Beyond the liberal model in East and Southeast Asia

Interest has increased in how ordinary citizens define and interpret democracy since the 2000s. Unlike in the West, where democracy and economic development often advanced in tandem, many Asian countries experienced late industrialization under authoritarian rule.

Economic growth was prioritized above all else, often at the expense of post-material values and the individual rights associated with liberal democracy.

In newly industrializing states, the middle classes did not develop a strong ideological commitment to democracy, instead favoring stability and continued economic expansion. 

In many cases, informal political participation has also remained weaker than in Western democracies because of the historical repression of working-class movements, leftist parties and progressive civil society actors.

These continue to shape contemporary popular understandings of democracy in East and Southeast Asia, as evidenced by regional research surveys. 

When pushed to prioritize a specific aspect of democracy, many citizens choose “substantive” or “egalitarian conceptions.” They associate democracy with ensuring order, fostering economic development, reducing inequality and providing broad-based social services.

Liberal values

This takes precedence over “procedural” or “liberal” definitions that emphasize individual freedoms and institutional checks and balances.

Yet these findings require careful interpretation. The predominance of substantive understandings of democracy does not necessarily indicate a lack of awareness or appreciation of liberal values in the region. 

On the contrary, our research for the meaning of democracy in Southeast Asia, such as liberalism, egalitarianism and participation shows that in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, public conceptions in the region are complex. 

Rather than adhering to a singular definition, most respondents in these countries view democracy as a multidimensional ideal – one that encompasses equally desirable goals that coexist yet remain in tension and, at times, in partial contradiction.

This complexity suggests that while liberal democratic principles may not always be the primary lens through which democracy is understood, they remain a significant part of the democratic imagination in the region.

The extent to which East and Southeast Asia constitute a uniquely distinct area in terms of democratic conceptions is also questionable. 

A crucial factor is the diversity within each society. Conceptions of democracy vary sharply along different social ethnic groups in Malaysia, ideological faction in Indonesia, generational groups in Thailand and partisan affiliations in South Korea. 

These differences are not superficial or transient – they reflect deep-seated divergences in values that shape political behavior.

Western democracies

In this respect, they resemble many Western democracies amid broader social and political fault lines, which go beyond broad generalizations that negate such diversity.

Yet, a concerning aspect of popular attitudes is the simultaneous endorsement of democracy and certain authoritarian alternatives. 

Data from the 2017-2022 World Values Survey reveals that a significant proportion of self-identified democracy supporters also express openness to a system with a “strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections.”

This contradiction is particularly pronounced in Thailand (92%), Mongolia (79%), the Philippines (77%), Malaysia (74%) and South Korea (71%). But it is significantly less prevalent in Singapore (29%) and Japan (29%). 

These findings suggest that support for democracy in the region is often conditional, with many citizens prioritizing leadership and governance over strict adherence to democratic principles.

Still, it would be misleading to treat the prevalence of such “instrumental” understandings of democracy as a uniquely Asian phenomenon. 

Research on the subject has demonstrated a strong link between policy outcomes – such as economic growth, low crime rates and effective public provision – and democratic support across diverse contexts. 

While conventional wisdom held that performance only influenced short-term attitudes, more recent studies suggest that deeper, more “diffuse” support for democratic principles can erode when institutions fail to deliver. 

Wealthy societies

The implications for democratic legitimacy, in Asia as elsewhere, are clear – to sustain public trust and remain resilient, democracies must produce tangible policy benefits that meet citizens’ expectations.

The challenge in East and Southeast Asia is not a question of becoming more liberal. Efforts to impose allegedly universal Western values in societies where a significant portion of the population does not fully embrace them may be counterproductive. 

While further economic modernization may contribute to gradual liberalization of political attitudes, the extent of such change is uncertain. 

Political values are deeply entrenched, and global trends suggest that even wealthy societies are not immune to illiberal shifts.

The model of liberal democracy that prevailed in the latter half of the 20th century is not a universal ideal but a historically contingent system whose legitimacy is increasingly debated even in the West. 

Given this reality, there is little reason to expect that Asian democracies will simply follow the same trajectory. Nor can we assess them by how closely they align with this specific model. 

The universal Western “liberal script” in political science risks overlooking, misrepresenting or even delegitimizing alternative trajectories that have emerged in non-Western contexts.

The key challenge for the region is to uphold democratic legitimacy by delivering effective policy outcomes in increasingly diverse and polarized societies. 

Political inclusion

This is not unique to East and Southeast Asia but reflects broader struggles faced by democracies worldwide.

The stakes are particularly high in a region where democratic institutions sometimes lack deep historical roots and must contend with strong authoritarian legacies. 

Ensuring democracy’s resilience will require not only institutional safeguards but also political leadership capable of balancing competing, and at times contrasting, demands for stability, economic growth and political inclusion.

Diego Fossati is an Associate Professor of Public and International Affairs at the City University of Hong Kong.

This edited article is republished from East Asia Forum under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of China Factor.