A country's internal stability depends on its leadership structure, degree of social cohesion, and institutional and legal framework.
In Asia, the debate about internal stability is dominated by a deeply-seated belief that a strong government matters more than a stable constitution. A strong government is seen as essential to launching and
implementing successful development policies.
This view implies that political liberalism is not compatible with economic growth (since it is difficult for governments to make policy choices, such as privileging investment rather than consumption, under pressure from special interest groups). China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan have all prospered under authoritarian governments, while democratic India and the Philippines fared comparatively poorly.
This view needs some qualification. China and Indonesia certainly prospered, although not during all periods of authoritarian rule. The Philippines has experienced swings between democratic and authoritarian rule, but has always provided more public services and justice for its people than China, for example. While India enjoyed political freedom, endless controls hampered economic activity. And how does one explain the economic success of democracies such as Japan and Malaysia, or the failure of authoritarian regimes in Myanmar or North Korea?
Two lines of thought emerge in the dispute between the supporters of democracy and those of authoritarianism. The first argues for a staged approach:
authoritarianism, it says, is needed to catapult poor, agriculturally-based countries into industrialization and a degree of prosperity. Only once societies become more complex do the shortcomings of authoritarian governments - often cornered in a closed political system by big business, the military and bureaucracy - become apparent. The better educated workforce and the emerging middle class will then face more demanding jobs that can be filled only by 'grown-up', responsible citizens whose active involvement in the economy inevitably spills over into society and government.
This change is accelerated by the media and increased contact with Western political culture. Germany made the transition to democracy during its phase of industrialization. Similar changes are taking place in South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand
- countries that are laying the basis for a stable future where their citizens can actively participate in further development.
According to the second line of thought, it does not really matter whether a government is authoritarian or democratic as long as it is good. But what is a 'good' government? One that cares about its people and ensures that food, health services, housing and schooling are available at affordable prices. One that is honest and competent, safeguards its people's security, and acknowledges the civil rights of the individual and his or her right to own property.
An appreciation of authority is fundamental in Asia; conversely, the accountability of governments is not widely thought essential. The role of law and the independence of the judiciary are controversial subjects. Supporters of authoritarianism see both as undue limitations of the power of the government. Democrats argue that
such a system of checks and balances is not enough and call for freedom of expressior a free press, a multi-party system and an elected parliament. Authoritarians see thes requirements as unreasonable restrictions imposed on leaders who are trying to do thei best. They add that good governments listen to their citizens while non-benevoler leaders are automatically removed by their peers.
Unfortunately, even a long-serving benevolent leader may change and trir against his people. He may also die unexpectedly with his succession unresolved, an chaos will follow. Blind belief in authoritarian leaders does not ensure internal stabilit3 Ethnic and religious divisions and economic disparities demand continuous an responsible government. This is best anchored in a strong legal and instimtion framework that includes provisions for accountability. In the long run it is laws an institutions, not individual leaders, that give citizens trust in their future and encourag them to identify themselves as a nation rather than with their racial or ethnic grout This aspect of internal stability must be taken into account when assessing the risl associated with foreign investments in Asia Pacific.
Internal stability : The Strategic Importance of Asia Pacific article from Strategy Management Catagory Internal stability
Internal stability The Strategic Importance of Asia Pacific article from The Strategic Importance of Asia Pacific Strategy Management.Free learning from data about Internal stability The Strategic Importance of Asia Pacific Strategy Management Business Management,online business management,business management classes,online business management degrees