Singapore's former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia's current Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad actively promote the idea that a combination of authoritarianism and economic liberalism is desirable. They argue that this is the Asian way. Democracy and human rights, they say, are Western values; Asians have "Asian values." This is also what Chinese officials from Beijing are telling democratic legislators in Hong Kong. By Asian values they mean that individual rights must be sacrificed to the common good, and the common good is defined by the leaders, whose judgment one defies at one's peril. That is why directly-elected legislators in Hong Kong cannot be tolerated by Beijing. They are liable to be critical, even defiant; hence, in Beijing's terms, un-Asian.
But again, this leaves too much unexplained. If democratic values are so uncongenial to Asians, why then did Asians from Rangoon to Seoul, from Manila to Beijing, demand them? Why do Indians jealously guard their right to elect their leaders? Why were the Taiwanese so proud of their right to do the same this year? The answer must be that Asians wish to have the dignity of free speech and free elections as much as anybody, East or West. This kind of freedom is not necessarily linked to economic freedom, even though it often is.
It would be nice to think the liberties gained over the past 10 years in the Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea will spread farther across Asia. But how likely is it that, say, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam and China will be free, or freer, in 10 years' time? If you believe that prosperity automatically results in more liberal politics, the trend must seem unstoppable. But even if you are more skeptical about the link between economic and political liberties, there is still reason for optimism.
Take Singapore. In the Asian scale of things, Singapore is of course only a tiny speck on the map. But it is more significant than its size would suggest, if only because it is seen as a model by much larger powers. If Chinese leaders were to draw a blueprint for a future China, it would look much like Singapore: economically powerful and politically controlled. But in the long run, it is unlikely to turn out that way, in China or in Singapore, not because richer people automatically demand individual rights (poor people can do that too), but because Singapore's "Asian values" sprang from peculiar circumstances, which are bound to change.
Most older leaders still hanging on to power in Southeast Asian countries took part in the struggle against European colonialism. Many, including Lee Kuan Yew himself, have an ambivalent attitude toward the West. They fought to be free from imperial authoritarianism and were often inspired by Western democracy. At the same time, they were influenced by the ideas used by Western officials to justify their imperial rule. For example, now that Asians are in power themselves, they endorse the essentially colonial idea that Asian people are not ready just yet for democracy; they have to be better educated first, or become wealthier, or be more disciplined, more virtuous or whatnot. The point is that for an authoritarian government, people are never ready for democracy - not just yet.
The men who came to power in the 1950s and '60s, after beating their colonial masters as well as their local rivals, continue to rule, directly or indirectly, in such countries as Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Burma. There were always people brave enough to oppose them, but by and large, the promise of prosperity, the heady game of catching up with the West and the hard fist of authoritarian rule kept people politically docile.
As the old generation passes from the scene, new demands for greater political freedom will be made. Journalists and a vigorous opposition party in Indonesia and students in China, Thailand and Burma have already done so. The idea of Asian values was invoked to answer these domestic dissidents, as well as Western critics of authoritarian rule. It linked Asian leaders to their anticolonial pasts; it made them look like defenders of Asia against the arrogant West. But local critics will be increasingly difficult to ignore. As they get wealthier, people will be bought off less easily by chauvinistic propaganda or the promise of riches.
If this turns out to be right, it would be good news not just for Asians but for the Western world as well. For dictators feel threatened by Western liberalism and often whip up anti-Western feelings among their subjects to stifle that influence. It is not for nothing that post-Tiananmen Square China is marked by an ugly strain of xenophobia. Prosperity won't be enough to cure this. Freedom will.
