Michael Axworthy writes: "The doctrine that values of freedom and democracy are culturally relative, and therefore unsuitable in various parts of the world, is old and creaks. I recall it being used by people on the left in the early 80's about countries in Eastern Europe that are now members of the EU and NATO, as a
result of democratic elections. It is a patronising argument, and its companion, that the West should stay out of Africa, or the Middle East, or East Asia, has been a favourite with tyrants of all shapes and sizes, from Mao to Mugabe, notwithstanding its use also by the modern-day philosopher-prince Lee Kuan Yew. The people of Sierra Leone, for example, would not agree. And what reasonable observer would want today to tell the Palestinians that they were not 'culturally entitled' to their elections? Come off it."
I agree with Michael Axworthy that the doctrine of cultural relativism is "old and creaks." Unfortunately, it continues to flourish in most parts of the developing world, and not only in states where, shall we say, conventional freedoms aren't exactly dispensed by the authorities.
In the last two years, I've had the occasion to engage a number of key diplomats and policy makers in the Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia on this very topic. (My excuse was my forthcoming book, tentatively titled "Them: Why Muslims Are Different From You and Me," to be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.) Mr. Axworthy would be alarmed to know now many people still subscribe to the doctrine. In Singapore, of course, the leading proponent of cultural relativism is no longer Minister-Mentor Lee Kuan Yew but Ambassador Kishore Mahbubani, formerly the country's permanent representative to the United Nations and now dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. For more on cultural relativism, I would recommend that Gulf2000 list members read his provocative book, "Can Asian Think?" My take on that book? Yes, says Mahubani, of course they can think, and they can probably think better than most of the rest of the world. Ergo, American -- read Western -- values of democracy and freedom cannot be applied in their entirety and fullness to other societies.
My own position is that the US and the West generally should stay out of the politics of the Third World. But that doesn't mean that "values" are culturally relative. Freedom is freedom, and democracy is democracy. It's just that, in this complicated world of ours -- where nothing is what it seems and nothing seems what it is -- those values aren't readily transferable, let alone transplanted, to societies that simply have a different view of universal values. The US and its Western allies should recognize that no one in the developing world elected them to be proselytizers of those values. If Singapore or Malaysia or Myanmar or Yemen wish to adopt their own system of local cultural markers -- and their own political matrix -- then I say, "Let them." It's their society, it's their country, it's their history, it's their culture -- and it's their responsibility.