Assaults on capitalism and democratic backsliding: Evidence from Asia

Abstract

It is generally assumed that stable democracies depend on sufficient economic freedoms that support ideas of individual independence and that shift resources from state to society. The growth and consolidation of economic freedoms under capitalism has been empirically linked to the growth and consolidation of democracy. Asia as a region has generally conformed to this theory, albeit with delayed democratic transitions due to the state-directed nature of development. This article revisits the capitalism/democracy relationship in East and Southeast Asia with a particular focus on contemporary concerns with global democratic backsliding. It shows the enduring analytic and empirical utility of capitalism to explain structural pressures on democratic development. It also shows how assaults on capitalism have predictive and descriptive value as indicators of authoritarian repression and democratic backsliding. The article highlights the continued relevance of capitalism for understanding democratic development, and underscores the significance of Asia to broader debates on democratic backsliding.

The effect of academic freedom on electoral democracy in the Asian region

“…First, the Asian region includes the world's second and third largest national economies (China and Japan, respectively) and the world's largest Muslim nation (Indonesia) (Ford & Hass, 2021). Second, interestingly, in terms of "democracy" itself, the Asia region accounts for regime dynamics (Gilley, 2021). Most of the world communist regimes (except Cuba) are located in Asia: North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Laos.…”

“…As Bermeo (2016) argues, the trend of democratic backsliding that continues in Asia basically involves state‐led weakening or elimination of electoral democracy; Bermeo also emphasizes that strategic manipulation of elections has become a norm in affected Asian countries, even in instances where nominally regular elections are held. Gilley's (2021) argument is that the Asian region has demonstrated a delayed‐democratic transition due to the state‐directed nature of development. Most Asian countries place less emphasis on market orientation when reforming their economies, and this may hamper core democratic values.…”

The struggle for Singapore’s Chinese heartland: The People’s Action Party versus the Workers’ Party versus the Singapore Democratic Party, 1998–2013

“…Even when Chee spoke at Speakers' Corner on 15 February 2002, against the government suspending four Muslim schoolgirls for wearing tudungs (headscarves), he was coming at the issue from the viewpoint of universal human rights rather than multiracialism or religion preservation. 11 The SDP does not fit neatly into Gilley's (2020) thesis that there is a positive law-like relationship between capitalism and democracy, given that SDP people generally prefer more restraints on capitalism (to serve the interests of accountability, social justice and the poor) than do the PAP (Gilley, 2020: 17-18, 51, 63-64, 321, 389, 391). As Chee (2012: 51) says, 'we need an alternative economic paradigm where the wealth divide is narrowed'.…”

“…The SDP does not fit neatly into Gilley’s (2020) thesis that there is a positive law-like relationship between capitalism and democracy, given that SDP people generally prefer more restraints on capitalism (to serve the interests of accountability, social justice and the poor) than do the PAP (Gilley, 2020: 17–18, 51, 63–64, 321, 389, 391). As Chee (2012: 51) says, ‘we need an alternative economic paradigm where the wealth divide is narrowed’.…”

Declining opportunities for speaking out: The impact of Vietnam's new leadership on grassroots collective action

“…In those regimes, popularly elected leaders can reverse democratic developments by undertaking incremental institutional changes and manipulating elections strategically to limit the power of opposition forces (Bermeo, 2016; Diamond, 2021; Ding and Slater, 2021; Levitsky and Ziblatt, 2018; Pérez-Liñán et al, 2019). Some argue that discussions about democratic backsliding in single-party regimes such as China, Vietnam, and Laos are not even appropriate because there are no democratic elements in those countries (Gilley, 2021). However, while these regimes do not allow multiparty elections and severely restrict liberal freedoms such as freedoms of the press, expression, and association (Levitsky and Way, 2010), single-party governments can sometimes tolerate, instead of constantly harshly suppressing, small-scaled localized grassroots collective actions in which a group of citizens with similar interests come together to advance their claims through, for example, protests, petitions, and sharing concerns on social media.…”