The Security and Democratic challenges in Asia-Pacific
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 21st Jan 2017
The bleak signals emerging from the Numero Uno political power with confused to gloomy forecast by ‘political analysts’ pointing towards a security gloom in Asia, which require security balance from external sources for its health. The reason being that democracies in the region have long ignored democratic values while choosing interests of the sovereign governments. In a ‘functional democracy’, there are several competing political forces pursuing different interests. Such forces invariable take positions which would benefit or strengthen select some external forces while in their natural quest for political upmanship. However while they exercise international diplomacy, such political forces need to rise above their individual interests and ensure that democratic pursuits elsewhere are also thriving. Then only a balance of interest can be ensured.
If for some reason such a principle is ignored then external forces would be out there to exploit the situation. The reason for political dilemma in Asia Pacific is much the same. The political powers in government have ignored support for democratic pursuits in international arena while in their gusto to develop upon political partnerships to serve their domestic ends. This made them dependent on the external forces to maintain security as well as political balance for the region. Such powers were quite indulgent earlier, but now have a rising cost. So the political analyst are worried. It is interesting that we just have discussions regards the security re-balance only while no one seems to be thinking about a political re-balance, viz. how can governments in the region be pursuing more democracy within the region. The nations can have security related red-lines, however red-lines related to political upmanship can only be demanded by dictatorships (of course some democratic leaders are also often seen asking for the same with little reprimand from media and analyst for the same). Supporting such dictatorships without thinking about consequences could not have continued unabated, and such a question have come to haunt the political leaders in the region.
It is interesting that the talk about the limitation of role of a country in providing perceived security for the region is seen to be destabilizing. This is because some other power is automatically assumed to be positioned to usurp such a situation to its advantage. The reason is lack of competing democratic political forces and influence of these nations either individually or collectively on them. Again while we have nations toying in or re-calibrating security related options like ‘One China policy’, there has been little demand to recognize multiple political parties in other countries who may be pursuing competing and varied interests. This is while some nations are clear at freedom to exercise choice about which leaders they may be more comfortable or cozy with. And they can limit the influence of other nations simply by not recognizing competing political interests in their home country. This might be a failure of political diplomacy which has worked to the advantage of non-democracies rather. What might be needed is that the nations are made to think about such policies and related options as well. The diplomatic gatherings discussing limited security scenarios while ignoring political scenarios might be serving narrow interests rather than looking scenarios and options in wholesome manner. The nations want some others to assert for them without themselves being assertive about a domestically cherished value which is democracy, and this seem to be having a cost now. Let’s watch the ‘Game’ evolve further…..
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 21st Jan 2017
The bleak signals emerging from the Numero Uno political power with confused to gloomy forecast by ‘political analysts’ pointing towards a security gloom in Asia, which require security balance from external sources for its health. The reason being that democracies in the region have long ignored democratic values while choosing interests of the sovereign governments. In a ‘functional democracy’, there are several competing political forces pursuing different interests. Such forces invariable take positions which would benefit or strengthen select some external forces while in their natural quest for political upmanship. However while they exercise international diplomacy, such political forces need to rise above their individual interests and ensure that democratic pursuits elsewhere are also thriving. Then only a balance of interest can be ensured.
If for some reason such a principle is ignored then external forces would be out there to exploit the situation. The reason for political dilemma in Asia Pacific is much the same. The political powers in government have ignored support for democratic pursuits in international arena while in their gusto to develop upon political partnerships to serve their domestic ends. This made them dependent on the external forces to maintain security as well as political balance for the region. Such powers were quite indulgent earlier, but now have a rising cost. So the political analyst are worried. It is interesting that we just have discussions regards the security re-balance only while no one seems to be thinking about a political re-balance, viz. how can governments in the region be pursuing more democracy within the region. The nations can have security related red-lines, however red-lines related to political upmanship can only be demanded by dictatorships (of course some democratic leaders are also often seen asking for the same with little reprimand from media and analyst for the same). Supporting such dictatorships without thinking about consequences could not have continued unabated, and such a question have come to haunt the political leaders in the region.
It is interesting that the talk about the limitation of role of a country in providing perceived security for the region is seen to be destabilizing. This is because some other power is automatically assumed to be positioned to usurp such a situation to its advantage. The reason is lack of competing democratic political forces and influence of these nations either individually or collectively on them. Again while we have nations toying in or re-calibrating security related options like ‘One China policy’, there has been little demand to recognize multiple political parties in other countries who may be pursuing competing and varied interests. This is while some nations are clear at freedom to exercise choice about which leaders they may be more comfortable or cozy with. And they can limit the influence of other nations simply by not recognizing competing political interests in their home country. This might be a failure of political diplomacy which has worked to the advantage of non-democracies rather. What might be needed is that the nations are made to think about such policies and related options as well. The diplomatic gatherings discussing limited security scenarios while ignoring political scenarios might be serving narrow interests rather than looking scenarios and options in wholesome manner. The nations want some others to assert for them without themselves being assertive about a domestically cherished value which is democracy, and this seem to be having a cost now. Let’s watch the ‘Game’ evolve further…..