Dispatch #100: Democracy through strength-Understanding the pathways to democratic reforms in developmental Asia
This post covers the key themes of Dan Slater & Joseph Wong's book 'From Development to Democracy' which explains why some countries in Asia have transitioned toward democracy while others have not.
Asia has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past several decades, evolving from one of the world’s poorest regions into a hub of economic activity and growth. Despite this economic success, the political landscape remains diverse, with many countries still under authoritarian regimes. Dan Slater and Joseph Wong's work tries to explain why economic development has not uniformly led to democratization across the region. They argue that understanding this phenomenon requires examining the unique pathways through which different countries have navigated their political futures, particularly focusing on their concept of ‘democracy through strength.’
Economic Development: A Double-Edged Sword
The Rise of Developmental Asia
The authors begin by defining ‘developmental Asia,’ a term that encompasses countries that have pursued aggressive economic policies aimed at rapid industrialization and export-led growth. This includes nations like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, which have achieved high-income status, contrasted with others like Indonesia and Vietnam that are still developing. The authors emphasize that while economic growth has been significant, it has also been uneven, leading to disparities in wealth distribution within these societies.
They explain:
It is a region defined by political economy, not just physical geography. All of its burgeoning economies lie along the Pacific Rim of Asia, so geography is hardly irrelevant. But not all countries in Northeast and Southeast Asia qualify. Developmental Asia is a region you have to “join” by pursuing particular developmental policies and accruing developmental successes. Specifically, the region’s twelve cases have all pursued national catch-up development through the political prioritization of rapid economic growth, grounded in a developmental model that prizes exports, uses state sponsorship to encourage industrialization, and treats private firms as a cornerstone of national economic advancement. Economic growth across developmental Asia has been nothing short of spectacular. Yet it has also been undeniably uneven. Within each society, the fruits of economic growth have been very unevenly shared. Hundreds of millions have escaped poverty, but tens of millions still have not. Across cases, some began developing much earlier and have attained far greater levels of wealth than others. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have boasted high-income status for decades. Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia started later and have reached less lofty developmental heights. Meanwhile, among the four inward-looking laggards who did not “join” developmental Asia by pursuing rapid export-led, state-sponsored capitalist growth until after the Cold War ended—China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and, most belatedly, Myanmar—China has skyrocketed past all the rest, while still not catching up to its developmental Asian predecessors in terms of per capita income.
The Uneven Path to Democracy
Despite the region's economic achievements, only about half of its countries have transitioned toward democratic governance. This observation raises critical questions about the expected correlation between wealth and democracy. For instance, while Singapore and Hong Kong are economically advanced, they maintain authoritarian regimes. Conversely, Indonesia has embraced democracy despite its lower income status. The authors highlight that this disconnection between economic development and democratization is a central theme of their analysis.
They further explain:
Levels of economic development are not clearly correlated with levels of democracy in developmental Asia. If they were, Asia’s democratization story would be a pure modernization story—but it plainly is not. Most strikingly, Singapore and Hong Kong are extremely wealthy but not democratic; China is getting no closer to democracy even as it grows phenomenally richer; Indonesia became a democracy and has remained a democracy for over two decades despite its modest middle-income status; and even Myanmar took substantial steps toward democratization in the 2010s, while remaining developmental Asia’s poorest country, before a military coup reversed those tenuous yet tangible democratic gains in 2021.
Democracy Through Strength
Understanding the Concept
At its heart, the theory of democracy through strength suggests that authoritarian regimes in developmental Asia often initiate democratic reforms not out of desperation but from a position of confidence. This confidence is derived from their historical accumulation of political strength, economic success, and the belief that they can maintain power even in a democratic framework. The authors argue that this pathway to democracy is characterized by two key forms of confidence:
Victory Confidence: This refers to the expectation among ruling authoritarian elites that they can perform well in democratic elections, maintaining or even enhancing their political power.
Stability Confidence: This is the belief that political stability and economic growth can continue under democratic conditions, allowing for a smooth transition without significant upheaval.
These forms of confidence allow authoritarian leaders to view democratization as a means of reinforcing their authority rather than a sign of weakness.
They argue:
With an impressive developmental track record, authoritarian rulers can generate a measure of performance legitimacy—a credible retrospective record of developmental achievement—to help them win free and fair elections moving forward. And to the extent that economic development reduces poverty and expands the middle class, it softens the anticipated pressures for downward redistribution that often frighten the well-off away from embracing democratization.
Political Organizations and Their Role
The Influence of Political Structures
Slater and Wong emphasize the importance of political organizations—such as bureaucracies and political parties—in shaping democratization outcomes. Different types of political organizations emerge from various patterns of economic development, influencing whether a country leans toward authoritarianism or democracy. For instance, countries with strong bureaucratic institutions may find it easier to transition to democracy because these institutions can facilitate political participation and accountability. In contrast, nations lacking such structures may struggle to establish democratic governance.
Economic Development as a Catalyst
Economic development plays a dual role in this context. On one hand, it fosters a middle class that can advocate for democratic reforms; on the other hand, it creates performance legitimacy for authoritarian regimes. As these regimes demonstrate economic success, they can justify their continued rule while simultaneously softening fears about potential redistributive policies associated with democratization.
External Pressures for Change
The Role of International Influences
While internal factors are significant, external pressures also play a critical role in democratization processes. Historical examples illustrate how foreign influences can catalyze transitions to democracy. For instance, American support for democratic movements in Japan and Taiwan was instrumental in their democratization efforts. Additionally, public protests can serve as powerful catalysts for change. The authors cite South Korea's transition during the late 1980s as an example where massive public demonstrations prompted significant political reforms.
Comparative Examples
To illustrate their argument further, Slater and Wong provide comparative case studies from across Asia:
Philippines (1986): The People Power movement exemplifies "democratization through weakness," where widespread protests led to the ousting of Ferdinand Marcos.
South Korea (1988): In contrast, South Korea's transition was characterized by strategic concessions made by authoritarian leaders who felt confident in their ability to win elections under a new democratic framework.
These contrasting examples highlight how different pathways to democratization can emerge based on the underlying strengths and confidence levels of authoritarian regimes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Slater and Wong's exploration of the relationship between economic development and democratization in Asia reveals a complex landscape where traditional theories may not fully apply. Their concept of ‘democracy through strength’ offers a solid framework for understanding how some authoritarian regimes can transition to democratic governance without succumbing to weakness. As students reflect on these themes, they should consider how varying historical contexts and internal dynamics shape the paths nations take toward democracy. The journey from development to democracy is marked by unique patterns influenced by confidence, political organization, external pressures, and historical legacies—elements critical for understanding contemporary Asian politics. This nuanced perspective encourages us to look beyond simplistic narratives about democracy and recognize the multifaceted nature of political change in developmental Asia.
In this video Slater and Wong talk about the key arguments from their book: