Culture and Democracy: A Complex Relationship

Culture and Democracy: A Complex Relationship

Democracy. Democratic. Free. Just. Fair. Equal.

Words that are attached to some countries, some cultures and some societies. How does one achieve this? On one end of the 'democratic spectrum' are countries deemed to possess these qualities and hence are "democratic" while some lack said qualities, if not possess opposing qualities and are therefore deemed "undemocratic". The UK and it's English speaking colonial offspring; The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the 'accepted' European cultures (Russia and countries in its sphere, willing or otherwise are excluded) are at the forefront of the world of democracy and are its guardians. Countries wanting to democratise must possess the qualities of these countries if they are to do so. In a culturalist perspective, it is the very existence of the qualities possessed by these cultures that have enabled them to achieve and maintain their democracy. The traditions of Protestantism, liberalism, liberty, the value of human rights and freedom are a few of the shared values between these cultures and as Przeworski (1998) observes are all attractions towards democracy which is the attraction to social equality, People value democracy per se, regardless of the outcome it generates because democracy is based on political equality. 

Undemocratic. Despotic. Totalitarian. Tyrannical. Unjust. Unfair. Unequal.

Rarely have these words been attached to countries from the Global north. These traits within a society have appeared time and again to pertain to different countries in the Middle-east, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. A strongly culturalist perspective would argue that some cultures are simply incompatible with the democratic system. If any indication countries that are not of (majority) European makeup. Countries that have democratised in those regions are often considered the exceptions such as Japan which has adopted a largely European way of governance and to some extent its principles. Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism and in some cases Catholicism are or have at one point been viewed as inherently anti-democratic, particularly Islam. Scholars such as Lipset, Almond, Verba and Huntington to name a few have observed that Islamic traditions among others possess undemocratic qualities or lacks the qualities that would form the basis of democracy. 

Democracy may require cultural aspects in a society to be present and certain aspects and traditions that appear undemocratic to be removed, all cultures are malleable and can be made compatible with the democratic system. Democratic culture is needed for democracies to be born and endure.  In a weakly-culturalist view, acknowledging the effects of culture and its corresponding factors that would lead to or stray from democracy is important. The respective history, ethnolinguistic composition, religious background of a culture would factor into this but other, bigger factors would come into play; the economy and its growth or the lack of it, political stability and government turnovers(too little or too much is bad) and the educational state of a respective culture are seen as key factors for democratisation more so than cultural aspects alone.

Empirical evidences of cultures perceived to be dominated by undemocratic traits exist in the example of South Korea and Taiwan wherein a gradual but steady re-imagining of its traditions has taken place. Confucian elements that have been recognised previously as undemocratic have been revisited and has been seen in a different light in order to reconcile it with democracy. The limitations of it being that Confucianism lacks the concept of civil society and individual rights which are basic principles within democracy. Yet in Confucianism one would also find deeply entrenched democratic characteristics of limited government, a right to rebel against rulers who deviate from the 'way', religious tolerance and anti-militarism. One can find similar parallel beliefs that coexist within other traditions including Islam. The concept of "Shura" or consultation within the Islamic tradition can be interpreted as a concrete basis for democracy. Indeed non-culturalist belief would argue that if one would look, it would appear that all religions, traditions and cultures have both democratic and undemocratic traits within them, what matters is one's perspective and their corresponding belief system that can form one's own expectations and limitations to any given culture, biased or not.  

The challenge then is not to view the different cultures around the world in a democratic or undemocratic perspective but in ascertaining how these cultures can reconcile their respective traditions with democracy, if one is to pursue it. The pursuit of a democratic way of governance alone with its political equality and liberal way of life is enough of a pull factor for non-democratic countries but standing with the likes of the United States, the UK, Australia and New Zealand would surely make the best of them jump from the authoritarian ship. 

How does culture affect the democratic process and how does democracy affect culture? Are some cultures more likely to be democratic and others not? If so which characteristics would cause democratization?  These are some questions that have boggled scholars and your average citizens alike. They are far reaching, various studies have produced mixed results. The results of these studies try to be scientific, systematic and/or unbiased with mixed results. So easily are these efforts corrupted; the futility of such studies are based on the fact that one study perhaps even a series of studies are simply unable to comprehend the complexity of the different cultures of the world. 

Cultures change, they are invented and reinvented. The expectations and limitations of the international psyche dominated by a European/Neo-colonial/Liberal mindset limits our ability to fully understand and comprehend these cultures. Cultures hold no concrete power to cause or prevent democracy or that any power it has can be challenged by the concept of change. Our foresight of the possibilities of what these cultures can and cannot, will and won't do, want and don't want is limited only to the near future. The economic state of that culture perhaps being the most relevant of factors as the readings used for this post would suggest. A non-culturalist and to a certain degree a weakly-culturalist view fields the most relevant of arguements and the examples that can back them. As John Stuart Mill said: 

"People are more easily induced to do, and do more easily, what they are already used to; but people also learn to do things new to them."

Readings used:

Przeworski, Adam. 1998. "Culture and Democracy". In World Culture Report: Culture, Creativity, and Markets, 125-146. Unesco

Hadenius, Axel, and Jan Toerell. 2005. Cultural and economic prerequisites of democracy: Reassessing recent evidence. Studies in Comparative International Development (SCID) 39 (4): 87-106-106