Democracy is not a cultural specialty of the West

In the struggle to establish democracy and in the cases of its failure in countries outside of the European Union, opponents of democracy often raise the objection that it is in fact only a culture of the West and therefore not so suitable for the rest of the world. It is something foreign to them. In the process, reference is often made to the history of European imperialism, along with the comment that it left behind a doubtful legacy of democracy when it withdrew from its former colonies. According to this objection, the establishment of democracy is only supposed to open the door in order to secure the influence of the dominant western market economy in the respective countries. Whoever shares such objections is no longer interested in improving and stabilizing democracy, but rather can be easily recruited for authoritarian regimes.

This idea completely misjudges the nature, the goals, and the possibilities of democracy and ignores the conditions and the conflict of interests which contributed to the rise of democracy in Europe. In the discussions of the 1980s and 1990s of the 20th century, political power holders, especially in Southeast Asia, raised this objection against democracy. In general, it was connected with a similar restriction on the general validity of human rights.

In order to be able to answer this question, we must first make a distinction between the historical origin and the practical validity of democracy. Just as many achievements in Eastern culture finally found recognition all over the world because they were successful and convincing to others, achievements in the West can also be of use to other parts of the world and find recognition because they are successful and convincing to others. The origin of a discovery, also the discovery of social and political institutions, does not say anything about its validity.

In terms of democracy, it is typical that various cultures claim to have practiced it in earlier times. Examples of this are African traditions of conflict resolution through joint talks with all adult tribal members and forms of self-administration in South and Southeast Asia. In Greece in the 5th century B.C., democracy experienced its first historical ascendancy. This clearly applied only to a short period of time and in respect to the cultures of individual eras, with the exclusion of women, foreigners and slaves.

However, democracy practically did not play a role anywhere in the long history of the West from the spread of Christianity (since the 4th century) to the emergence of the bourgeoisie in the 18 century. It was not alive in the ‘West” as either a norm or a practice as long as it was dominated by the Christian religion. In fact, there were different levels of rights and also a guarantee of participation for various social status groups. However, this also existed in other cultures, and in the West this was far from democratic.

It is characteristic of democracy and essential for understanding its sphere of influence that it was originally not exactly an integral part of the cultural of the West. It rather first arose at the historical moment when the tradition of the homogeneous culture of the West was at its end. It was a creative discovery which dealt productively with new developments and was not the result of a “genetic” development program of Western culture.

There were four new developments at whose end democracy was finally recognized as the single accepted solution for the problems of living together in society:

1. The development of large cities in which people from various cultures and religions came together and learned to understand and respect one another.

2. The decline of the static, agrarian-oriented feudal society and its gradual replacement by the dynamic economy of trade, craftsmanship and industry. Its citizens strived for economic and social life and also the influence to shape politics with increasing importance.

3. The distinction within the religious tradition itself. At the latest since the Reformation in the 16th century, it was shown that the same religious tradition was made fruitful and able to be continued in the present in entirely different ways along with the change of societal living conditions. While religion was long a guarantee for political unity, it now became the principle source of difference and conflict.

4. The economic development itself with its modernization needed room for the development of initiatives and dependable basic conditions for the calculations of its participants.

With the Enlightenment in the 18th century, the interaction of these developments brought a new way of thinking into the arena and then also a new political movement. It was recognized that establishing human rights and democracy in the state was still the only possibility to satisfy all these new diverse needs for all people in the same recognizable way. Democracy and human rights together offered themselves as the most convincing solution for the new problem of religious and societal diversity and their dynamic developments. First when the Christian-dominated culture of the West entered the age of modernity, which had been shaped by pluralism and the dynamics of development, did democracy become the recognized model of political self-organization in society.

Democracy is not a cultural specialty of the West, but rather the best way to solve conflicts of interest on the path to modernization.

The reasons for the rise of modern democracy make it clear that it vas not a pre-program med cultural expression of the West, but rather a new way to solve novel problems:

• In which way can society reach a generally acceptable societal order and unified form of action which is shaped by different interests, different religious beliefs, and different values?

• How can political rule be effectively connected to the interests, values and opinions of people in whose name it is supposed to act?

• How can the equal dignity of all people living together in society be reliably given expression?

Conflict, Consensus, Compromise

Conflict, as the confrontation of different interests whether they are of a regional, social, economic, cultural, religious or ethical nature, is the unavoidable starting point of any free society. Conflict is the commodity and basis of politics. So that conflicts can be settled democratically, there is a need for a basic consensus and the willingness to reach a compromise in every democracy. There must be a consensus at least on the basic values of the constitution, e.g. basic rights, democratic decision-making processes, and important fundamental objectives for the entire nation as a political state.

The process of consensus. In the strictest sense, consensus means the complete agreement by various participants and groups of participants on a certain question in terms of their respective interests, political programs, and intended actions. A consensus is necessary for the political community in the process of dealing with conflict, basic rights implicitly valid for each individual, and some of the few national objectives which are to be strived for in all conflict resolutions. In this sense, consensus is generally the heart of the political constitution valid at that time and the political culture in which it is embedded.

Conflict. Conflicts, which in many cultures are regarded as rather negative and can actually be avoided as a accompanying features of politics, are in reality a direct expression of freedom and consequently a productive element of political understanding. Without a clear expression of the different political interests and goals, political opponents would have no opportunity to enter into the process of forming political opinions and political objectives. Furthermore, it would not be at all possible for the public to recognize the extent to which they are being considered in accepted problem resolutions.

Conflicts have the special feature of showing alternative possibilities, other perspectives, and other accentuations in representing interests and values. Therefore, they help to promote freedom through the process of learning in society, for individuals forming their own opinions, and for the development of society as a whole.

Conflicts without a basic consensus have a destructive effect. Consensus without room for conflict paralyses and inhibits democracy. It depolarizes the country.

The core of democratic political culture is the productive interaction between consensus and conflict. There should be as much consensus as necessary in order to prevent conflicts from jeopardizing the fundamentals of living together and the common recognition of the process of peaceful and fair resolution. But there also should be as much conflict as necessary in order to guarantee freedom and room for the expression of all legitimate societal interests.

A fair compromise is one of the most productive processes of resolving conflicts on the basis of a consensus which is recognized by everyone beyond the goals, rules, and basic rights for everyone in the community which are shared by all. It reinforces the underlying consensus, provides room for conflict, and shows how the interests of many people can be taken into consideration within this framework.

Excerpts of the author’s paper presented at a FES talk programme in Kathmandu on July 16, 2007-ed.

Posted on : 2007-08-08 10:37:29

Comments (0)