Asian Countries: State of Democracy
Growing up, I was always taught that democracy revolves around the idea of equality for all. It provides the citizens with rights and liberty based upon the agreements in the constitution. Moreover, the people are provided with the ability to select certain people of power, with the trust and hope that they will be able to truthfully and honorably perform their responsibilities. With this, how can we measure the level of democracy in a certain country and how is the difference in the trend associated with the occurrences in that country at the certain time?
In this article I will be comparing the three Asian countries: China, Philippines, and South Korean in terms of the five high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian. Moreover, I will assess the data in order to come to a conclusion on the probable reasons for the results of the findings.
In political theory, deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of the participation and engagement of the citizens in an impartial discussion, in regards to the political decisions of the government (Eagan, n.d.). This merely states that the public should be involved in the overall conclusion or resolution of the administration.
In the case of egalitarian democracy, it develops the idea of equality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002). This states that the citizens should all have the same rights and fair treatment in terms of their behavioral manner towards each other.
Based on the name electoral democracy, this principle focuses on the power of citizens to be able to decide on bestowing the roles in the government, through the implementation of an electoral process.
Liberal democracy is the principle which discusses the capability of the government to be responsible in decision-making, however, should be limited to the rule of law. Thus, it should be restricted in a way to still sustain the rights and liberty of the citizens.
Participatory democracy instills the power of citizens to participate in the decision-making of the government (Khan Academy, n.d.). Thus, there should be an inclusion in regards to the policies instilled, as well as the selection for the ones seated in the government.
Key Findings
Based on the graph, it presents that China had a fairly consistent and lowest rate of five high-level principles of democracy index amongst the three countries. However, there was a slightly higher deliberative and egalitarian democracy in the year 1986–1989. According to Chao & Myers (1994), 1986 was the year when the Democrative Progeressive Party (DPP) was established which enabled the political reform and changes of the 1947 Constitution. This was the time where popular elections for president, vice-president, and governor of Taiwan province were permitted. Also, pro-democracy protesters, who are mostly student-activist, participated in a riot for the movement in Tiananmen Square, year 1989. These occurrences provide the probability as to why the graph of democracy index was higher in these years.
On the other hand, the Philippines experienced a sudden plateau nearing the year 1988. In 1986, the EDSA People Power Revolution took place wherein millions of people joined forces to end the dictatorship of Ferdinand E. Marcos. During this era, Filipinos were provided liberty and freedom through a peaceful revolution. It also provided reformations in the political, social, and economical institutions of the country.
In the context of South Korea, they also experienced a sudden plateau in the year 1998. In this year, the Kim Young San government established a new democratic constitution which focused on magnifying the economic and social rights of the people. This includes the social security system which provided benefits and consideration for the people (Shin & Park, 2003). Thus, it caused an increase in the graph which followed by a marginally consistent rate.
References:
ACE Project. (n.d.). Principles of electoral democracy. https://aceproject.org/main/english/lf/lf21.htm
Chao, L., & Myers, R. H. (1994). The first Chinese democracy: Political development of the Republic of China on Taiwan, 1986–1994. Asian Survey, 34(3), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.1994.34.3.00p03736
Eagan, J. L. (n.d.). Deliberative democracy. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/deliberative-democracy
Khan Academy. (n.d.). Types of democracy. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-foundations/us-gov-types-of-democracy/a/types-of-democracy
McGill School Of Computer Science. (n.d.). Liberal democracy. https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/l/Liberal_democracy.htm
Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. (n.d.). 30th anniversary of the 1986 EDSA people power revolution. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/edsa/
Shin, D., & Park, C. (2003). The Mass Public and Democratic Politics in South Korea: Exploring the Subjective World of Democratization in Flux. Asian Barometer Project Office National Taiwan University and Academia Sinica. http://www.asianbarometer.org/publications/77c4c98a128d99ad75610decd187ae4d.pdf
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2002, August 16). Egalitarianism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/
V-Dem.https://www.v-dem.net/en/
Yang, W. (2019, March 6). 30 years after tiananmen — Is China’s pro-democracy movement losing steam? DW. https://www.dw.com/en/30-years-after-tiananmen-is-chinas-pro-democracy-movement-losing-steam/a-48988668
