In recent press reports, the concept of 'Asian democracy' has emerged. Do you find it a viable system in politics?

Given the socio-economic and political disparity between the Third World and Western developed democratic countries, and the former's relatively short experience in liberal political systems, "Asian democracy" has been widely championed by political thinkers and government leaders worldwide as the viable alternative between Western democracy and dictatorship for Third World nations. This view has been reinforced by the relative economic prosperity and political stability achieved in countries where the model was implemented, namely, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.

As mentioned before, it is more or less a hybrid system developed from both Western democracy and the stereo-typical authoritarianism prevalent in the Third World in the 1960s and 1970s after decolonisation. Obviously, there was, and still is, a need for the qualities of the two extreme systems, as both, if practised in isolation, are inadequate.

Basic human rights and civil liberties can be protected by a democratic system of government which entails parliamentary representation, popular elections, rule of law and political pluralism. However, important, if not essential, preconditions to its success are a stable and homogenous society and a civic culture that ensures participation from the people.

Unfortunately, most democracies based on the Western model disintegrated in the 1960s and 1970s because the two indispensable pillars were absent. Ethnic and religious diversity resulted in the "implosion" of many Third World states and civil wars. Congo in the 1960s and Rwanda in the 1990s are the best illustrations of the potential for political debilitation and instability posed by a heterogenous society.

Due to centuries of tribalism and strong-man rule, numerous dictatorships, under veneers of democracy emerged out of the throes of internal upheaval. Short term stability was guaranteed by military force and the abolition of civil liberties. However, as the events in present-day Zaire manifest, dictatorships are not viable in the long run. As Acton puts it, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Enlightened revolutionary leaders have the proclivity to abuse their powers and engage in corruption and nepotism, hence leading to outright despotism. Civil war and insurrection will break out once the people's discontent and resentment cross the threshold of tolerance.

The instability which is endemic in both extreme systems causes widespread human suffering and holds back economic development. This cannot be disputed when the never-ending trauma of genocide and famine is shown regularly on the CNN.

Thus, the concept of "Asian democracy" aptly known otherwise as "soft authoritarianism" incorporates the authoritarian aspects of dictatorship in addition to basic democratic principles.

Internal security ensured by legislating laws that limit freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press and establishing powerful forces of riot police. People are free to speak and voice their political opinions as long as they do not rouse ethnic and/or religious antagonisms. The more conservative regimes would then go as far as to prohibit "irresponsible criticism" that might undermine "state security".

In addition, the executive powers allocated to representative bodies such as the parliament may be restricted. Power may be inequitably concentrated in the positions of president or prime minister which gives leaders "emergency" powers when political stability is threatened by demonstrations and riots.

Thus, on the theoretical level, Asian democracy seems to provide the answer to troubled, war-ridden Third World countries by its ability to preserve political stability, allowing economic development and free-market processes thrive and flourish. The economic success of Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea, in the form of average 8% growth since the 1970s, attests to this evaluation of the Asian model. It has been further postulated that "Asian democracy" is inherently sustainable since it is tailor-made to the distinct requirements of Third World countries.

Furthermore, it is imperative to understand that "Asian democracy" is a broad concept used to describe the Asian countries earlier mentioned collectively. There are sharp political disparities between them, for example, Singapore is more liberal than Indonesia. Thus, the system can be fine-tuned further and assimilated to the requirements of individual nations. Malaysia and Singapore have stricter laws governing the espousal of ethnic and religious ideas than Thailand and South Korea, which are more homogenous relatively, to maintain inter-ethnic and religious peace. After the racial riots between the Chinese and Malays in Malaysia and Singapore in the 1950s and '60s, such laws were passed and have, in part with integration programmes, provided social stability. Taking flexibility and versatility into account, the Asian model can indeed be viable in the long run.

However, this proposition rests on three assumptions: the social conditions or its raison d'être remains unchanged, other alternatives are not desirable and that it does not degenerate.

To achieve a long term solution to the potential political problems of multiethnicity, many countries such as Singapore had launched programmes and campaigns to integrate the different ethnic groups, promote inter-racial tolerance and develop a distinctive, all-identifying "national" character. With increased materialism, people are also paying more attention to economic competition and development rather than mutual recriminations and antagonisms. Many have realised the need for tolerance and respect to ensure the collective good. Therefore, the prospects for the achievement of social stability inherent between the diverse peoples seem optimistic, such that the concept needs to evolve, or even reinvent itself, to survive.

Furthermore, economic advancement has raised the political awareness of the people and they are starting to demand greater participation and greater power for representative bodies. They will not settle for limited liberties and political restrictions in the long term as they need more political power in order to defend their new-found prosperity. Therefore, it is highly likely in the future that "Asian democracy" will shed its authoritarian aspects and become more akin to the Western model.

There is a potential for "soft authoritarianism" to degenerate into dictatorship given the concentration of power in the hands of an elite and the arbitrary nature of some internal security laws that may legitimise dictatorship by their broad definitions. This is demonstrated by the prosecution of the democrats in Indonesia led by Megawatti. The dangers of dictatorship are clear when even the "independent" courts are controlled by the state apparatus. Another example would be Marcos Ferdinand's reign in the Philippines.

Political analysts are worried that the recent economic downturn may lead to discontent and riot and give leaders the reason to use emergency laws to protect their own power and positions. The corruption of South Korean politicians provides further evidence of the inherent fragile balance in the "Asian democracy" model. Thus, it would be justified to predict that the concept would survive in the short term given good economic conditions and gradually evolve into a purer form of democracy in the medium and long term.

Marks: Content = 28/30, Language = 15/20, Total = 43/50 (A1).
Excellent. Your precocity and sharpness are remarkable. Good Work.