Democracy Does Not Depend Solely on Social Demand

A critical review session on the book 'From Development to Democracy' by sociology and political science professors Dan Slater and Joseph Wong, translated by Rahman Ghahremanpour, was held at Safir Arjan on Monday, 20 Mehr 1405, with the participation of Farhad Nili, Mohammad Fazeli and the book's translator.

According to Ambassador Arjan Kahramanpour, in this meeting, referring to the relationship between economic development and democracy, he explained different approaches in the literature of the transition to democracy and the experience of Asian countries in this field.

At the beginning of his speech, Kahramanpour said: "I have heard friends talk about this book and I have read it myself. We have discussed with each other in the field of economic development before and we are familiar with these issues. If we want to look at the book, I must say that this work actually tries to re-examine the relationship between economic development and democracy, especially in Asia.

He continued: "First, I want to make a brief reference to the literature of democracy and explain the place of this book in the study of democracy. Earlier, I translated the book "Priority of Democracy". Of course, I had started translating it earlier, but due to the difficulty of the work and the complexity of the book's literature, its publication was delayed."

Referring to different approaches in democracy studies, Kahramanpour said: "Democracy studies have been pursued from several different angles. One of these approaches was the investigation of pro-democracy movements. After the 1990s, with the developments that took place in countries such as Poland and Hungary, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the issue of transition to democracy through social movements was raised a lot. If friends in Iran remember, this approach was also very popular in our country at one point and still many people look at democracy from this angle.

He added: "However, the experience of countries shows that the transition to democracy does not necessarily take place in the same way everywhere. In Latin America, for example, some of these transitions depended on alliances between the military and political forces rather than simply the result of social movements. In Asia, Indonesia's experience in this field is very important. In this region, there have been countries that have faced serious problems on the way to democratization; For example, Thailand still faces challenges. On the other hand, some countries have been able to transition to democracy, although their path was not without setbacks.

This researcher further pointed to another approach in democracy studies and said: "Another approach proposed in the literature of democracy focuses on political decision-makers, rulers' calculations and the opportunities that are available to them. In this approach, the issue of peaceful transfer of power becomes especially important; Because one of the most important achievements of democracy is making it possible to transfer power without resorting to violence.

Besides these issues, the relationship between democracy and liberalism is also discussed. In this view, democracy and liberalism are closely related to each other, and the question arises whether democratic values ​​can grow outside the framework of liberalism or not. This discussion is also part of the theoretical literature of democracy that has received attention in the past years.

Why is the mere existence of democratic values and institutions not enough?

Referring to the change of approaches in democracy studies in Iran, Kahramanpour continued: "In Iran, until the 1990s, these literatures and approaches were more popular, but after that, attention to some of these topics decreased and other approaches were proposed in democracy studies.

The first and main point is that democracy cannot be considered simply as the transfer of a set of values to the society. The experience of countries shows that the mere existence of some values ​​or institutions related to democracy does not necessarily lead to the establishment and continuation of a democratic system.

In explaining this, he looked at the experience of Asian countries and said: "For example, Japan is one of the most stable political systems in Asia, but this does not mean that other countries in the region have necessarily followed the same path. In South Korea, despite the democratic experience, there have been problems and challenges. The political developments of this country and the tensions related to the government and parliament show that there is a possibility of crisis even in democratic systems.

Emphasizing the importance of this issue for Iran, this researcher added: "This issue is also important for Iran." When we talk about democracy, we must pay attention to the fact that the realization of democracy is not limited to the existence of civil society or having some economic and social characteristics. One of the basic issues is the calculations and decisions of political leaders; In particular, whether they are confident that they will not be completely removed from the political scene in the event of a transition to democracy.

If political leaders think that accepting democracy means their complete removal from power, it is natural for them to resist such a move. On the contrary, if they are assured that they will have the possibility of political presence after the transfer of power, the probability of accepting the change will increase. Therefore, the issue is not only the existence of the demand for democracy; Rather, one should also pay attention to the calculations of the rulers, their concern about being eliminated and the possibility of giving points in the political structure.

Indonesian experience; Maintaining part of the post-transition power structure

Referring to Indonesia's experience, Kahramanpour said: "These two points are very important in the experience of Asian countries, especially Indonesia. In 1998, Indonesia's political transition did not lead to the complete elimination of the ruling party. The interesting thing is that the agreements made with the army did not lead to fundamental changes in the position of army officers. In other words, a part of the power structure was able to maintain its position in the new conditions.

In Indonesia, the perception that political and military forces would not be completely eliminated after the transition to democracy played a role in the acceptance of change. Golkar party also maintained its position in the political structure. Therefore, the confidence of the leaders and forces in power regarding the possibility of continued political presence was one of the important factors in accepting the transition to democracy.

Rejecting cultural generalizations about the possibility of democracy in Asia, he said: "Based on this, it cannot be said that the transition to democracy in Asia is basically impossible due to cultural characteristics, including Islamic culture or Iranian culture. The experience of Asian countries shows that such generalizations are not accurate, and to understand the path of democracy, one must pay attention to political factors, power calculations, and the conditions of each country."

Is democracy only possible in rich countries?

Kahramanpour further considered economic development and the degree of stability of democratic systems as other important axes of this discussion and said: "The next point that is more important and related to the main discussion of the book is the relationship between economic development and democracy." In this context, the question arises whether democracy is only possible in rich countries or whether poor countries can achieve democratic systems.

The experience of different countries shows that democracy is also possible in poor countries, although these systems may face more instability. Pakistan is one of the countries whose experience can be mentioned in this discussion. Therefore, a difference should be made between the possibility of establishing democracy in a country and its stability and durability.

Four development patterns in Asian countries

Referring to the classification of Asian countries in the book, Kahramanpour said: "In this book, the countries under review are divided into four clusters. The first cluster is state-oriented developmentism, which includes Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.

The second cluster is developmentalist militarism, which includes Indonesia, Thailand, and Myanmar. The third cluster is British-style developmentism, which includes Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong. The fourth cluster is developmental socialism, which includes China, Vietnam and Cambodia.