The Things About Western Democracy ......

I�ve made a promise to my other half that I�m going to restrain myself when it comes to the topic of Caucasians in Asia. Since her Caucasian friends get offended by what I say on this blog and have placed her in a difficult position, I will make the effort to keep that promise to her and will refrain from getting personal.

However, I think it`s important to have a voice on one of the most interesting debates going on between the "West" and the "Rest" of the world. One of the key debates has been about political systems, namely on the topic of human rights and democracy. On one hand you have the official stance from the West, which has been to express concern about democracy and human rights and then you have the rest of the world that say`s "Sod off, let us figure it out our own way." This debate has grown increasingly interesting with the rise of China, which technically remains a communist nation.

As an Asian who has grown-up in the West (UK, Germany and to an extent the USA), this debate gets very interesting from a personal perspective. It's not difficult to feel that a lot of Western lectures on the topics of democracy and human rights are humbug. If you look at history, the West (Europe and America) is as guilty of pursuing its own economic self-interest above all else when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world. The British did not colonise India out of love for the Indians but to secure a market for British goods. Likewise, the Americans have been guilty of using the stick when imposing it`s economic rights in Central America.

The Western powers in recent years have been especially guilty of humbug in the Middle East. In recent years we`ve had an American President preach the importance of democracy and freedom in the Middle East, only to isolate and attempt to cripple a democratically elected government in Palestine, mainly because the party in question didn`t see things through the Westerners political point of view. Things like Abu Ghrib and Guantanamo Bay have also hurt the ideal of the West as a Champion of human rights. Former Secratery of State, Madaline Albright says, "When we talked about human rights, the Chinese would storm out in anger - these days they smile politely and talk about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib."

After 8-years of living back in Asia, I'll say it, it's irritating when you hear a Western leader talk about human rights and democracy - you want to say, "Come On, you just want the money." Singapore is an example of this - we`re stable and safe and ally of Western interest and beyond making a few noises when we cane one of their vandals or hang a petty drug dealer, no Western leader will actually entertain the idea of getting Singapore to become more democratic or nice - if anything, I've had Westerners sing the praises of the Singapore system.

Then there`s also the idea that you can`t impose your ideals onto people. People have to decide what`s right for them in their own cultural context. Iraq is a wonderful example of how imposing your values can work when you don`t bother to understand the local system.

Having said all of this about the West, is the message that it`s preaching necessarily wrong? I think the answer is no. Yes the West is guilty of humbug a lot of the time when it goes into the preaching of values and then acts contrary to those values - as any Palestinian or Iranian could tell you (Both the US and UK took part in removing a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister who didn`t believe in BP`s devine right to drill Iranian Oil)

But that does not mean that democracy or at least accountable government as seen in the West is a bad thing. Look at basic economics. The most developed countries in the world, namely the USA and Europe all have a democratic system of government, rule of laws and checks on power. These systems also safeguard rights of the individual against the state. Say what you like about America but it`s one of the few countries I can think of where you can tell the cops to sod off if they're harrasing you.

Is there a link between democracy and human rights and progress? It`s hard to establish a link when the world`s fastest growing economy is a commnuist dictatorship, but then again, let`s look at stages of development. China can grow fast as long as the current system remains stable. The country can rely on being a cheap manufacturing outpost for multinational companies.

The US and EU have long reached that stage, yet they`ve remained consistently prosperous. Standards of living in Europe are the highest in the world. Why is that so? Part of it is because they started before the rest of us. But more importantly the system has allowed individuals to rise and fall according to their talents. The system puts a check on big monoliths trying to crush people. No matter how bad a US President is, you know he (up til now they`re all guys) needs to face the voters and after 8-years he has to retire. Big US corporations get dragged through anti-trust the moment they look like they're going to screw consumers.

Let`s ignore the fact that a lot of preaching by Western politicians is humbug and look at the product of democracy itself. In the West it has been wonderful at keeping its citizens happy. When adapted to the East, it`s worked pretty OK too. Taiwan or "The Other China" has a messy democratic government but no Taiwanese seems to be clamouring for the Communist System acorss the water. India complains that it`s democratic system makes it tough to develop rapidly but at the same time, India may have produced a more sustainable model based on producing brilliant entreprenurial companies in high end technological sectors.

Democracy and the promotion of individual liberty is not a bad thing, in fact it is a very good thing in itself. Yes, the rest of the world shouldn't accept the Western model wholesale nor should the Rest of the world endure lectures by Western leaders on the values of their system.

However, that shouldn't be an excuse to reject it wholesale. We need to look at things from the West, particularly the things that work and ask ourselves why they work. Democracy is not wildly efficient for effective leaders but it`s startlingly easy at removing bad ones with minimal bloodshed. Power is kept in check. As bad as Bush II was, the American system kept him in check and after 8-years he had to leave office. Had the checks not been there, you might have had to see a coup. The system works at encouraging social mobility and surely that has to be a good thing too. It`s something the rest of us should take note of.