Theorizing Democracy between National and International Politics: A Snapshot from East Asia Introduction
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Author | Jean‐Marc Coicaud,Chia‐Ming Chen |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12660 |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
Theorizing Democracy between National and
International Politics: A Snapshot from East
Asia
Introduction
Chia-Ming Chen
Academia Sinica, Taipei
Jean-Marc Coicaud
Rutgers University
Three factors have prompted this Special Section on theoriz-
ing democracy from an East Asian perspective.
1
First is the
fact that liberal democracy is going through a difficult period
in the West, which is not without implications for the reputa-
tion and fate of democracy globally. Second, since Asia has
been emerging as a region of global importance, in particular
with the rise of China, the state of democracy in the region is
becoming an issue of global relevance. Third, and more
specifically, in the past decades, perhaps more than ever
before, democracy has had to confront international evolu-
tions that permeate national politics, such as economic glob-
alization, human migration, digital communication, and ‘sharp
power’, which is authoritarian regimes asserting their power
and, in the process, putting democracy on the defensive.
Against this background, it is urgent to explore how democ-
racies can address and respond to these challenges that are at
the interface of domestic and international politics. More
specifically, can democratic regimes respond with ideas, prac-
tices and policies that remain true to the ideals of democracy
and able to protectdemocracy, and expand its attractiveness?
There is now a reality on which most people agree: democ-
racy is in trouble in the West. The fact that in election after elec-
tion, mainstream and established political parties and
politicians, whatever their political affiliation, are being chal-
lenged and more often than not defeated by political forces
presenting themselves as populist is a case in point. This has
beenthecaseinEurope,suchasinItaly,theUnitedKingdom
(with Brexit), Hungary, France, and Germany, to name just a few
countries. It has been the case in the United States, with the
election of Donald Trump as President. And the populist wave
has now reached Latin America, with the election of Jair Bol-
sonaro in October 2018 in Brazil. Each time, at the national level,
the growing disparities in wealth and power and the disconnect
between the (political) elite and the daily concerns of regular
citizens go a long way toward explaining this state of affairs.
But, of course, the crises that democracies are facing are
not simply national affairs. To a very large extent these
crises relate as well to the interactions between the national
and the international. In this regard, a major factor that stirs
up or is leveraged by contemporary populists is anxiety over
the fact that national borders have been severely compro-
mised by a variety of forces.
Borders are in-between or liminal spaces straddling
domestic and international spheres. These spaces are
claimed by the sovereigns of nation-states but flooded by
international dynamics. They are suffused with forces of eco-
nomic globalization, human migration, human rights INGOs,
transnational digital participation, the US’sinfluence in the
international system and authoritarian regimes’‘sharp
power’. Since these spaces represent threats as well as
opportunities in terms of international cooperation and eco-
nomic growth, obligations of human rights, democracy and
mutual assistance, it is not surprising that domestic reac-
tions, whether governmental or nongovernmental, also
gather around these spaces. Hence, borders are the targets
of advancement, competition, control and governance of
both domestic and international forces. In addition, to the
extent that money, jobs, goods, people, technologies, ideas,
organizations, diseases, and digital messages travel across
borders, these liminal spaces are not only located around
physical borders but also nestled in cities, workplaces,
households, markets, villages, civil society, criminal organiza-
tions, university campuses, media and digital devices. Ulti-
mately, the politics of these spaces are manifested in
elections, public opinions, economic policies, immigration
policies, welfare reconfigurations, popular movements,
nationalism, etc.
In East Asia, for example, these in-between spaces are
particularly precarious. As a recent Chinese historian, Ge
Zhaoguang, insightfully points out, modern China has never
fully been a nation-state because it inherited the immense
and ambiguous dominion of the Qin Empire. As of today, it
is still a strange mixture of nation-state and empire. The
puzzling mixture immediately poses crucial questions for
Global Policy (2019) 10:1 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12660 ©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue 1 . February 2019 107
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial