Thursday 28 Mar 2024
By
main news image

This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on September 16, 2019 - September 22, 2019

The hope of an Asian century persists among certain observers — a hope based largely on the generally steady economic growth that has been enjoyed many of the countries in the region. On the contrary, we would contend that regardless of economic gains, an Asian century is unlikely to materialise without comprehensive political reform. These reforms need not come at the expense of economic objectives but without political reform, economic growth will falter.

Epitomising this argument is the case of China. Backed US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, Chinese initiatives and global aspirations, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, are seen many as proof that China is ready to challenge the US for global supremacy. That China has experienced rapid growth over the last several years and has a strong economy right now is not in doubt but China’s economic growth is slowing and many observers have begun to question the accuracy of Chinese self-reported statistics. Nevertheless, the further growth and competitiveness of the Chinese economy will require additional market liberalisation measures that will challenge the control that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has exerted thus far — a change that the party has strongly resisted.

Apart from inadvertently placing a ceiling on future growth, CCP has failed to deliver on building a strong cohesive Chinese nation. This not only stands in the way of inclusive sustainable growth (economically and politically) but also limits the nation’s influence internationally. CCP’s formula for building the Chinese nation based on ethnic homogeny, unquestioning central control and single party dominance is failing.

CCP publicly claims to be committed to a multinational state but in practice, its policies work towards an ethnic Han nation. This is resisted the Tibetans, Muslim Uighurs and possibly the Manchus and Mongols as well, and it undermines the country’s ability to act as a united nation.

Furthermore, there is little or no consensus on the basis for the Chinese nation or the political system. Although the ongoing Hong Kong protests are ostensibly against the proposed extradition arrangement, at the root, they are about the domination of the nation CCP, which resists democratic rule in Hong Kong. If Beijing persists with its oppressive policies that deny democracy to the people of Hong Kong, the nation could very well become another Taiwan and oppose the belief of One China that mainland China has endeavoured to create.

Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party identifies Taiwan as a separate nation and has strongly held on to the idea of democratic rule. Although the nation is politically highly polarised, democratic governance is cherished all. Barring the use of force and Chinese victory in armed conflict, it is unlikely that Taiwan will be unified with the mainland. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we would argue that time is on Taiwan’s side, not China’s. Even if CCP’s policy were successful, democracy in Taiwan could become infectious and affect other parts of China, posing a challenge to CCP. The party’s desire to maintain absolute control over all of China could thus catalyse the greater fracturing of the country.

The third challenge that China must address are the limitations of a single-party system. Though efficient in periods of revolution, turmoil or rapid growth, single-party governments often stand in the way of the country’s long-term prosperity. removing proper discourse and debate, narrowing the lens of analytical thought and silencing factions of the population, single-party systems prevent countries from capitalising on their greatest asset: the people.

Without reform, China, like many other Asian countries, will not realise its full potential. To promote a thriving national community, a task essential to future economic and political prowess, China must democratise and allow minority groups to develop their own national identities. Some experts argue that this could lead to secession and the dissolution of the country, as was the case in the former Soviet Union, but many multi-ethnic nations have proved successful, for example the UK, the US and India, to name but a few.  For their part, the minority communities, as the staatsvolk of the new countries when they come into existence, must accept all people living within their territorial boundaries as equal citizens to prevent further splintering into disparate and divided states. These political reforms require Beijing to embrace participatory democratic rule, which recognises citizens and not groups as the primary unit of politics. This principle and the reforms it entails are ideas that CCP and many other Asian nations seem reluctant to accept. Thus, Chinese global supremacy and the dream of an Asian century remain beyond reach.

India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore appear on the right path to building cohesive nations in Asia but each faced, or faces, multiple challenges. India has been successful in building a multinational democratic state but if the present BJP government were to veer away from this successful policy, a break-up of the country is possible.

One should not forget that the various states in India were independent countries and some were even long-standing empires. The policies employed India that integrated most states and defused separatist movements/sentiments in Punjab and Tamil Nadu have not yielded the same success in Kashmir and other northeastern territories. The ethnic nature of these unresolved disputes has proved to be far harder to mend than previous cases of integration.

To address these challenges, India must fully embrace secularism and democracy, and be more flexible in interpreting sovereignty. While it should certainly advocate strongly for its cause, New Delhi must respect the principle of self-determination with regard to the desire of the states to be co-sovereign or independent countries, or risk discouraging trust in the government and resorting to violence to keep the minorities as part of China.

The political map of a region, and in fact the world, can change, and has changed, with time due to internal and external factors. The collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia changed the political map of Europe. World War II was the last time European boundaries were forcefully altered; even then, domestic situations were crucial. Today, the Middle East is in the process of change, largely due to internal factors. Asia is not immune from such transformations; the key is negotiated peaceful change.

It is important to remember that as with India, Indonesia too could break up. If the bias towards conservative Islam takes a hold, the country may splinter. Not all Indonesians desire an Islamic state. As with China, the effort to force certain ethno-religious characteristics upon a diverse country would worsen national morale and community.

Singapore faces the problem of continued one-party dominance as did Indonesia under Suharto. It has prospered thus far under one-party rule. However, the People’s Action Party, like CCP, is unwilling to lose power in the city state. The persistence of one-party dominance risks undermining future harmony, national cohesiveness and prosperity in Singapore, forcing the country to explore other political options, including rejoining Malaysia.

A few countries like Malaysia are moving forward with much-needed political reform. Political participation and anti-corruption measures taken the new government address important dimensions of political reform but the country is still struggling to establish a society in which all citizens are politically equal. Some political quarters might want to take the path of building a Malay nation in which Malays will be privileged and non-Malays will continue to be perpetual second-class citizens, a path that could lead to conflict and separatism, especially in Sabah and Sarawak.

For several reasons, political reform is lagging economic growth in Asia, a problem that stands in the way of Asian competitiveness. The region’s leaders must be open to new and flexible ideas of sovereignty. They must build cohesive national communities and competitive, participatory political systems where sovereignty and political power reside in the people. An Asian century is clearly possible but until the effects of political reform catch up with the efforts of economic growth, this will remain beyond reach.


Datuk Muthiah Alagappa is distinguished scholar in residence at the School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC, and visiting professor at the Asia-Europe Institute, University of Malaya. Arjun Akwei is International Baccalaureate scholar at Bethesda Chevy Chase High School in Maryland, the US.

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.

      Print
      Text Size
      Share