See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/305353609

Introduction to political parties and democracy : Part II : Asian parties

Chapter · January 2010

CITATIONS READS
0 1,818

1 author:

Baogang He
Deakin University, Burwwod, Melbourne, Australia
200 PUBLICATIONS 2,139 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Local Deliberative Democracy in China View project

Sumatra History View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Baogang He on 01 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Baogang He, ‚Introduction to Political Parties and Democracy: Part II: Asian Parties‛, in
Political Parties and Democracy: Volume III: Post-Soviet and Asian Political Parties, Kay Lawson,
general editor; volume editors, Baogang He, Anatoly Kulik and Kay Lawson, Santa Barbra,
California: Praeger Publishers, 2010, pp. 115-125.

Political Parties and Democracy in Asia

Introduction

Baogang He1

Since 1974, the third wave of democratization has engulfed southern Europe and
Latin America, swept through Asia, and decimated dictatorship in the Soviet
bloc.2 At the beginning of the 1980s, of the twenty-six main political regimes in
Asia, only six were more or less democratic: Japan, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia,
Singapore and Papua New Guinea. Nine were either military dictatorships, or
regimes controlled by a civilian leadership beholden to the military: Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Philippines
and South Korea. Five were royal autocratic or colonial regimes: Brunei, Bhutan,
the Maldives, Nepal and Hong Kong; and 6 were communist party mobilisation
regimes: China, North Korea, Mongolia, Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea (or
Cambodia). In the 1990s, nine of the twenty authoritarian regimes featured on
this list had started on the road to democracy: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, the
Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and Mongolia.
Historically, however, a number of Asian democracies have been
characterised by one-party domination. In Japan, the hegemony of the Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP), which had ruled since 1955, was not disturbed until
1993. In India, the Congress Party (also known as the Indian National Congress)
won seven of the first eight elections between 1952 and 1984 (1977 being the
exception).3 In the 1980s, this created a perception that democracy in Asia—even

1
The author would like to thank Nenad Dobos for his research assistance.
2 Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1991, p. 25.
3 One-party domination was a common among non-democratic states. In Malaysia, the United

Malay National Organisation (UMNO) has been politically dominant since 1957; in Singapore,
the People’s Action Party (PAP) ruled since 1959; in Indonesia, Golkar’s power was seldom
threatened since 1971 until in the 1990s; in Taiwan it was the KMT, and in China, the CCP. Also
see [Link] ed, Uncommon Democracies, Cornell UP 2000, especially Takashi Inoguchi, ‚The
Political Economy of Conservative Resurgence under Recession‛, pp.189-225.

1
where it did arise—was not competitive in any meaningful sense. Political power
tended to be concentrated in the hands of a single, overwhelmingly dominant
party that was liable to electoral defeat only in theory.
Today, however, one-party domination seems to be in decline throughout
Asia. Golkar and the KMT are a shadow of their former selves. In Malaysia,
grassroots support for the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) has
increased substantially, threatening the UMNO’s hegemony for the first time.
Both Korea and Taiwan have moved progressively towards the entrenchment
and extension of democracy. Competition between government and opposition
has intensified, and independent judiciaries have been formed in both states.
Admittedly, the CCP in China, PAP in Singapore, and the Communist Party of
Vietnam (CPV) have all bucked this trend by reinforcing their dominance in
recent years.
This volume focuses on the role that political parties play in enhancing or
inhibiting democracy in Japan, Korea, China, Malaysia and India. These five
countries have been selected not only because of the significance of their
respective transitions to democracy, but also because of their size, geographical
distribution, and sharply contrasting developmental histories. This introduction
will begin with a brief review of the existing literature on political parties and
democracy in Asia. This is followed by a summary of each chapter that appears
in this volume, and finally a comparative discussion.

Studies on Parties and Democracy in Asia

Both the party system and democracy in Asia have been explored at length in
various edited volumes. Among them is Harunhiro Fukui’s contribution,
published in 1985. The volume introduces the political parties of 82 countries
across Southeast, East and South Asia, the Pacific Islands, and Australasia.4 In
1998 Wolfgang Sachsenroder and Ulrike E. Frings organized two international
workshops in Singapore and Malaysia respectively, and subsequently published
the proceedings in two volumes. The edited collections provide an introduction
to, and analysis of the party system, major political parties, and the prospects of
democracy in a number of East and Southeast Asian countries, including Brunei,
Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Vietnam, China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.5 The two volumes are a

4Harunhiro Fukui, Political Parties of Asia and the Pacific, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985.
5Wolfgang Sachsenroder and Ulrike E. Frings (eds.), Political Party and Democratic Development in
East and Southeast Asia: Volume I: Southeast Asia; Volume II: East Asia, London: Ashgate Publishers,
1998.

2
comprehensive and useful—though now somewhat outdated—reference
resource. Party Politics in East Asia: Citizens, Election, and Democratic Development,
edited by Russell J. Dalton, Doh Chull Shin, and Yun-Han Chu, was published in
2008. The book explores the relationship between partisanship and popular
support for the democratic process, and uses cross-national survey data to
examine the institutional structures of party systems and voting preferences
across East Asia.6
There are also numerous book chapters and journal articles available,
some of which address the specific question of whether there is a distinctive
Asian model of democracy.7 Y.M Kim describes what he takes to be ‚Asian-
style‛ democracy, and critically evaluates the arguments in its favour. He finds
that a clearly distinguishable and convincing model of East Asian democracy has
yet to emerge.8 Through an examination of electoral systems, political parties,
and parliaments in the Asia Pacific region, Benjamin Reilly similarly attempts to
identify an Asian-model of electoral democracy. He also suggests that, in a
number of East Asian countries, political institutions have been reformed with
the aim of reducing the number, and thus increasing the size, of political parties.
As a result, a more majoritarian variant of democracy is taking shape, and in
some cases, a two party system is emerging.9
Much research has also been devoted to the institutionalization of political
parties—widely assumed to be essential to a functioning democracy. Stockton
takes concepts and measures of institutionalisation used in the study of Latin
America and applies them to the cases of South Korea and Taiwan. He identifies
a curvilinear relationship between institutionalization and consolidation.10 In a
similar vein, Ufen considers whether there is a positive correlation between the

6 Russell J. Dalton, Doh Chull Shin, and Yun-Han Chu (eds.), Party Politics in East Asia: Citizens,
Elections, and Democratic Development, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008.
7 P. Whitaker, ‚Concept of Guided Democracy in South-East Asia‛, Political Studies, vol. 15, Issue

1, 1967, pp. 144-45.

8 Y.M. Kim, ‚‘Asian-Style Democracy’ – A Critique from East Asia‛, Asian Survey, vol. 37, issue

12, 1997, pp. 1119-1134. Also see T Inoguchi, ‛Asian-style democracy?‛ in T. Inoguchi, Edward
Newman and John Keane eds., The Changing Nature of Democracy, Tokyo & New York: United
Nations University Press, pp.173-183.
9 Benjamin Reilly, ‚Democratization and Electoral Reform in the Asia-Pacific Region – Is There an

‘Asian Model’ of Democracy?‛, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 40, November 2007, pp. 1350-
1371; and ‚Electoral Systems and Party Systems in East Asia‛, Journal of East Asian Studies, vol. 7,
issue 2, 2007, pp. 185-202. Also see M. Mietzner, ‚Between Consolation and Crisis; Elections and
Democracy in Five Nations in Southeast Asia‛, Bijdragen Tot De Taal-Land-En Volkenkunde, vol.
164, Issue 2-3, 2008, pp. 335-37.
10 Hans Stockton, ‚Political Parties, Party Systems, and Democracy in East Asia: Lessons from

Latin America‛, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, pp. 94-119.

3
degree of party and party-system institutionalisation, and the avoidance of
democratic breakdown. The author is sceptical of any causal relation. Three
Southeast Asian electoral democracies are compared: the Philippines, Thailand,
and Indonesia.11

Glimpse of this Volume

This edited volume contains detailed, up to date case studies of the party system
in five major countries across Asia, with particular emphasis on the prospects of
democracy in each country. Takishi Inoguchi offers a chronological overview of
the evolution of the Japanese party system, and asks whether Japanese political
parties facilitate or impede democratic politics.12 Although the CCP does not
allow external challenges to its rule, there is a growing level of democracy within
the party structure. Baogang He describes the Chinese model of intra-party
democracy.13 Hoon Jaung tracks the transition from majoritarian democracy to
consensual democracy in Korea. Behind this shift is a change of focus, from
governability to representativeness.14 Edmund Terence Gomez provides a brief
history of the Malaysian political system and its main parties, before appraising
the role of these parties in aiding or hindering democracy. He suggests that the
results of the most recent elections reveal a desire for the deepening of
democracy and non-racialized government.15 Rajeev Gowda and E. Sridharan
provide a thorough discussion of the main political parties in India, and discuss
the growing strength of ethno-nationalist and regional parties.16 In what follows,
drawing on the material from five chapters I compare each of these countries
against three broadly defined themes by way of introduction. This will provide a
brief general and comparative overview, however a fuller appreciation of the
richness and complexity of the party systems in the countries discussed will
require a close reading of each individual paper.

Origins and development

11 A. Ufen, ‚Political Party and Party System Institutionalization in Southeast Asia: Lessons for
Democratic Consolidation‛, Pacific Review, vol. 21, issue 3, 2008, pp. 327-350.
12 Takishi Inoguchi, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in Japan‛ in this edited volume.

13 Baogang He, ‚China’s Step towards Democratization: Intra-Party Democracy‛ in this edited

volume.
14 Hoon Jaung, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in Korea‛ in this volume.

15 Edmund Terence Gomez, ‚Consociational Democracy? Politics, Development and Social

Change in Malaysia‛ in this edited volume.

16 Rajeev Gowda and E. Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛ in this edited

volume.

4
Let us begin with a brief history of some of the most prominent parties that have
played a role in Asian politics since the advent of the party system. The Chinese
Communist Party (CCP), founded in 1921, gained control of all of mainland
China, its military forces and governmental organizations, following the Civil
War against the nationalist KMT party, and swiftly established a single-party
state. The CCP has justified its absolute rule and intolerance of opposition by
appealing to the chaos and civil war that marked the republican period (1912-28),
when competitive multi-party politics were part of the Chinese political
landscape.17 Today, the CCP boasts 74 million members (more than 5% of the
Chinese population), making it the largest political party in the world.18
Japan’s first political party was founded in 1874. The formation of the first
cabinet soon followed. However the Emperor retained sovereign authority and
supreme command, and in 1940 all political parties were dissolved. The party
system would not re-emerge until after WWII, when the American occupation
force reduced the role of the Emperor to a symbolic one, and transformed Japan
into a liberal, parliamentary democracy.19 The country would quickly evolve into
a two-party system, pitting the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)
against the Japanese Socialist Party (JSP). By the mid 1950s, however, the JSP
would begin to break up into smaller parties, marking the beginning of a multi-
party system, and one in which the LDP grew increasingly dominant, to the
point that compromise with opposition parties ceased to be a political necessity. 20
Some commentators have described this, perhaps more accurately, as a ‚one and
a half party‛ system, rather than a multi party system. The LDP occupied just
over 50% of the seats, while the JSP and the Japanese Communist Party occupied
30% combined, making them something of a permanent opposition to the
predominant LDP.21 In the 1990s, however, the LDP itself began to splinter and
weaken, bringing an end to its dominance, and ushering in the current phase of
‚coalition government system‛.22

17 Baogang He, ‚China‛, in Wolfgang Sachsenroder and Ulrike E. Frings (eds.), Political Party and
Democratic Development in East and Southeast Asia, London: Ashgate Publishers, 1998, vol. II, p. 37.
18 He, ‚China’s Step towards Democratization‛, p. 1. By contrast, Race Mathews reveals the

national membership of Australian Labor Party has plummeted to about 50,000 now from about
370,000 immediately after World War II<’ in Paul Austin ‚Faction-hit ALP 'faces extinction'‛, The
Age,26 January 2009.
19 Tomohito Shinoda, ‚Japan‛, in Wolfgang Sachsenroder and Ulrike E. Frings (eds.), Political

Party and Democratic Development in East and Southeast Asia, London: Ashgate Publishers, 1998,
vol. II, p. 88.
20 Shinoda, ‚Japan‛, pp. 91-2.

21 See Inoguchi, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in Japan‛, p. 11.

22 Shinoda, ‚Japan‛, p. 93.

5
 In Malaysia the first democratic elections were held in 1955. The Alliance
coalition and its successor, the Barisan Nasional (National Front), have
maintained control of the government ever since. The Alliance coalition was
comprised of three ethnically based parties. The largest component party—the
Malay based United Malays National Organization (UMNO)—joined with the
Chinese based Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) in 1952, and two years
later the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) entered the fold. In the first
democratic elections, the Alliance captured all but one of the 52 contested
parliamentary seats.
Following WWII, the British returned to Malaysia and proposed a
Malaysian Union scheme, which would place all of the nine Malay states under
one government, and guarantee equal citizenship regardless of race. The scheme
was widely perceived as an attempt by the British to abolish the Malaysian
Sultanate, and the notion of equal citizenship aroused much opposition. In May
of 1946, an assortment of Malay associations and political organisations came
together to form the UMNO, whose purpose was to resist the implementation of
the Union. The other original member of the Alliance, the MCA, was formed
after the relationship between the British and the Malaysian Communist Party
broke down. The MCA was created to take the place of the latter in dealings with
the British. It included wealthy Chinese businessmen and professionals who saw
political involvement as a way of protecting their economic interests. Finally, the
MIC was formed in 1946 after the visiting Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal
Nehru, encouraged local Indians to remain in Malaysia. The MIC became the
third party of the Alliance in 1954, securing for the Alliance the support of the
Indian working class.
In the 1960’s, popular support for the Alliance declined, while opposition
parties grew stronger. In the 1969 election, only 48.5% of the vote went to the
Alliance—enough to retain control of the government, albeit with a severely
diminished majority. Mounting tensions and growing instability in the country
erupted into race riots in the early 1970s. Shortly thereafter, the members of the
Alliance were regrouped into an enlarged coalition which included numerous
other parties. This new coalition—the Barisan Nasional—would supplant the
Alliance, but the UMNO would retain its hegemony. In the 1995 general election,
Barisan Nasional contested 192 seats. 103 of these were allocated to the UMNO,
35 to the MCA, and only 10 to Gerakan, one of the larger parties to join the
coalition in the 1970s.
The Republic of Korea is characterised by fluid party politics. Splits
within, and mergers between political parties have been a common occurrence
since democratisation. Furthermore, since the parties are ‚generally leader-
oriented rather than programme-oriented‛, it is very common for members to

6
switch from one political party to another.23 Despite each party claiming to
represent the nation as a whole, the parties have strong regional support bases,
and regional voting patterns are salient. The conservative, right-leaning Grand
National Party (GNP) is currently in government. This party was formed by a
merger between the New Korea Party (NKP)—formerly the Democratic Liberal
Party, which was formed by a merger of the three major parties of the preceding
military dictatorship period—and the Democratic Party (DP) in 1997. A countless
number of opposition parties have drifted in and out of existence on a regular
basis since the country’s democratic turn.
The secular Indian National Congress remains the largest political party in
India in terms of vote share. After leading the struggle for independence from
the British, the Congress would dominate Indian politics in the following
decades, ruling the country for 49 of the past 61 years.24 The Congress competes
against a large number of opposition parties, including Hindu nationalist parties
(such as Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP), communist parties (such as the
Communist Party of India or CPI), lower caste populist/agrarian parties (such as
the Janata Dal and its offshoots), and a whole host of ethno-regional parties
(including Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the All India Anna Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) of Tamil Nadu). In 2004, 6 national parties, 36
state parties, and 173 registered parties contested the elections.
Although the Indian National Congress has been the historically
dominant force, the popularity of ethno-nationalist and regional parties is
undeniably on the rise. Since 1989, the Congress plurality fell from 39.6% to as
low as 26%. Gowda and Sridharan explain that ‚this decline was due to parts of
the Congress base going over to regional, agrarian-populist, lower caste-based
parties which reaped the benefits of identity politics and popular mobilization
from below‛. It is little surprise, then, that while the popularity of the Congress
declined, the Hindu nationalist BJP party increased its vote share from only 11%
in 1989, to 25% in 1998, and still maintained 22% in 2004.25
Further to this, the popularity of single-state based regional parties has
increased to the point that the combined vote shares of the Congress and BJP was
less than 50% in 1996, 1999, and 2004. As a consequence of these trends, no party
is any longer in a position to win government without entering into a coalition
with other parties. Coalition politics has become the norm, and is only further
reinforced by the ‚first past the post‛ electoral system, which encourages

23 Yong-Ho Kim, ‚Korea‛, in Wolfgang Sachsenroder and Ulrike E. Frings (eds.), Political Party
and Democratic Development in East and Southeast Asia, London: Ashgate Publishers, 1998, vol. II, p.
138.
24 Rajeev Gowda and E. Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛, pp. 9-10.

25 Gowda and Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛.

7
coalition building to aggregate votes.26 Today it is common for the ruling
coalition to be made up of a multitude of parties. In 1996, a 9 party United Front
(UF) minority coalition was formed. This was replaced in 1998 by an 11-party
BJP-led minority government. And in 2004, the 9-party Congress-led United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) formed a minority coalition government.27
A brief comparative observation of the effective number of parties in each
of the above states is revealing. Needless to say, in China there is only one
effective party: the CCP. In addition to the UMNO, the parties that make up
Malaysia’s Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance)—and in particular the Pan-
Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS)—can also be considered effective. The electoral
performance of the Pakatan Rakyat in 2008 saw it occupy 37% of seats in the
federal parliament. According to Steven I. Wilkinson, the effective number of
parties in Malaysia is 5.2.28 In Japan, the most accurate account of the effective
number of parties was ‚one and a half‛ in the 1950s and 1960s according to
Inoguchi, though this may not be so for too much longer. Nevertheless, Benjamin
Reilly offers a different calculation. For him the effective number of parties in
Japan was 3.7 during the post war period, and has been 2.4 since 1994.29 The
effective number of parties in Korea has remained relatively steady, hovering at
around 3.30 Meanwhile the effective number of parties in India has increased
steadily over the years. The effective number of parties by votes/seats was
4.80/4.35, 5.10/3.70, 7.11/5.83, 6.91/5.28, 6.74/5.87 and 7.6/6.5 in 1989, 1991, 1996,
1998, 1999, and 2004 respectively. In contrast, in the eight general elections
between 1952 and 1984, the effective number of parties by seats exceeded three
only once (3.16 in 1967) and the effective number of parties by votes exceeded
five only once (5.19 in 1967).31 This has enhanced representation for smaller
interests and identities, as has the rise of regional parties, given that ‚it is easier
in regional parties for local level leaders to access their party leaders and to
influence their decision making‛.32
Apart from the lack of multi-party competition in China, parties have
openly contested political power by way of democratic elections in each of the
other countries under consideration. India stands out in particular. As mentioned

26 Gowda and Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛, p. 10.

27 Gowda and Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛, p. 18-19.
28 Steven I. Wilkinson, Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 205.

29 Benjamin Reilly, Democracy and Diversity: Political Engineering in the Asia Pacific, Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2006, p. 138.

30 Gowda and Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛, p. 12.

31 Gowda and Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛, p. 13.

32 Gowda and Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛, p. 16.

8
above, power has alternated between Congress-led and BJP-led coalitions in
recent times. Moreover the Indian communist party was able to win around 10
percent of the vote in recent elections—enough to gain control over a small
number of states. In Japan, the two major parties in the 1920s-30s were reduced
to one and half from 1955 to 1993. Whether Japan will retreat back in the
direction of a two party system is a question that is likely to arouse great interest.
The expanding support base of the PAS suggest that a two-party system may be in
store for Malaysia in the not-too-distant future, and South Korea has certainly already
taken steps along this route.

Various Patterns of Democracy/Democratization and Political Representation

Although intolerant of external challenges to its authority, the CCP allows—

indeed promotes—a significant level of competition and democracy within the
party. The Party’s Constitution stipulates that decisions on major issues must be
made through consultation and discussion, where the majority’s will prevails
over that of the minority. Intra-party elections are held, in which the votes of all
party members are weighted equally, and party operations are subject to a host
of checks and balances.33
Moreover, intra-party democracy in China is being gradually deepened.
At an annual Party Congress in Ya’An in 2003, all major party leaders were
subjected to evaluation by Party representatives, 40 percent of whom were non-
elite, ordinary members. A dismissal process was initiated against any leader
that failed to gain a confidence vote of over 70%.34 In 2008, the Party arranged for
a survey of some 80,000 citizens, intended to gauge their satisfaction with the
performance of the cadres. The results of the survey are expected to have a
significant impact on future appointments and promotions.35 And in July 2008 a
new regulation was introduced providing all party members with sufficient
funding to exercise their right to contribute to the formulation of policies (by
carrying out investigations, for instance).36 Having said this, Chinese intra-party
democracy remains limited in various respects. There are no guarantees of
gender equality, no democratic control of party funding, and no primary
elections to decide on the candidates for office.37 Such limits are typically justified
by the need to ensure cohesion and prevent factionalism.

33 He, ‚China’s Step towards Democratization‛.

34 He, ‚China’s Step towards Democratization‛, p. 15.
35 He, ‚China’s Step towards Democratization‛, p. 31.

36 He, ‚China’s Step towards Democratization‛, p. 15.

37 He, ‚China’s Step towards Democratization‛, p. 11.

9
 The CCP has also taken positive steps to shed its status as the ‚vanguard
of the working class‛, and to become more representative of all sectors of
Chinese society. In February of 2000, Jiang Zemin proposed the concept of the
‚Three Representatives‛: the notion that the CCP should represent the ‚most
advanced mode of production, the most advanced culture, and the interests of
the majority of the population‛. The proposal was formally adopted in the
sixteenth Party Congress. Most significantly, this has led the CCP to recruit more
members from the new private entrepreneurial class, which forms a large part of
the ‚most advanced mode of production‛. 38 Thus the CCP is being transformed
from a representative of the working class and peasantry, to a representative of
all social classes.
At the other end of the spectrum, Japan is a fully fledged competitive
liberal democracy. The 1946 constitution guarantees a wide range of rights and
liberties, including freedom of expression, the right to property and a fair trial,
the right of assembly and association, and the right to form a political party.39
Further to this, the major political parties have grown increasingly
representative. The LDP was originally seen as the party of the rural population,
but its support base has been shifted to urban centres and the ‚new middle class‛
as well.40 Likewise, following the drastic decline in union membership, the
support base of the Japan Socialist Party shifted away from unionists. Large
numbers of non-union members are now also represented by the DJP. In
addition to this, appealing directly to the needs and wants of ordinary citizens
has become the norm in Japanese politics, whereas previously political parties
tended to make interest-based appeals to business and bureaucratic sectors.
Korean democracy has likewise deepened over time. Originally a
majoritarian democracy where the proliferation of parties was held in check, a
series of reforms between 2002 and 2004 have transformed Korea into a highly
representative, consensual democracy. One such reform was the decentralisation
of the nomination system. Party members and advocates now have a greater say
in the selection of candidates for office. This has helped all parties to improve
their ideological representation of their supporters.41 A second significant reform
was the easing of entry conditions for new parties. Previously, new parties were
required to win a minimum of 5 percent of the vote to gain any seats. This was
lowered to 3 percent in 2002, leading to the inclusion of parties that would
previously have been ruled out, such as the Party for Advanced Korea. The PAK

38 He, ‚China’s Step towards Democratization‛, p. 17-18.

39 Inoguchi, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in Japan‛, p. 5.
40 Inoguchi, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in Japan‛, p. 7.

41 Hoon Jaung, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in Korea‛, p. 7.

10
won 2 list-seats with its 3.8% of the vote—a proportion which would have failed
to return a single seat prior to the reforms.42 Consequently, Korean democracy
has become significantly more representative and inclusive.
Gowda and Sridharan, following Kanchan Chandra, describe India as a
‚patronage democracy‛ in which the relationship between the party and the
voter is ‚clientelistic‛: Politicians work to provide their (often ethnically defined)
‚client‛ with private goods, such as the federal allocation of resources, and
public jobs and services, in return for votes.43 Furthermore, democracy within the
political parties has declined. A large number of the parties are becoming
dynastic—led and controlled by families that crowd out competition for party
leadership through their control over resources and their ‚brand appeal‛.
‚Leaders disagreeing with the family that runs the party typically have only exit
and not voice as their option‛.44 In this respect, the evolution of Indian
democracy is in direct contrast to the development of Chinese democracy, where
inter-party democracy remains non-existent, but intra-party democracy is
flourishing.
Malaysia can be described as semi-democracy in which UMNO is still
dominating while opposition parties are able to gain seats and even control a few
state governments through elections. Elections are being held on a regular basis
but political freedoms are often compromised.

The Party, Ethnicity, and the Nation

In contrast to most western countries, where the party represents a part or section
of society, the CCP sees itself being equivalent to the Chinese nation. 45 It reaches
out and attempts to unify ethnic groups into a cohesive unit, and represents all of
its people collectively. Similarly in India, the Indian National Congress promotes
a culturally and linguistically diverse notion of Indian nationhood, and ‚remains
broadly acceptable to all members of the population‛.46 However the rise of
coalition politics in India has led to what Gowda and Sridharan refer to as the
‚ethnification‛ of political parties, some of which represent only specific ethnic
or religious groups, many of them harbouring ideological agendas that are
explicitly or implicitly hostile to the interests of other groups. The BJP, for

42 Hoon Jaung, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in Korea‛, p. 10.

43 Gowda and Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛, p. 20, citing Kanchan
Chandra’s concept, for which see Kanchan Chandra, Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and
Ethnic Head Counts in India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 13–14.
44 Gowda and Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛, p. 26-7.

45 He, ‚China’s Step towards Democratization‛, p. 7.

46 Gowda and Sridharan, ‚Political Parties and Democracy in India‛, p. 9.

11
instance, would see India transformed from a secular democracy to a ‚Hindu
Rashtra” or Hindu polity, and supported the construction of a temple for Rama—an
incarnation of Lord Vishnu—on the site of the Babri Mosque, which was destroyed by
Hindu nationalists in 1992. In Malaysia, the Barisan Nasional is comprised of, and
represents, members of all of the country’s main ethnicities. However it is
important to point out that BN is seen as ‚a multiracial coalition of parties
instead of a single multiracial party‛.47 And within the BN, the Malay-based
UMNO remains dominant, regularly invoking its ethnicity to justify its position,
and portraying challenges and criticisms as evidence of communal agitation.
Each of the countries discussed also displays federalist elements. In some
cases, the federal arrangements serve to accommodate a plurality of social classes
and ethno-religious communities. The most glaring example of successful
federalism in Asia is to be found in India, where the federal system has given
previously marginalised groups access to political power, and given regional
elites the chance to influence policy making at the national level.48 Malaysian
federalism, on the other hand, is organised along territorial lines. This has caused
the disorganisation of social minorities, as well as preventing secessionist
movements from forming.49 Here, federalism is ‚designed and managed so as to
scramble and blunt ethnic differences‛.50 China, although not formally federal,
has been described by some as a ‚de facto‛ federalism. Hong Kong enjoys
significant autonomy in terms on monetary policy and external economic
relations, and the workings of market capitalism are providing a number of
seaboard provinces with the economic base for greater political independence.
Finally Japan, while formally unitary, has a ‚centuries old tradition of
decentralization and quasi-federalism‛.51 Between the 16th and 19th centuries,
Japan afforded autonomy to some 300 of its domains. In some sense this has
survived in the form of highly autonomous bureaucratic agencies within
government. Furthermore, Japan’s attempts to increase representation of
marginalised groups is precipitating the loosening of the unitary, centralised
state.52

47 Kim, ‚Korea‛, p. 231.

48 Baogang He, Brian Galligan, and Takishi Inoguchi, ‚Preface‛, in Federalism in Asia, Cheltenham
U.K.; Northampton, MA, U.S.A.: Edward Elgar, 2007, p. xvii.
49 He, Galligan, and Inoguchi, ‚Preface‛, p. xviii.

50 He, Galligan, and Inoguchi, ‚Preface‛, p. xiv.

51 He, Galligan, and Inoguchi, ‚Preface‛, p. xv.

52 See Takashi Iniguchi, ‚Federal Traditions and Quasi-Federalism in Japan‛, in Baogang He,

Brian Galligan, and Takishi Inoguchi (eds.), Federalism in Asia, Cheltenham U.K.; Northampton,
MA, U.S.A.: Edward Elgar, 2007.

12
 Political parties have become an entrenched, permanent feature of Asian
politics. The parties vying for power are as complex as they are diverse, defying
clear-cut classification and simplistic generalisations. The same can be said for
the democratic institutions in which the political parties operate; the varieties of
democracy across Asia are many. China represents perhaps the most fascinating
of all the cases considered. Multi-party cooperation under the leadership of the
CCP, rather than multi-party competition, characterises the unique form of
‚democracy‛ rapidly taking root in China. In this connection China is swimming
against the current. In each of the four remaining countries discussed here, the
political arena is becoming increasingly competitive, and a general shift in the
direction of a two-party system seems to be taking place. The table below
summarises the main findings of the preceding comparative discussion.

13
 Political Parties and Democracy in Asia: Five Country Comparison
China Japan Korea Malaysia India

Origins and Chinese Communist Liberal Democratic Fluid party UMNO—the Indian National
development of major Party (CCP), Party (LDP) politics. Few largest member of Congress, founded in
political parties founded in 1921. founded in 1955. enduring political the ruling Barisan 1885, led the struggle
Established single- Japanese Socialist parties aside from Nasional for independence from
party state following Party—now known Grand National coalition—formed the British and has
civil war victory. as the Social Party (GNP). in 1946. been historically
Democratic Party— dominant.
founded BJP, founded in 1980, is
immediately after growing in strength.
WWII. In 2004 there were 6
national parties, 36
state parties, and 173
registered parties.
2.97 between 1988-
Effective number of One sliding into two 2000, and 2.49 5.2 in 1999 Approximately 7.6/6.5
parties between 2004- by votes/seats
2008. respectively in 2004

Shift of support base The CCP has LDP’s support base Rural voters UMNO’s rural A number of regional
from rural to urban extended its support shifted from rural remain important support parties relying on rural
population due to base from the rural to urban centres in terms of challenged by Pan- support. But most
industrialization and peasantry to the where a significant regional support, Malaysian Islamic parties also appeal to
growth of the middle urban population, number of the new but increasingly Party (PAS), which religion, race, ethnicity,
class. and in particular the middle mass parties seek has successfully and social class.
entrepreneurial resided and support from the recruited rural
class. worked. diversity of urban teachers.
population.

Level of competition One party Two competing A two party Increasingly close Indian National
hegemony. No parties in the 1920s- system is in the competition Congress historically
competition between 30s; One and half process of between the dominant, but power
CCP and 9 small parties between formation. UMNO-led now alternating
democratic parties. 1955-1993. Barisan Nasional between various multi-
Currently coalition and the PAS-led party coalitions.
government system Pakatan Rakyat,
involving two which has had
parties. significant
electoral success in
recent years.

Pattern of democracy Intra-party Liberal democracy. Previously Semi-democracy ‚Patronage

democracy. democracy with democracy‛: parties
Suppression of majoritarian channel patronage
opposition and strict features, now towards their
controls on civil consensual (increasingly)
society. democracy with ethnically defined
unique mixed- support bases.

14
 member electoral
system.

Political parties and CCP claims to be Ethnicity and No significant All three major Indian National
national/ethnic identical to the national identity is issues with ethnic ethnic groups Congress promotes a
identities Chinese nation, and a minor issue. minorities. represented in multi-ethnic conception
to represent and ruling Barisan of Indian nationhood.
unify all ethnic Nasional coalition However the influence
groups. – Malays (UMNO), of ethnically-based
Chinese (MCA), parties is increasing.
and Indians (MIC).

Federal elements Centralized and Centralized system, Centralized and Federalism along Fully federal.
unitary system with but government unitary system. territorial, rather
some de facto contains highly National assembly than ethnic lines.
features of autonomous adopts a
federalism. agencies. unicameral
system.

15

View publication stats