizations," organized by Ronald Hilton, professor emeritus of Romanic languages, in Tresidder Union last week. The Tuesday panel, "Global Prospects for Democracy and Human Rights," was chaired by Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Diamond, also an editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Journal of Democracy, kicked off discussion by summing up current statistics on worldwide democracy.

Hoover Institute senior fello Larry Diamond listened as Don Emmerson, seniot fellow at the Institute for International Relations, spoke during the WAIS conference on "Globalizations." Photo: L.A. Cicero

"Today, very clearly, the majority of all states could be called at least electoral democracies," Diamond said, counting those countries that hold free and fair elections at regular intervals. He cited statistics showing 62 percent of all independent states had freely elected leaders.

But Diamond acknowledged that many of these states lack civil liberties, an independent judiciary, freedom for minorities and a basic rule of law. Only around 40 percent of nations worldwide can claim to have these attributes, he said.

Panelists Alex Inkeles and Donald Emmerson, both of Stanford, spoke about democracy's spread in a discussion of how democratic values translate to countries in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. One voice of dissent against the universal acceptance of democracy was Pan Wei of Peking University, who strongly argued that democracy is not the right path for China.

Why do some nations choose democracy while others do not? Why are some countries unable to sustain it? Inkeles, a professor emeritus of sociology, senior fellow at Hoover and author of Becoming Modern, a book on global change, addressed this question by combining the methods of sociology, political science and psychology. He argued that democracy flourishes only in countries where specific personality traits or values dominate.

Citing sociological studies, Inkeles said that people in democracies around the world shared these basic attributes: a belief in autonomy, openness to change, care for the welfare of others and excessive self-indulgence.

Inkeles added that democracies also are characterized by a high level of dissensus on issues such as security, tradition and conformity. That's why people in the United States are split on an issue like abortion, he said. "But we agree on the rules of the game," he concluded.

But democracy isn't all fun and games. Emmerson, a senior fellow and Southeast Asia specialist at the Institute for International Studies, argued that the road to free elections is not an easy path. "Democracy as a process is potentially very, very destabilizing," he said.

He took Southeast Asia as a case study, tackling the recent history of a region that has dealt with two major challenges in the past few years: economic crisis and efforts to democratize.

The Southeast Asian financial crisis that started in 1997 often has been blamed, he said, on corrupt governments and "crony capitalism," and some have viewed the economic collapse as a quick way for these nations to shed their old regimes and democratize. But while he agreed that this theory seemed to work for some nations, such as Thailand, Emmerson called it a "selective" thesis.

"There's more diversity than that grand sweeping theory would suggest," he said.

Emmerson said that democracy requires a kind of patience that can be difficult to achieve when a country is facing hardship. The demand for immediate economic performance confronting some Asian governments outweighs the desire for democracy there, he suggested.

Pan, an associate professor of international relations at Peking University, argued that the demand for democracy in his native China is virtually nonexistent.

Pan, who holds a doctorate from the University of California-Berkeley, has gained recognition in both East and West for his work analyzing China's potential for democracy. He posited that the American perspective on China ­ the constant search for ways it could conform to U.S. ideals and democratize ­ is misguided.

Instead, he argued that "China is unlikely to become any kind of democracy in any foreseeable future." Pan focused his talk on critiquing Western hopes for democracy in China and arguing that the rule of law is possible there nevertheless.

Some think that China needs more economic development before it will democratize. Pan rejected that argument by saying that the country's gross national product already has quadrupled since 1979. "China is becoming the locomotive of the Asian economy," Pan remarked. "The stronger the economy, the less likely the regime will end."

Others believe that China will democratize when "another Gorbachev" appears to guide its people. "There would have been loads of Gorbachevs among Chinese leaders if it hadn't been for Russia," Pan said. Russia's disastrous efforts to democratize have made Chinese wary, and any leader who might try it "would be eaten alive."

Some China-watchers think that a stronger civil society -- along with political organizations ­ would need to develop there before democracy can take root. But Pan dismissed this theory as well. Without a feudal past, "class struggle is an alien concept" in China, and so are political parties, Pan said.

Pan said he believes that China, now just as capitalistic as the United States, is heading toward a rule of law system because its citizens have grown tired of officials' corruption. "Democracy doesn't curb corruption -- the rule of law does," he said. Pan looked to Hong Kong and Singapore as potential Asian models that China might follow in developing a neutral civil service, independent justice system and civil freedoms -- of the press, of assembly -- that are lacking today. All these things could be accomplished without a democratic government, he said.

"Globalization today may mean globalization of trade and easier transfer of information, but it doesn't mean the hegemony of one single idea," he concluded.