Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

 

















[ Index ]
 

 
Indigenous Social Democracy For Asia and The Pacific
A brief paper by Dr Tan Seng Giaw, DAP National Vice-Chairman and Member of Parliament on Asia and The Pacific: Priorities and Perspectives for Social Democracy on 11 June, 1999.

 
Let me start by asking two questions: Where is social democracy from? Where is it going?

To discuss these two questions, but not to answer them, I would like to talk about four things in the Asian context, namely, first the perception of social democracy; secondly, waltzing with the dictators, thirdly, a glimmer of hope, and fourthly, the evolution of social democracy cannot be imported.

Perception of Social Democracy.

By democracy, I mean broadly government by the people. Although the general character of democracy is widely understood, there are difficulties such as consent, welfare and equality.

I take it that social democracy is the outcome of the socialist movement in Europe under the umbrella of what is called socialism which claims that capitalism has grave moral flaws and that there must be socio-economic reforms to rectify these flaws.

In the middle of the 19th century, Karl Marx saw rather simplistically that in the bourgeois or capitalist society, the basic conflict was between the capitalists and the workers or the proletariat. The conflict was between those who own the means of production and those who do not. Since the capitalists do not voluntarily give up their power, Karl Marx believed that the ends could be attained only by revolution, the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

After Marx, the socialist movement split into two main streams, Social Democracy and Leninism. Social Democracy means a gradual and peaceful path to socialism; it has been Western Europe's way. Leninism that retains revolution as the only way had great influence in Russia, Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa.

In the past decade, the demise of the Soviet Union, the end of the social democratic model in Scandinavia, the freeing of Central and Eastern Europe and the victories of 15 social democratic parties in the European Union have created a new era in Europe.

In the past two decades, the death of Maoism and the dismantling of command economy in China and Vietnam have ushered in a new epoch. Some people have mistakenly seen it as the triumph of laissez-faire capitalism.

For the present discussion on social democracy, I am going to assume that nationalization of the means of production is not necessary to overcome either the irrationality or the injustice of capitalism. There is a need to create atmosphere conducive for a gradual and peaceful path to social democracy.

Waltzing With the Dictators

As expected, there are diverse conditions in Asian countries, ranging from the Taleban Government of Afghanistan, China, Japan and the South East Asian countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia. It is going to take years in the next millennium to see changes towards social democracy.

A major stumbling block to change is dictatorship of whatever form, whether that of Marcos, Suharto or whoever.

One of the priorities is to eradicate any form of dictatorship. Here, I would like to quote two examples of how United States of America and to some extent Western Europe or the European Union helped directly or indirectly to sustain dictatorships.

In 1987, I read Waltzing With A Dictator, by an American journalist, Raymond Bonner at the Kamunting Detention Centre where I was detained together with Kit Siang, Karpal and others. The book discusses the Marcoses in the Philippines and the making of the American policy.
Bonner says, "The Marcoses carried on through five American administrations-three Republican and two Democratic (1966-1986). American governments watched as the Marcoses robbed the Philippine people of between US$5 and US$10 billion, larceny and looting that began even before Marcos had declared martial law. Washington looked on as he emasculated the country's democratic institutions: the courts; the schools; the political parties……Yet through it all Marcos remained Washington's man in manila."

Similarly, America and European Union watched Suharto plundered Indonesia for 32 years. During Suharto's reign, he did achieve economic growth of up to 6 percent annually, but on 24 May 1999, a four-month Time (magazine) investigation reveals that he and his children now have assets worth US$15 billion, including fancy homes, jewelry, fine art and private jet.

Suharto has repeatedly denied the report and is taking legal action against Time. The magazine sticks to its gun. It will be interesting to see what the court will reveal.

While over a decade ago, Marcos fled to Hawaii, Suharto stays put in Indonesia. He took part in the 7 June 1999 Indonesia general election. His

influence persists.

A Glimmer of Hope

After the demise of the command economy in China, the opening up of the country has given rise to some changes. The June 4, 1989 Tiananmen fiasco means a delay in the movement for change.

As Japan enters economic stagnation, it has seen the rise and fall of the ruling party the Liberal Democratic Party. The political and economic scenes in Japan are evolving.

While North Korea's Leninism and Command Economy have led to starvation and the production of intercontinental missile, South Korea is making great strides towards democracy. Two previous presidents were sentenced to deaths in court and the long-time Opposition Leader Kim Dae Chong has become the President.

Although it is a long way to go for Indonesia, she has just had her first free election since 1955. The relative press freedom in both Indonesia and Thailand is a breath of fresh air.

Malaysia has the outward appearance of parliamentary democracy. But, we need to fill in the contents. As you can see, DAP and others are engaging in the long struggle towards meaningful democracy.
The current groundswell of disaffection and discontent especially among the youth means that the political scenario is gradually changing.

Despite the sad state in countries such as Afghanistan, there is a glimmer of hope for social democracy in Asia.

Indigenous Social Democracy

As the information technology is gathering momentum and education is becoming more universal, there is increasing awareness of the people. The priority is to inculcate the universal values of social democracy.

Since its foundation in Frankfurt in 1951, Socialist International has consistently defined its role as helping the global struggle for a third way between the political totalitarianism of communism on the one hand and the economic iniquities and social injustices of capitalism on the other. But, since the death of Leninism, Maoism and the command economy, what is the role of SI?

Granted, there are weaknesses in the various Asian countries, major factors include currency speculators and the hedge funds. The world's rich countries are split over how far should these funds be controlled. The Clinton administration does not believe that hedge funds affect Asian currency markets adversely. SI should make the control of hedge funds and the reform of the world financial architecture its priorities.

Although SI is a major voice in international arena, it is still Eurocentric. It has to continue to be cautious in dealing with non-European countries. It has to review its attitude towards these countries. While it provides a major voice, it must encourage indigenous social democracy with spontaneous acceptance of universal values by people of individual countries.

Leaders of ruling parties always capitalize on the fear of foreign domination especially in former colonial countries such as Malaysia. For example, on 7 June 1999, Malaysian Prime Minister Dato' Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that the next general election would be the dirtiest as the opposition would use all kinds of threats and instigation aided by foreign manipulators and the foreign media.

We in the opposition believe that the coming election will be the dirtiest perpetrated by the ruling party. We simply do not have the wherewithal to do what the Prime Minister has claimed.

Once social democracy is perceived as imported, the people may imagine that rich countries with their transnationals are only using democracy as a front so that they can dominate the economy of the poorer nations.


Social democracy has existed in one form or another in Western Europe especially since the Second World War. SI should take cognizance of the fact that these countries have relatively small population with the largest population in Germany of 80 million. In Asia, we are dealing with countries with much larger population such as 200 million in Indonesia, 1 billion in India and 1.2 billion in China, what form of social democracy can these countries have?

Social democracy and indeed all ideologies are in a state of flux. There are doubts, ambiguity and vagueness. These include decentralized and collective mechanisms of decision-making, the decision of markets, democratic institutions, collective sovereignty, equality of access to the democratic process, political institutions, social citizenship, security and opportunity. SI would have to define these clearly.

On the eve of the next millennium, let me end by repeating the two questions: where is social democracy from and where is it going?

Dr Tan Seng Giaw

 

 
[ Home | Political | Medical | Personal ] Article #75
[ Recent | Archives | Forum | Feedback ] [ Index ]