click on the rabbit to tell me what you think.Asian indutrial development has essentially occurred in three phases. First, Japan with the Meiji Restoration in the 1870s made the first concerted effort of an Asian society at development. This was done under the careful guidence of the emperor and his 'experts'. Nascent Japanese industries were protected, a key element in modern development, and something nearly impossible in democratic societies. The second wave began in the 1960s with a group of economies called the "Four Little Dragons". There were South Korea, the Republic of China (Taiwan Province), Hong Kong, and Singapore. None of these were democracies. South Korea was a dictatorship until the 1980s. The Republic of China was under martial law until 1987 and didn't have a "presidential election" until 1996. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, and Singapore was under the strong hand of Lee Kwanyew (Li Guanyao) until 1990.
The latest round of development has centered around a group of larger countries. The largest and fastest growing is China. Others include Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Some argue that Vietnam has (albiet belatedly) also joined this group of developing countries. China is certainly not a democratic society. Malaysia has democratic institutions, however, it is all but under the control of Datuk Mahathir Mohammed. Malaysia has a series of stringent racial quotas that no democratic society would allow. Thailand is interesting here. It has democratic institutions, but is a constitutional monarchy. There is heavy governmental controls, but there are free elections. This is the closest example to a democracy, but structures of the government prevent this from truly having democratic characteristics. Indonesia is the tragic example here. Prior to the Asian Economic Flu, Indonesia was one of Asia's fastest developing economies. Yes, there was corruption, but the military government provided stability absolutely nessessary for one of the worlds most diverse nations. However, democracy activists, both in Indonesia and abroad, forced Indonesia to hold elections. Now, Indonesia is on the verge of falling apart and I have to wonder if there will even be an Indonesia twenty years hence. Finally, Vietnam has made great strides in the last ten years. It is clear that, like China, it is still an authoritarian regime.
Why are democracies abject failures at rising the standards of Third World Nations? One is competition. If you are trying to build up new industries, they will by their nature be inefficient. It takes time to learn the techniques to be efficient. For those initial years a country works on a new industry, protections are necessary. In a free soceity, people always want to get the best product for the least amount of money. This is why, despite all the campaigns to "Buy American", Americans continue to buy imported goods. They provide quality products at lower prices. Fortunately, the American economy, as one of the world's most developed, can absorb this. A developing economy can't. Say the Chinese decide to work on the development of a new industry. If it were an open soceity, it would freely import foreign competition, effectingly killing the new domestic industry before it can take hold. In an authoritarian atmosphere, it can provide the essential protections needed to nuture the developing industry. Once it has developed, it can open up and join the global competition. If countries can't so protect their nascent industries, they will NEVER rise out of their current states of poverty and underdevelopment.
Some have said that such regimes will not surrender power when the society develops economically. I disagree. Look at the Republic of China. They just had their first peaceful transition of power. The Chiang family surrendered its hold on the island province. South Korea now has as its president a man who was imprisioned by the prior military regime. Hong Kong now has a democratically elected legislature. Singapore has fallen out of the autocratic control of Lee Kwan Yew and is moving ever closer to truly competitive elections. The fact is, once these societies achieve a certain amount of development, these autocratic rulers do indeed surrender power. Look at the societies where economic development does NOT occur. This is where the autocrats do not surrender. Economic development leads to a more open society. This is a fact of history. Democratic regimes in India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines have not provided such development. Sadly, they can't.
click on the rabbit to tell me what you think.