Asia’s ‘Eastminster Model’

At a time when people in most Asian countries practice varying degrees of openness, Trump’s second coming could signal further reversals. 

From authoritarian North Korea and China, elected autocracies like Singapore, to formerly democratic countries that are backsliding like the Philippines and Indonesia, the Asia-Pacific region has been witnessing democratic decay for decades.

However, with a new hardline rightwing government in Washington next year, analysts in the region fear further erosion of press freedom, democracy and rule of law in the region. America will no longer have the moral high ground in preaching human rights, democratic values and civic freedoms to the rest of the world.

This will likely be accompanied by Trump’s America ditching traditional allies like South Korea, Japan or Taiwan, or asking them to pay for the US defence umbrella as he tried to do the first time round. His choice of State Department and Department of Defence portfolios in the cabinet shows that a second Trump term may have an even more hardline foreign policy.

Trump’s muddle headedness on bilateral trade and security alliances are likely to leave both allies and adversaries scratching their heads about what America really wants. One outcome could be China filling the vacuum left by America’s retreat from the region. Even Kim Jong-Un is relieved that his old pal is back in the Oval Office, and will not be giving him a hard time about sending 10,000 of his troops to fight in the Russian Army against Ukraine. 

Most Asian populations look admiringly at China and Singapore, which have achieved phenomenal economic progress despite limiting political and media freedoms. They are strongly attracted by ‘Asian values’ that emphasises the collective good rather than individual pursuit of happiness, and feel that Westminster-style parliamentary democracy is not really suited to our soil.

It is tempting for them to make a distinction between personal freedom and social, economic and cultural rights of a people. This philosophy has adherents not just in developed Asian economies, middle-income states like Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia, but also in the poorer parts of the continent where there is a hankering for strongman rule, like in India.

They argue that political pluralism leads to societal divisiveness, undermines a cohesive national ethos, and distracts leaders from focusing their attention to lift living standards of citizens. What is the point of being allowed to vote freely for a political party if there is no freedom from hunger, is the reasoning.

Many in Asia’s badly governed countries are convinced by this argument. The countries with the lowest per capita income in the region are those which practice western-style parliamentary democracy, and they are confined to South Asia. Some of the richest countries in Asia are those ruled by a single party, and emerging economies are sorely tempted to dump democracy for development.

Some have called this the ‘Eastminster’ model, and the latest adherent is the world’s largest democracy, India which has been trying to play economic catchup with its rival, China. Their authoritarian playbook is the same: abandon the doctrine of separation of powers, steadily but steadfastly constrict freedom of expression, manipulate the electoral mechanism, and weaponise social media networks to stoke populist rhetoric against ethnic minorities, migrants, or magnify external threats.

This has worked brilliantly to elect autocrats: in many formerly democratic countries authoritarian leaders have been elected multiple times because of their stranglehold on the levers of power. They have used free election to get to power and then dismantled the very institutions of democracy that got them elected in the first place.

Elected despots have hijacked the court system to deploy strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) against political rivals, journalists and civil society — framing them on trumped up charges of tax evasion, money laundering or even sedition.

All this has been made possible by the tyranny of the algorithm which has aided and abetted populism on social media platforms, polarising and radicalising voters at election time. The networks have taken over the agenda-setting role of the legacy and linear media. The traditional fact-checking and verifying role of the traditional mainstream media is now undermined because (as seen in the recent US elections) facts do not matter anymore.

Asia’s autocrats have keenly watched the US presidential elections, and they have been taking notes. If the United States and India, with all their constitutional safeguards, can drift into  authoritarianism, what hope is there for Asia?

One thing to keep in mind is that countries like Nepal and Sri Lanka or Philippines and Indonesia have tried strongman rule before, and it was a disaster. And there are examples of Asian countries that have prospered because of democratic checks and balances. 

Predictions of the demise of democracy in countries of the Asia-Pacific, therefore, may be exaggerated and premature.