What is (un)democratic?

Observing the trends above in Asian nations, while the term undemocratic seems to fit
in this context, we must keep in mind that there is no such thing as the democracy
except for a few fundamental elements.[13] Since the time of ancient Greece, mankind
has tried to establish the formula for democracy, yet we have never reached the perfect
conclusion. This is an inherent problem around the idea of democracy because a
democratic system always refers to people, and peoples preferences and priorities
change over time. Yet, if a democracy is a political system whose policies reflect the
demands of its citizens, each democracy can take a different form suitable to each
political culture. On the other hand, US (and European, to a lesser extent) officials seem
to anticipate that liberal democracymust be supported by free market economy with less
government intervention. Any policies against the above value system are labeled
undemocratic. If the basis of American foreign policy strategy [14] is inheriting such an
assumption of the democracy, the American-aided effort of democratization in the
various parts of the world loses theoretical coherence of democracy (i.e., reflecting the
local peoples opinions), hence legitimacy. Therefore, this essay has argued that
increased government intervention halts the American model of democracy (i.e., free
market liberal democracy)[15], but it can preserve different kinds of democracies (such as
political democracy with a recentralized economy in a crisis, and/or with what we call
corruption), in which local people determine the future of the nation by themselves. Of
course, the author has no intention of claiming the fall of free market democracy, nor
generalizing the undemocratic local incidents as democratic all over the world.
Rather, the author argues that the flexibility to adapt voters demands into policies is the
key for preserving their democracies, even though contemporary policies are
undemocratic in our eyes.

Undemocratic methods of governance, such as recentralization of the economy and

corruption, cannot be fully understood by the cost-benefit analysis derived from
American politics. Even though those policies halt ourdemocracy, many voters in the
country-in-question tolerate those policies especially when economic recovery and
development are involved. However, change is inevitable. The long-lasting reign of the
Liberal Democratic Party in Japan (since 1955) was broken in 1993 by the coalition led by
Morihiro Hosokawa. Japanese voters who tolerate corruption in general were finally fed
up and hoped for change. Prime Minister Thaksin of Thailand is most likely to be arrested
as soon as he returns to Thailand. South Korean as well as Taiwanese high prosecutors
offices have launched a long-lasting anti-corruption campaign against past and even
current political leaders. All of those countries, therefore, are democratic, because the
switch of leadership was conducted according to democratic procedures when voters
demanded.

Therefore, the automatic bipolarization of democratic and undemocratic has little to

do with the assessment of democratization when people have a disagreement over what
democracy is. Throughout this paper, the author emphasizes the intentions of policies
in addition to their styles and outcomes. Not external observers, but voters within the
political system should decide what democracy is for them. If outsiders believe that
their choice is not acceptable, those outsiders can suggest that insiders should change
their political system, but they cannot force it.
Notes & References
1. Park, J. & J. Glionna. (2009) Case of Economic Pundit Minerva roils South Korea. Los
Angeles Times. [Online] January 16. Available at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-korea-minerva16-
2009jan16,0,5129219.story (Accessed: January 26, 2009).
2. Pesek, W. (2009) LeeMan Brothers Offer No Panacea for Economy. Bloomsberg. [Online]
January 26. Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?