[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 8676-8677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     DEMOCRACY AS A UNIVERSAL VALUE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DAVID E. PRICE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 5, 1999

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the 
attention of my colleagues a piece by Stephen Rosenfeld from the 
Washington Post of March 12, 1999. It highlights the eloquent words 
spoken by India's Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen at the ``World 
Movement for Democracy'' conference recently held in New Delhi, India.
  I attended the conference and served on an opening panel with my 
colleagues Representative Gary Ackerman, Representative Jim McDermott, 
and Representative Lloyd Doggett. The international event was 
cosponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), as well as 
two Indian partner organizations. I was impressed by the extraordinary 
commitment of the participants, representing over 80 countries from all 
parts of the world, to the shared values of freedom, rule of law, and 
human rights. The conference adopted a founding document establishing a 
``Worldwide Movement for Democracy,'' the purpose of which is to 
develop new forms of cooperation to promote and strengthen democracy.
  NED deserves commendation for organizing this conference. NED grants 
have supported nongovernmental, pro-democratic programs in dozens of 
countries around the world. The ``World Movement for Democracy'' is yet 
another example of NED's outstanding work to advance the cause of 
democracy worldwide.

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 12, 1999]

                     The Economic Uses of Democracy

                       (By Stephen S. Rosenfeld)

       The political blessings of democracy are manifest, but that 
     leaves many poor countries still worrying whether democracy 
     is a burden or a benefit to their economic development. This 
     nagging question was tackled in New Delhi last month by a 
     leading student of the affairs of the poor, India's Nobel 
     economist Amartya Sen. There for the founding of a ``World 
     Movement for Democracy'' by the U.S. National Endowment for 
     Democracy, he took up the congenial theme of ``democracy as a 
     universal value.''
       Sen acknowledged the high growth delivered in Singapore by 
     the authoritarian approach identified with former president 
     Lee Kuan Yew. But a view of ``all the comparative studies 
     together,'' he said, suggests there may be no relation 
     between economic growth and democracy in either direction. 
     Still, none of the policies proven helpful to development--
     openness to competition, use

[[Page 8677]]

     of international markets and so on--is inconsistent with 
     greater democracy. ``Overwhelming evidence'' indicates that 
     what generates growth is a friendlier economic climate, not a 
     harsher political system.
       Democracy has further economic uses. Sen noted ``the 
     remarkable fact'' that in the terrible history of famines in 
     the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in 
     any independent and democratic country with a relatively 
     free press. Immense famines have afflicted countries with 
     dictatorial or alien regimes. Dictorial: the Soviet Union 
     in the 1930s, China in 1958-61 (30 million dead) and the 
     two current cases of North Korea and Sudan. Alien: 
     British-ruled Ireland and India.
       Meanwhile, even the poorest democratic countries have 
     avoided threatened famine. The difference is that the 
     democratic places have a responsive government able to 
     intervene to alleviate hunger. India had famines under 
     British rule right up to independence. With the establishment 
     of a multiparty democracy and a free press, they disappeared. 
     What Sen calls the ``protective power of democracy'' has 
     spared many countries a ``penalty of undemocratic 
     governance.''
       The pattern extends to Asia's current travails. Sen 
     believes that financial crisis in South Korea, Thailand and 
     Indonesia is closely linked to a lack of transparency, to the 
     lack of public participation in reviewing financial 
     arrangements. And once the crisis degenerated into recession, 
     ``the protective power of democracy'' was simply not 
     available to ensure spreading the burden of a cruel economic 
     contraction.
       Such a protective power, Sen argues, is of particular 
     importance for the poor, for potential famine victims, for 
     the destitute thrown off the economic ladder in a financial 
     earthquake: ``People in economic need also need a political 
     voice.'' With evident pride he notes that in the mid-1970s, 
     the Indian electorate--``one of the poorest of the world''--
     affirmed its democratic disposition by voting out a 
     government that had proclaimed emergency rule and abridged 
     the people's rights.
       As for cultural differences, a common claim is that Asians 
     traditionally value discipline over political freedom. Sen 
     finds that hard to accept. He is in a position, as few of us 
     are, to range over the texts of diverse Asian cultures and to 
     contend with assorted practitioners and scholars in the 
     field.
       His conclusion: ``The monolithic interpretation of Asian 
     values as hostile to democracy and political rights does not 
     bear critical scrutiny.'' Such an interpretation comes from 
     politicians, not scholars: ``to dismiss the plausibility of 
     democracy as a universal value on the ground of the presence 
     of some Asian writings on discipline and order would be 
     similar to rejecting the plausibility of democracy . . . on 
     the basis of the writings of Aquinas or Plato.''
       The many merits of democracy, Sen concludes, ``are not 
     regional in character. Nor is the advocacy of discipline or 
     order in contrast with freedom and democracy. Heterogeneity 
     of values seems to characterize most, perhaps all, major 
     cultures. The cultural argument does not foreclose, nor 
     indeed deeply constrain, the choices we can make today.''
       It was a felicitous stroke for the National Endowment for 
     Democracy to recruit Amartya Sen as the herald of its attempt 
     to put achieved and aspiring democrats in closer touch with 
     one another. The Internet makes the mechanics of it easy. The 
     wisdom of the man illuminates the core idea: Democracy is 
     universal.

     

                          ____________________