Some have argued that dictatorships are necessary evils for development. Lee Kuan Yew once remarked that Western democracy does not agree with traditional East Asian culture. However, over the past two decades, transition to democratic politics has made steady progress in the region.

　Since the 1960s, economic development has been the priority of many East Asian countries that established political systems to suppress the freedom of their people on the grounds that their first consideration was to keep them from starvation.

　Hence, the emergence of authoritarian governments of presidents Park Chung Hee of the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Suharto of Indonesia. South Korea, in particular, underwent remarkable economic growth under what has been called a developmental dictatorship.

　Isn't authoritarianism a necessary vice for economic growth? Aren't strong states indispensable to aggressively promote industrial policy? Democratic politics is a Western concept. Shouldn't Asia attach more importance to "Asian values''?

　Such arguments held sway in some countries that underwent economic growth. Nevertheless, many developmental dictatorships shifted to democracy from the mid-1980s.

　Marcos was ousted in 1986. A year later, South Korean President Chun Doo Hwan fell from power. In Thailand, the military government of General Suchinda was forced to step down after much bloodshed in May 1992. Suharto's regime in Indonesia ended in May 1998, coming at the end of a series of changes in authoritarian governments in the region.

　Even when a democratic system is installed, it does not necessarily mean that democracy will immediately be put into practice. Still, the assertion that democracy does not befit Asia has lost credibility.

　The process of democratization can be classified into three categories.

　South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan fall into the first category, where those in power give up authority and let the democratic process take its course. In Taiwan, the National Party still holds power, but it broke away from a party that was once made up of people from China. Thailand's national army also exercises great influence behind the scenes but it, like the army of South Korea, has submitted to civilian control. What is notable about these countries is that the changes emerged from within authoritarian rule.

　The Philippines and Indonesia, where new political systems emerged after prodemocracy revolutions, belong to the second category. The Marcos and Suharto regimes had little energy to reform themselves from within and the rulers hung on to power to the very end. They were eventually overthrown by popular movements and the political confusion that ensued continued for some time.

　In the third category are the countries where developmentalist systems still continue. While Singapore's People's Action Party and Malaysia's United Malays National Organization appear to exercise parliamentary government, in effect, they maintain one-party rule. Socialist countries such as China and Vietnam, which gave up planned economies for market economies, are also moving to legitimize authority through economic development rather than communist ideology. Thus, they may be included in this group.

　Up to now, Japanese policy toward East Asia mainly focused on providing financial aid. Partly because of this, it has attached greater importance to economic growth and stable political systems than to a fairer distribution of income and democratization. It cannot be denied that this policy is a way of helping developing countries that have yet to catch up with more advanced economies. However, with the era of developmentalist authoritarianism coming to an end, Japan must alter its policy quickly to fit the changing times.

　First, the idea that only authoritarian regimes can control the economy no longer holds true. A good example is in the reaction of Asian countries to the currency crisis in 1997.

　To cope with an economic crisis, governments have no choice but to adopt policies that can seem severe to the public. That is why, initially, the prevailing view was that Indonesia, under a dictatorship, might achieve economic reform but the civilian governments of South Korea and Thailand would not be able to do the same. As it turns out, it was the other way around.

　In Thailand and South Korea, the democratic government dealt with the crisis flexibly, while the Indonesian government fell.

　Still, there is no guarantee that once a democratic system is in place, a nation's politics will stabilize. The fact that family members of former charismatic leaders sometimes come into power reflects a shortage of talent in a time of transition. The Bhutto administration in Pakistan and the Aquino administration in the Philippines made that mistake and brought on further confusion and corruption. Furthermore, democratization can aggravate ethnic, regional and religious tensions as can be seen in the recent East Timor crisis. Antagonism between such groups is suppressed by authoritarian rule but can surface when the administration is replaced by a democratic one.

　Countries that shifted their form of government from dictatorships, whose first priority was development, to democracy have many hurdles to clear. An urgent new task of Japanese diplomacy is to help these countries help themselves, so that the transition to democratic government is smooth.

　The first and most urgent step to take is to bolster economic cooperation aimed particularly at improving the living conditions of the poor. The gap between rich and poor widened under developmentalist authoritarian regimes.

　If nothing is done to narrow it, the public trust in democratic governments will not grow. There is even the danger that developing democracies may go back to authoritarian rule, as can be seen in the military coup in Pakistan last month.

　Secondly, Japan should make an international contribution toward settling disputes. In such cases as the East Timor crisis, if the situation is left as it is, violence will only spread. On the other hand, if outsiders apply external pressure to try to calm the crisis, they are almost certain to bring about a negative nationalistic reactions.

　The best way for Japan is to develop international trust through multilateral economic cooperation and to hold discussions based on that trust.

　East Asian politics has moved forward from a need to replace dictatorships with democracies and entered a new phase where the countries appear at least to have been democratized. The question now is how to transform them into real democracies. That is the same problem that faced Japan in the postwar years.