Democracy and Culture

It is sometimes argued that some cultures are not compatible with democracy. Is that real or just an excuse?

I think I know where the problem lies.

There are cultures where it is not usual for the parents or elders to be questioned by their children or subordinates (Chinese, Malays). This cultural disposition extends to corporations where the bosses tend to be paternalistic, and subordinates do not feel good to question the bosses unless requested. (I concede that I am generalising because I am sure that management style may vary). And as you would expect, this cultural thing extends to politics and public administration, where the political leaders do not tolerate criticisms or dissent. Such are taken with the attitude that “you are not giving me respect or face”. I am your boss, so why should you criticise what I do. You are not being loyal. Terms such as running dogs are thrown at those who dare to criticise. You do not bite the hand that feeds you. So they lock up the opposition leaders and suppress the press.

Hence you see the intolerance for dissent, the control of the press, and the suppression of the opposition. If you are lucky, it becomes a paternalistic government for the benefit of society (as in Singapore; you may disagree with my assessment). In others, this style of government may evolve into abuse of power, corruption, nepotism and autocratic tendencies, leading to the degradation of human rights. Any opposition to government policies is not tolerated and is rewarded with jailings and beatings.

So while some of these countries profess to be democratic and practise free election, they do not practice democracy as is known in the west. They may argue that they have their own brand of democracy, but it is really a big lie.

Culture has been used as an excuse for autocratic practices and iron-clad rule.

If Confucianism could be put aside for Chinese Communism, so can eastern cultures embrace democracy.

The institutions for democracy can be nurtured. Parliament can be adapted to provide more robust debates. The press can be liberated to allow freedom of expressions and for the people to have their say (as is already happening in the alternative media, the internet). Political parties can be funded by the government to develop a healthy opposition. The judiciary is freed from the influence of those in power so that there is justice. People will speak up if they know that justice is fair. Students can be encouraged to engage in political debating. Children can learn to express their opinions. Laws will not be used to deter dissent.

Let us hope that as governments change in developing countries and new leaders take the stage, the system will also change to allow freedom of expression and democratic reforms. If not, there will be no improvement in human rights, no matter who is in government.