Democracy

The Black Lives Matter movement has been connecting communities and bringing forth change since the year 2013. The movement started off as social media hashtag, in hopes to gain awareness about police brutality then slowly grew into a “member-led global network [with] more than forty chapters” (“Herstory”).

These chapters are spread across the United States and Canada in cities such as Los Angeles, California, Birmingham, Alabama, and Toronto, Ontario. Many people, black or not, support the movement in hopes that it will result in a change not only for black people but for minorities and people of color as well. The Black Lives Matter movement continues to thrive and seek change for racial injustice by supporting a local democracy and identifying the negative impact of police brutality on communities.

To be able to understand the Black Lives Matter movement’s purpose and reasoning, a clear definition of what it is would come first. The Black Lives Matter movement, founded by Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Cullors, on July 13, 2013, is a campaign against violence and systematic racism towards black people. The Black Lives Matter movement came about after the death of Trayvon Martin by law enforcement officer, George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012.

The black community has seen this story far too many times and is fed up with the constant injustice being served to guilty police officers. The black community wanted to make a change about police brutality and decided to come together and form an organization that “organizes and builds [a] local power to intervene in violence inflicted on black communities” (“Herstory”). Mass incarceration amongst blacks is already a huge issue in America.

Now, some black people can’t even live to see the back of a cop car because they are being shot and killed out fear and impulse. Law enforcers who “intentionally and systematically target blacks for demise” should be convicted of a murderous felony and be sentenced to prison with a hefty fine (“Herstory”). Unfortunately, that doesn’t occur, and most times officers get a slap on the wrist with benefits such as paid leave. The Black Lives Matter movement does not stand for this and is determined to convict the racist law enforcers, but more importantly, stop the shootings from happening in the first place.

Each social justice movement has a purpose and the focus of Black Lives Matter campaign is to stop unjust behavior against black people in law enforcement. Ashton P. Woods, a Black Lives Matter Houston advocate, states that “we work to save lives and too dismantle systems of oppression and racism. That has been and will always be our mission” (George and Hassan). The Black Lives Matter movement have other guiding principles such as women, queer, and transgender affirmation, but it is mainly a “call to action in response to state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism” (“What We Believe”).

The Black Lives Matter movement strongly believes that to make a change in the anti-Black nation, there must be a level of maturity, openness, and peace within the community. It is hard to fight for the end of violence if one is violent themselves. Peaceful protest and rallies are examples of ways the Black Lives Matter movement voice their opinion while remaining civilized. Keeping the peace is an attribute that all organizers and activists focus on when they plan events to represent the Black Lives Matter movement. It is their duty to ensure a safe and non-violent environment. Unfortunately, there are still some people who intentionally crash a peaceful protest and force violence on others, in hopes to start a riot.

The Black Lives Matter movement tries its hardest to stress its violent intolerance against police, but incidents like the Downtown Dallas shooting goes against the intentions of the BLM peaceful protest. On July 7, 2016, 25-year-old Micah Xavier Johnson shot a total of twelve officers, killing five in Dallas, Texas at a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest. Quanell X, a community activist, states that this unfortunate event was a result of the “black community [becoming] increasingly frustrated with the continuing cycle of injustice… especially in recent years where the incidents have been captured on video” (George and Hassan).

The implementations of body cameras into police gear was supposed to support the Black Lives Matter movement and help showcase the racism and police brutality going on in our nation, but even with recorded proof the justice system still finds a way to let these murderers run free. The black community is disgusted and fed up with the way they are being treated and how easily police officers are getting out of a horrendous situation.

Over time this frustration starts to build up and people like Johnson act in a negative way and state that they “want to kill white people” (NBC 5 Staff). The Black Lives Matter movement has always been a peaceful movement and do not tolerate brutality against police, innocent or not. The Houston organization’s statement claims there “there is still no justice in bloodshed [or] taking a life” (George and Hassan). Killing police or anybody else to avenge the loss of others goes against the morals of the Black Lives Matter movement and create a contradiction in its purpose. Violence doesn’t stop violence.

The Black Lives Matter advocates and supporters will continue to stress the importance of peaceful calls of action and how it will fuel positivity across the board to ensure change. No More Bloodshed peace and conflict resolution movement make an “effort to unite the community and stop inner-city violence” (George and Hassan). There are many factors in going about change addressing racial injustice, but Quanell suggests a solution to decrease all around violence against the citizens and police. Quanell believes that “sincere and open communication between law enforcement and the black community needs to occur, [along with the need of] the criminal justice system showing consequences for those law enforcement officers who unjustly shoot people” (George and Hassan).

By coming together, both law enforcement and the black community can establish an open relationship where they can tackle the issue of officer-involved shootings and racial injustice together. This democratic involvement will allow many people from different backgrounds to work together to make a change, which drives the Black Lives Matter movement.

Times have changed when it comes to leadership and empowerment in social justice movements. Today’s democratic structure allows any and everyone to work together and get involved. Back in the 1950’s through the 1960’s, popular civil rights’ activists, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were prime examples of social justice leaders. Both fought for similar goals of racial desegregation, even though Martin Luther King Jr. went about it in a peaceful manner and Malcolm X put more anger and aggression into his practices. Both are highly respected and extremely influential when it comes to civil liberties for blacks, but if they were to lead in the 21st-century world, they wouldn’t achieve much success.

Back then it was acceptable for one person to be the superior leader and guide the way to social change, but now we have adopted more democratic attitudes towards making a difference. According to NAACP field secretary, Ella Baker, “the top-down, male-centered, charismatic model of leadership [is a] political dead end. It disempowers ordinary people, [like] women and low-income and working-class people [and] told them that they needed a savior” (qtd. in Ransby). By having this type of leadership, it puts others at the bottom of the pedestal, even though that wasn’t the intention. In today’s world, everyone is involved, and a radical democracy allows for communication to flow from local citizens and organizations to political leaders.

Even though political power is important for making a national change, a radical democracy focuses more on local input than anything else. “When people on the ground make decisions…the results are more likely to meet real needs… that are more sustainable in the long run. People are better prepared to carry solutions they themselves created” (Ransby). This states that more change is likely to come about when local people take action instead of relying on the government. On the other hand, Ransby believes that local leaders can also be dominant, hierarchical, and self- aggrandizing and that establishing group-centered leadership would help keep an honest organization. “Both superior leadership and a radical democracy should come together to form many leaders in the movement” (Dunevant).

This would prove that strong people don’t need strong leaders because they themselves are strong. If each person in the democracy believes this, then it would form an army, which will help force change in the criminal justice system and executive offices. The Black Lives Matter movement “emphasize collective models of leadership instead of hierarchal ones” so that everyone has a voice in the campaign (Ransby). The Black Lives Matter movement is powerful because of its membership, partners, supporters, staff, and you. The continued commitment to liberation for all black people keeps the tradition, that our ancestors started, going and encourages the fight for our collective freedom.

In conclusion, the Black Lives Matter movement works to solicit change for racial injustice by endorsing a local democracy and distinguishing the negative impact of communal police brutality. The Black Lives Matter movement has made many actions to try to further their campaign which supports their purpose and local democracy. From peaceful protests, rallies, and organizational programs to executive and international communication and action, the Black Lives Matter movement continues to evolve around the globe.

Programs and creative campaigns, such as Channel Black (that train black millennials to construct, optimize, and implement strategic interventions through media) and Mama’s Bail Out Day (that gather organizations to raise money to help bail out low-income black women on Mother’s Day), help support the Black Lives Matter movement and give black people hope that there are citizens out there that care and are working to make a difference.

All black lives matter in the Black Lives Matter movement, regardless of sexual and gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbelief, immigration status, or location. The Black Lives Matter campaign will continue to encourage black people and fight against police brutality, alongside other social injustices that are influenced by its motive and prosperity. The Black Lives Matter movement is not just a campaign of change for black people, but for people all around the world.

Van Dudes explicitly refutes the concepts of Thoreau suggesting that they, as the title of his work suggests, destroy democracy. Van Dudes feels that when man disobeys the law and separates from the democratic society he feels has failed, he simply pushes democracy further towards failure. While the ends laid out by Thoreau in Walden and Civil Disobedience, and Martin Luther King Jar. In Letter From Birmingham Jail, may be completely valid, the mean by which they chose to try and attain them, civil disobedience, is acted upon without true understanding of its detrimental impact to democratic society according to Lewis H.

Van Dudes. While Henry David Thoreau seems to feel he is presenting the ideals for how one should live their life and how government should function, In reality he Is conveying an impractical message with detrimental effects. In his work Walden, Thoreau outlines the basic ideas of transcendentalism and keeps an account of his time spent living in the Walden woods. It is in the Walden woods that Thoreau concludes, “If we do not… Forge rails, and devote days and nights to the work, but go to tinkering upon our lives o improve them, who will build railroads?… Ho will want Thoreau Is conveying the message that within American society man has becomes so consumed with his own life that he has forgotten about striving towards progression. Thoreau feels that If every man spends his time concerned with minor detail, and the material things society has defined as symbols of success. Man will not advance, he will simply live a cyclical life during which nothing of meaning occurs. While Thoreau presents his ideas with great confidence he soon finds that man inherently can’t abandon all outing and ritual, thus making his concept of transcendence impractical.

More Important than the Impracticality of transcendentalism Is Thoreau Interpretation of what he is presenting. Thoreau feels he is providing the example of a man who transcends societal constraints and living his life to the fullest. In reality Thoreau is very much avoiding society entirely by taking up this supposed transcendent lifestyle. Lewis H. Van Dudes presents the Idea that call disobedience Is very much a self- fulfilling prophecy. In going to the woods Thoreau doesn’t “build railroads” but instead leaves them to be built by the world which he has lost faith in.

By leaving the building of railroads, essentially the directing of society, to a society he feels is very limited due to deeply Ingrained routine and ritual, Thoreau removes the Influence he may have potentially had. This removal of Influence doesn’t lead the railroads to taking the shape Thoreau wished for but instead lets a society he already doesn’t 1 OFF nave Tall n In create teen In any way teen please. When man elects to transcend, en really avoids society and does not build railroads but instead runs from them. Henry David Thoreau presents his ideas for achieving better government in his work Civil Disobedience.

As the title of his work suggests, Thoreau felt civil disobedience, a form of non-violent protest of laws, was the key to ensuring a government doesn’t over extend its control over its people. In Civil Disobedience Thoreau states, “The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think is right”(l). Thoreau seems to suggest that governmental laws constrain people. He feels as if man can’t truly live within a society led by a government that “restricts” him by imposing laws and expecting adherence to them.

While Thoreau feels that a government that didn’t impose itself upon him would best allow man to flourish, it is Thoreau very belief that he should be able to do what he feels is right that could potentially create anarchy. Van Dudes argues that to break the law is to consider oneself above the law, and if everyone feels they are above the law society can’t function. If no one pays taxes or supports government society doesn’t flourish instead it perishes. While an organized effort against government could potentially lead to unofficial results, when all people rebel against the laws currently in place the results are not necessarily ideal.

Simply because many people disagree with the law doesn’t mean they have the same opinions on what the proper laws are. Abandonment of laws would possibly, and likely result in the development of factions and these divided factions could result in the development of a state of anarchy. While Thoreau felt he was conveying the basis for great improvement in society, should his intellectual ideas be taken to fruition the possibility of anarchy could be ever present. Martin Luther King Jar. Arguably one of the most influential Americans of all time, relied upon civil disobedience as a method of attaining his ultimate goal, the elimination of segregation. During one of his nonviolent protests King was arrested and placed in a Birmingham Jail. After being condemned by the clergymen of Birmingham King wrote his Letter From Birmingham Jail. Within this letter King attempts to Justify the need for his acts of civil disobedience. King claims there is a necessity for civil disobedience to bring about change.

King’s goal was, without a doubt, Just and necessary however his methods for attaining his goal were not. In his letter King stated, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey Just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with SST. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at par 12). King takes a very similar position to Thoreau in deciding that it is man’s responsibility to disobey laws he finds unjust. King is suggesting that to think a law is unjust but do nothing is Just s bad as blindly following the law in the first place.

King is convinced that only civil disobedience could bring the results he desired. While King’s goal to end the segregation of African Americans and whites in America was obviously one of great importance, his methods were not as ideal. Van Dudes would argue that by insisting on disobeying laws, Martin Luther King was demanding African Americans and others to pull away from the potential answer to their problem. King was essentially giving up on the democracy that he felt oppressed him. While democracy is inherently flawed it still allows for all who patiently adhere to it can have an influence.

King doesn’t patiently wait for the processes of democracy to get his point across. Instead , Klan puts enamels above democracy Ana requests toners ay ten same. Only in abandoning democracy does it truly fail, not due to its own inherent faults, but due to the assumption of failure by those who abandon it. Lewis H. Van Dudes, in his Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy, attempts to refute the beliefs of all those who favor civil disobedience. Van Dudes directly interdicts Thoreau in saying, “Thoreau position is not only morally irresponsible but politically reprehensible.

When citizens in a democracy are called on to make a profession of faith, the civil disobedient offer only a confession of failure. ” Van Dudes is conveying the idea that Thoreau beliefs are unacceptable because what he feels to be an inspiring message for further progress, is simply a foreboding message of unavoidable failure. Thoreau sees civil disobedience as the expression of a higher man who is unwilling to stand for moral injustices. On the other hand, Van Dudes argues that Thoreau ideas suggest to man that he should give up on his effort to make change.

By stepping away from American democracy and society the natural born right to try and direct democracy in the ways you wish is lost. Van Dudes also contradicts the idea that man should, at any time, disregard the law when he states, “There is no man who is above the law, and there is no man who has a right to break the law. Civil disobedience is not above the law, but against the law. ” Van Dudes is making it clear that are only two types of citizens, those who obey the law ND those who disobey the law. Civil disobedience is not a loophole or gray area it is simply a glorified Justification for breaking the law.

Simply because such a glorified explanation is presented doesn’t mean one should latch onto it. Man within a democracy should support it in hopes of making it better, not ignore it because he doesn’t approve of it in its current state. Lewis H. Van Disuse’s argument brings to light the potential dangers of the seemingly Justified argument for civil disobedience. Lewis H. Van Dudes refutes both Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King’s arguments in favor of civil disobedience. Thoreau believed in a policy of civil disobedience in trying to prevent democratic government from oppressing its people.

King felt that civil disobedience was a necessary measure in bringing an end to segregation. Van Dudes makes evident the potential dangers of both men’s ideas. Van Dudes brings to the forefront the potential for political turmoil should the message of either King or Thoreau be put into practice. While King and Thoreau both feel they are presenting the method by which society can better itself, Van Dudes sakes it clear that their ideas imply people should give up on a government that doesn’t comply exactly with their beliefs.

The time period that is often looked upon to recognize dramatic political, social, and economic advancements and uprising opportunities is within the period of Andrew Jackson’s presidency. This period in history is known as the Age of the Common Man or the era of the Jackson Democracy. The common man often referred to any white male of this time period regardless of social rank.

During these times the alterations made in politics coextensively Impacted social and economical Improvements. By establishing a relationship with the common man, Andrew Jackson endorsed democracy and opportunities for American white males through economic polices and political opportunities. Politically, Jackson’s presidency was a dramatic time for the common man to expand and Increasingly become more Involved. During the Jackson democracy era, many aspects of who could vote began to alter.

For Instance,Jackson promoted the system of rotation, affirming a democratic Ideal that one man Is as good as the next, instigating more involvement from the common man within all aspects of government concerns. The system of rotation was a great help in establishing the two yester party, that would separate political views and allow multiple outlooks to become options for government officials. Andrew Jackson also, initiated nominating conventions, replacing caucuses, enabling party-politicians and voters to be all white males.

The common man now had the opportunity to gather in large meeting halls to nominate party’s candidates with others, such as the Anti-Mason’s who generated a more democratic idea among the average man. From one end of the country to the other, all white males were being promoted to vote regardless of their social class or religion. Another exemplified alteration came from Jackson vetoing the bank- researcher bill, vilifying the national bank as an exclusive cartel manipulating the common man in order to endow the wealthy and foreign parties.

As one can tell, Jackson strategically modified the guidelines of suffrage in order to benefit white males by creating democratic possibilities and ideals. Economically, the common man had a multitude of opportunities to prosper through new efficient democratic changes made by Andrew Jackson. To start, Jackson signed a plethora of treaties between 1814 and 1824, the most common was the ready of 1814. These treaties basically were a form of bribery with the Natives, confirming his dedication to generating more opportunities for white men.

It worked as more natives would question security, Jackson would offer them what seemed Like a more reasonable dispute of security, compelling the Natives to sign additional treaties for a new cushion over and over, constantly removing them from land that Jackson would give to white male opportunists. Especially those who desired the creation of profitable plantation In the south because the land Jackson was planning room Natives was a perfect place for plantation owners to focus on the Cotton Kingdom.

Not only did multiple treaties go forth In removing natives from their homeland, but as well as the Indian Removal Act, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Trail of Tears, etc. By dehumidifying Indians, Jackson expanded democracy and opportunity emphasized the importance of the two party system. During Jackson’s election in 1832 versus Clay, his supporters were democrats, who favored equal economic opportunities for white males, opposed to the competing Whig party. President Jackson’s reelection provoked his followed to strive for the common man during his term.

Evidently, Jackson conveyed multiple actions to address his drive to advance the everyday man in economical situations through democracy changes and new opportunities. It is clear that the connection and devotion Andrew Jackson made to conform the common man promoted the expansion of democracy and opportunities for American white males, by altering economic policies and political opportunities. Jackson was a political opportunist exploiting democratic measures, encouraging the self-made man, the real hero of the age.

Lee Kuan Yew, prime minister of Singapore between 1959 and 1990, and now Senior Minister of his country, commands much respect and influence in both the East and the West. This respect and influence reaches to the highest echelons of world leaders, to the vast multitude of academics, commentators and development strategists, and to the millions of people who live in East Asia. Regardless of whether or not this esteem is justified and deserved, ti is real, and therefore must be analysed, interpreted, criticised or praised while not forgetting the importance and effect his beliefs and proclamations have had, and will have.

Any discussion of world politics, especially in East Asia, cannot ignore the hows, whys and wherefores of the current situation and the influence that current ideas and thought may have on the future. Lee’s views have undoubtedly shaped his own country, certainly have influenced other governments in the region, and will definitely bear their markon the short- to mid-term future of East Asian politics. This explains the reasons why this essay solely deals with him.

The essay is divided into three main sections. Firstly, I will discuss Lee’s ideas and policies, and why he believes in an ‘Asian values’ view of the politics of the region. Secondly, I will explore some of the responses that have been made in opposition to his views, and thirdly, I will present some observations and conclusions of my own. These observations will draw on some other problems and inconsistencies with Lee’s ideas. Let us turn then to the man and his ideas.

The central theme running through any study or discussion of his political ideas and actions is the importance that culture has on shaping the society and its structures. The shared history, traditions, make-up, worldview and social relationships are the key factors that determine how a state should be organised and governed. Thus, if the culture is different between two sets of peoples, then the resulting state structure and government type will also be different. Culture is the driver, the basis of society and the legitimacy used by those in power to decree what is best for their people.

This viewpoint is often referred to as the ‘Asian values’ system (Ng, 1997, Theodore de Bary, 1999, Hague & Harrop, 2001) and is summed up succinctly by the title of a famous interview with Lee which appeared in a 1994 edition of Foreign Affairs – ‘Culture is Destiny’ (Zakiria, 1994). The importance that Lee places on the cultural aspect of a society does not mean that what is right for his country is also right for other countries. Whilst consistently dismissing Western-, and in particular, US-style democratic systems as valid models for Singapore, he does not suggest that the US-style system is neccessarily wrong for the US.

It is not my business to tell people what’s wrong with their system. It is my business to tell people not to foist their system indiscrimately on societies in which it will not work (Zakiria quoting Lee, 1994, p. 110). This can be seen as a statement recognising the particularity of political systems depending on the society / culture in question. Whilst Lee has been described as being authoritarian, semi-, or soft-authoritarian, he certainly doesn’t make claims for the world to be based on an Asian values system.

It appears that his position is more concerned about keeping hold of power in Singapore rather than exporting it around the world. The main, fundamental as Lee calls it, cultural reason why Western democratic systems are unsuited to East Asia is the difference between the place and status of the individual in those societies. The fundamental difference between Western concepts of society and government and East Asian concepts… is that Eastern societies believe that the individual exists in the context of his family. He is not pristine and separate.

The family is part of the extended family, and the friends and the wider society. The ruler or government does not try to provide for a person what the family best provides (Zakiria quoting Lee, 1994, p. 113). This focus on the moral and virtuous notion of society is stongly linked to Confucianism, so often portrayed as being fundamentally East Asian and always compared with Western systems. Lee’s manifestation of this doctrine is used by him to legitimate and promote an East Asian society based on strong hierarchical structures to bring about social and political stability.

In the East the main object is to have a well-ordered society so that everybody can have maximum enjoyment of his freedoms. This freedom can only exist in an ordered state and not in a natural state of contention and anarchy (Zakiria quoting Le, 1994, p. 111). These three main features of Lee’s take on East Asia’s political and social climate – culture, the place in society of the individual, and a well-ordered society – are admittedly affected and influenced by the West over time, and are not seen as developing without the impact of colonial rule and imperialism. … ur Confucianism has been attenuated by 120 years of British rule and education in British and other English-speaking universities (IHT, 2001). But, despite this impact Lee steadfastly denies any further infusion of Western democracy into East Asia, especially Singapore. … this doesn’t mean we are going to be like a Western society. The values are different (de Borch, 2001). Lee is not the torch-holder for everyone though. Whilst he receives praise from his counterparts around the world, there are many in the academic and development strategist world that strongly disagree with him.

Of course, it is not just a simple case of disagreeing over a matter of opinion, there are many valid and strong arguments against Lee’s ideas. From this myriad of arguments, I have identified three main strands of contestation – historical arguments against Lee’s ‘Asian values’, the theoretical arguments concerning discussions of what democracy should be and how it should be followed in East Asia, and the problems and criticisms of the actually existing governing style of Lee. First then, arguments against Lee taken from history.

There are two key aspects to this – the relevance of Confucianism to East Asia today, and evidence of a democratic tradition throughout East Asia’s past. Famously, Max Weber theorised about the particular contribution to advanced capitalism of the ‘Protestant ethic’. This, in turn, explained how other cultures, including Confucian cultures, were not suited to advanced capitalism. Clearly this can now be questionned, especially if, as many commentators have said, that East Asia is economically dynamic.

If Confucianism explains the economic boom in East Asia today, does it not also explain that region’s stagnation for four centuries? Zakiria, 1994, p. 125). Kin Dae Jung, writing in response to the ‘Culture is Destiny’ interview, identifies a strong tradition and history of democratic ideals and institutions in East Asia’s past. This suggests that an argument could be made for ‘Asian values’ actually referring to a much more democratic system than the Confucian-based one that Lee propagates. A thorough anaylsis makes it clear that Asia has a rich heritage of democracy-oriented philosophies and traditions. Asia has already made great strides toward democratisation and possesses the necessary conditions to develop democracy even beyond the level of the West (Jung, 1994, p. 91).

The second major criticism of Lee comes from studies of the theoretical nature of democracy and what it means, shuold mean, or can mean to East Asia. The basic premise is that why should democracy only be relevant to particular cultures and why should particular cultures have to follow other political paths? This highlights the argument for democracy’s universality. There is nothing special about torturing the Asian way… human rights are human rights (Vatikiotis cited by Hague & Harrop, 2001, p. 29).

The rejection of Western-style democracy by East Asian leaders is also seen by some as merely an excuse for not moving beyond ‘soft-authoritarianism’ and into democracy. This is strongly tied up with the observation that this is simply the most effective way for leaders such as Lee to rule their countries. The biggest obstacle is not its cultural heritage but the resistance of authoritarian rulers and their apologists (Jung, 1994, p. 194). The third area of opposition to Lee’s ideas that can be identified is that of problems with the actually exisitng state and society structures and institutions.

For some, just observing Lee’s form of rule is enough to reject his notions of what is the correct way to govern. These doubts stem chiefly from the Singapore government’s undeniably harsh treatment of the opposition, as evidenced in its most recent elections (Ng, 1997, p. 21) Also, there appears to be two threats to the whole ‘Asian values’ theory. Firstly, we have on the one hand Lee purporting to leave the individual’s private matters to the individual, whilst on the other it can be observed that his government is actually intruding into the private sphere more than ever (Jung, 1994, p. 90).

Secondly, an external threat is apparent from the global spread of modernisation. … as an inevitable consequence of industrialisation, the family-centred East Asian societies are also rapidly moving toward self-centred individualism. Nothing in human history is permanent (Jun, 1994, p. 21). In conclusion it must be said that Lee’s position in East Asia, and his reverance amongst Western opinion-formers should not distract us from dissecting and criticising his ideas.

It is not good enough to assume that cultural traits should determine, worse still, justify the actions of governments, particularly Lee’s. There should be certain aspects to a government and society that are unacceptable no matter what setting. Lee makes much of the need for a ‘well-ordered’ society. The heavy-handed way this society is brought about blatantly contradicts Lee’s notions of freedom. He talks of East Asians being able to have “maximum enjoyment of his freedoms” but Lee’s notion of what is behaving and what is misbehaving sets a Singaporean’s realm of freedom for him.

This is certainly not the freedom that John Stuart Mill wrote about. It could be argued that it is better to have a society that is not so ‘well-ordered’ but democratic, than it is to live in a society such as one that Lee envisages; faith must be placed with society to check its members’ activities rather than have all aspects of life limited by an all-seeing government. Lee’s ways may also only be suited to a small state such as Singapore. Even he admits that, within that small population, total control is practically impossible.

This for me leads to the heart of the importance placed by Lee on ‘Asian values’ and why Western ideas of democracy are unsuited to East Asia. It is very hard to escape the conclusion that the justification of ‘Asian values’ is solely a political smokescreen to maintain power. It is even harder to escape this conclusion when the man himself proclaims: So when Americans tell me: you ought to govern in this way, I say thank you very much, I have listened to you very carefully, if I don’t think we are ready for that, I have to do it my way (IHT, 2001, my emphasis).

(3) ‘Our judgement would be that, essentially, the New Right proceed by assertion’ [George and Wilding]. To what extent and why would you agree or disagree with the view that the New Right proceeded by assertion approach to welfare provision? Professors George and Wilding made the statement in their study of welfare and ideology that the New Right ‘proceed by assertion’ – that is to say that they make over generalised and unbalanced rhetoric about the state provision of welfare. The New Right emerged as an ideology in critical response to the post 1945 government attempts to provide a comprehensive system of welfare in Britain.

They argue that state provision is not only inefficient and ineffective, but that collective enterprise is actually impossible as they have no belief in a common purpose in society. New Right ideas can be separated into two major strands of thought. The Neo- Liberal philosophy that is concerned with economic factors; and the Neo-Conservative strand which is interested with social, moral and political implications. However, they can be grouped together to define a philosophy which favours more market and less state involvement in peoples lives. They equate that more government means less personal reedom which, for the New Right, undercuts the principles of democracy.

It is widely argued that the New Right present an ideology of Welfare that while being rational and efficient in theory; in practice is simply too idealistic and is neither sensitive nor flexible enough to the social needs of contemporary society. This essay intends to show that the ideologies of welfare presented by the New Right lack legitimate evidence to support and justify their proposals; this will be shown in two ways. First, the inadequacies of the New Right philosophical basis will be highlighted o show that at the most primary footing of their perspectives on social policy are unsound. Secondly, I will look at their argument for the supremacy of the free market system over state provision. This will be examined in both the economic and social spheres.

The key and most basic reason why the New Right has a tendency to make statements with little substance or legitimacy is that their fundamental philosophical basis appears to be flawed. New Right thinkers emphasise individualism; Friedman asserts that ‘. The individual (is) the ultimate entity in society ‘. Clearly, there is little room for collective conscious in their philosophy.

This egotistical individualism stresses that the welfare state, a collectivist policy, cannot work due to ‘human nature’ e. g. self-seeking and greedy. The New Right ideology claims that the nature of human kind is unchangeable which thus makes the Welfare State an impossibility. However, many critics of this theory argue that classifying human nature as fixed ignores all culture and history surrounding the development of society. They centre their ideology on agency and completely fail to recognise the role of structure. Thatcher, a leading figure of the New Right ideology, said there is no such thing as society -just ndividuals. However, George and Wilding dismiss this assertion by highlighting that as human beings, we are all linked together in patterns and cycles of dependency.

Williams also points out that surely ‘. We are not just individuals or families, but members of one another. ‘ The New Right also asserts that the Welfare State policies view people as social beings who can be motivated by social concerns and social goals. Naturally, the New Right reject this view of humans, again this can be rooted back to the importance of the individual and their assumption that humankind will very rarely act for the collective good.

However, this argument ignores the cyclical nature of human relationships, any moral or collective consciousness is disregarded which is highly unrealistic for as humans we are social beings, we are graggrarious . New Right supporters also declare that the Welfare State is essentially inefficient due to its need for rational planning. They reason that due to the complexity of modern society, it is impossible to structure and implement plans that would be beneficial both economically and socially.

As Willets points out ‘. It is precisely the increasing complexity of modern life which makes centralised organisation mpossible.. ‘ They dismiss constructive rationalism as unrealistic and call for less government intervention. Friedman views much government activity as undesirable. He believes it should have a limited role restricted to areas such as foreign policy and overseeing economic policies. However, it seems unreasonable to dismiss some degree of planning in modern society, people need valid motives and goals that are justified. The New Right principles on the role of the Welfare State assert that: we must first help those in need. Socialists believe that the State should provide an average standard.

We believe that it should provide a minimum standard, above which people should be free to rise as far as their industry, their thrift, their ability or their genius may take them…. This highlights the New Right emphasis on individual freedom and choice. They say that the state provision of welfare is an encroachment on basic human freedoms as it restricts choice. However, if one considers services such as water, housing or health care, these are such fundamental needs that there is no real choice whether or not these needs are fulfilled.

As a result of this, consumers in markets for these services are in a weak osition. Because of this vunerablilty, state provision of these services ensures a comprehensive service which is regulated. Market systems in such essential areas of provision leave the consumer susceptible to exploitation and it also undermines the principles of a free democracy As a result of the need for planning in the functioning of the Welfare State, many New Right thinkers dismiss it as it ignores the concept of spontaneous order- the market system.

Or, at a more tangible level, they favour monetarism over Keynesianism. – The New Right view the market as the most efficient system as it generates ompetition which,in turn, spurs innovation and a consumer led market. It also means that a monopoly cannot be created and consequently, prices are kept reasonable and quality of services are kept high. They argue that the Welfare State violates the spirit of capitalism and basic human nature . For the New Right, the market is the most efficient and rational way to operate economically and socially – The New Right also argue that the State presents a series of destructive economic consequences. Mead contends that the government projects a view to society that work is merely an option, not a nessecity.

In other words, that social security creates a ‘nanny state’, causing idleness. He views the Welfare state as a victim of it’s own success by feeding and sustaining the type of behaviour it is trying to minimise. Another problem with this, according to the New Right, is because the welfare state is centralised it is therefore seen as ‘government money’, it is depersonalised and as a result becomes vulnerable to abuse and manipulation . Again, this leads back to the view that man is individualistic and self seeking, rejecting the concept of the ‘common good’ or collective social conscious.

In the defence of the State, it is obvious that in any socio-political arena there will be negative and positive outcomes of any kind of social policy. However they must be weighed up against each other. It is impractical and unrealistic to assess the welfare state in the abstract, as the New Right tends to. Their philosophies also ignore the complex and diverse nature of modern society, and are simply not sensitive enough to the various needs. Holman explains that in reality, the New Right regard ‘.. personal gain and material selfishness.. as virtues while compassion for the disadvantaged and a readiness to share oods and power are sneered at as weakness..

‘ Thus far we have seen that the New Right philosophy celebrates private enterprise as it promotes democracy, however there is much substantial evidence to prove otherwise. Friedman, for example, claims in his writings NAME OF BOOK AND QUOTE DIRECTLY.. that it is the free market which made it possible for black people to overcome racial discrimination in the United States. This completely disregards the role of state legislation in this matter, and further presents an unbalanced and misleading view of the social policy process which seems to be a consistent motif hat runs through the New Right philosophies. XPAND ECONOMIC POINT Another major factor in the inadequacy of the market provision of Welfare State services is that it cannot supply needs regardless of ability to pay or according to need. As a result, it is easy to deduce that the market solutions are distinctly less equitable than the state provision of public services.

Therefore, it can be argued that, the New Right fail to consider the social consequences of the market system. The problem of the New Right is that their opinions of the supremacy of the free market are formed from their own view point which is invariably secure, affluent and rofessional. They fail to recognise that the freedom the market offers is conditional. Holman argues that it ‘… depends upon the prior advantage of having jobs, opportunities, savings. The market provides freedom for the privileged.

‘ The World Bank, long regarded as supporters for the free market, issued a report in 1997 emphasising that an effective state is ‘… vital to the provision of goods and services and the rules and institutions that allow markets to flourish and people to lead healthier, happier lives. Without it, sustainable development, both economic and social is impossible.. This shows that while the New Right ideology is not wholly disregarded, it is seen as not looking at the whole picture, which gives an unbalanced and bias view of state provision.

The New Right can be thought of as ‘leading by assertion’ due to the fact that they often make statements without backing it up with legitimate evidence. According to the New Right ideology, the Welfare State has many negative social implications. Firstly, it undermines any sense of responsibility and self-reliance by providing, not so much a ‘safety net’, more an altogether too comfortable cushion to those who get state provision.

This, in turn, fosters what Keith Joseph coined in the 1970’s a ‘dependency culture’. This anti-collectivist theory claimed that poor families in poverty transmitted this culture of difficult relationships, unskilled work or unemployment. However, this is an generalised statement that when examined, becomes totally inadequate. Willams argues that ‘such an explanation .. fails to account for the effect of social circumstances… ‘ Charles Murray, whose work has been widely published in Britain by the Institute of Economic Affairs, assets that the Welfare State infact sustains an ‘underclass’ by emoving any element of real risk or danger-factors which, according to the New Right, are essential to the consistent function of an innovative and motivated market.

This theory is best represented by a quote from the 1992 Conservative Party Conference where the Social Security minister, Peter Lillley, categorised single mothers as having dominant membership of this supposed underclass and described them as ‘young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing list. ‘ This assertion by Peter Lilley is an example of how the New Right thinkers tend to make broad statements, often considering them in the abstract without using much vidence and dispensing normative prescriptions for the social ills. Clearly, however, a broader agenda is required when evaluating social policies. Also this approach fails to consider the supportive and cohesive functions that the Welfare State provides.

Holman shows effectively the inadequacy of the New Rights theory of the emergence of an underclass in his study of the effect of the implementation of New Right policies in Easterhouse during the early nineties. He presents quantitative evidence to show that it is not the ‘feather-bedding’ approach of the Welfare State that is ccountable for social problems and ‘wrong’ values. Rather Holman argues that, . the deprivations are imposed upon people by government policies and economic factors beyond their control.

The underclass thesis should be seen less as an explanation of the state of places like Easterhouse and more as a New Right excuse which diverts blame away from the dire results of New Right practices.. The New Right maintain that the free market promotes democracy by offering choice to the consumer. They argue that the Welfare state creates a monopoly, therefore there is no competition, which is bad for the consumer. asically the state is answerable to no-one because people are not directly paying for their health care or schooling (for example).

Williamson summarises that the Welfare State from a New Right perspective is ‘significantly inefficient as it is an effective monopoly, bureaucratic in character and dominated by producers, not consumers. ‘ Williams also highlights the problem of the concentration of power in the market or oligopoly , which is fundamentally undemocratic. She asserts that business people rarely practice free competition whenever they are in a position to control the market hemselves.

This is further reinforced by Richard Titmuss in his 1959 lecture ‘The Irresponsible Society’ where he stressed that major monetary decisions of building societies, insurance and pension companies were being made by a small minority of people. Such decisions affect millions of people, and their views are not taken into account, which is fundamentally undemocratic. It must be noted, however, The New Right philosophy does not altogether reject the role of state in Welfare. Gray accepts the idea of quasi-markets within the welfare state, perhaps in the form of a voucher system.

This way competition is still strong because people have the freedom to choose which hospital or school they want. Seldon reinforces this by suggesting that ‘ National economic expansion can best be helped by putting welfare by stages into the market where the consumer will rule instead of the politician’. The effectiveness of the market system is not completely convincing. The New Right tends to present a distorted and partial view of the efficiency of the free market. -more explanation of efficiency of market see george nad wildiing chapter on democratic socialism. conclusion

Introduction l. African Renaissance: A Resurrection The theory of an African Renaissance has captured the interests of a number of intellectuals, reporters and politicians. In South Africa, where the concept has come to be closely identified with the political perceptions of former President Taboo Imbibe, it has been received as a proposal for “African political renewal and economic regeneration” (July, 2001 : 87). The concept can thus be viewed as a “rebirth”; a resurrection-since it has inspired policies to address the socio-economic fallouts of apartheid.

The thought, Mallow (2001:1) contends, is a dominant trait in the “outlook f the African National Congress (NC)-led government”, and has been embraced as a “key component of its ideological outlook, especially as this pertains to international matters” (Mallow, 2001:1). The view is a significant theme in the organization’s policy quest, and an exclusive ‘African Renaissance Fund’, Mallow (2001:2) confirms, was vested as part of this course. According to the Strategic Plan published by the Department of Foreign Affairs in 2004, the principles that underpin South Africans foreign policy include, commitments to the promotion of Human Rights and necromancy; to Justice and International Law in the conduct of relations between nations; to international peace and intentionally agreed-upon mechanisms for resolving conflict; to promoting the interests of Africa in world affairs; and to economic development through regional and international cooperation in an interdependent and globalizes world” (Nathan, 2005:366). II.

Post-1994 NC-led government policies/actors In general, policy is expressed as a broad interpretation for “desired state of affairs” entailing “specific decisions” occasionally in a “rational sequence” (Nikkei, van deer Wald and Junker 2001:87). The author reasons that the term can be used in several ways, and involves “action as well as inaction” (Nikkei, van deer Wald and Junker 2001:87). An exceptionally good policy is a device that “makes organization easier” (University of Sydney, 2012), and permits the public to associate with the government’s core principles more adequately.

Nikkei, van deer Wald and Junker (2001:87) distinguish between three extensive classes of policy, namely “domestic, foreign and defense policies”. Nevertheless, the African Renaissance has been listed by several intellectuals, like Assiduously (2008: 110) as a “foreign-policy tragedy’ (Assiduously, 2008: 110). The concept is a “South African emerging foreign policy doctrine” encompassing a “set of foreign policy goals and domestic styles, and politics entrenched in a set of political, social and economic relation” (Bјsheer and van Amerce 2005: 179).

The Department of Foreign Affairs (2008), notes that South Africans policy initiatives should be modest and not overly ambitious. A reactive policy is inappropriate. The country policies-both domestic and international level- in essence map out to ensure “peace, democracy, respect for human rights and sustained development” (Department Of Foreign Affairs, 2008). A range of principal policy actors “exercise varying degrees of influence to shape the outcomes of these processes” (Raptor, 2004: 3).

Among these actors are “formal state institutions such as the ruling party, opposition parties, the legislature, portfolio committees and individual members of provincial legislatures. There are also external, non-state policy actors and institutions such as organized interest groups, the media, independent consultants, non-governmental organizations and ordinary citizens” (Raptor, 2004:4). Examples include “the modern social movement, Anti- Appropriation Forum (APE); the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDEAS)” amongst the many.

These organizations, posits Ranchos (2007:5) have emerged as “very strong and vociferous organizations” who bid to shape and impact the state and its operations (Ranchos 2007:7) Integrating Post-Apartheid South Africa into the African Economy The report further comments that the NC-led political framework and “methods of formal engagement made for new opportunities and challenges” (Ranchos 2007:13). Bassoon (1991: 5) declares that “post-apartheid South Africa must be able to release more resources for reinvestment in the economy to revivalist it and for dealing with social problems” (Bassoon, 1991: 5).

This challenge calls for “re-modeling” existing organizations to admit a “new’ South Africa. Cooperation has been an essential tool in strengthening the newly -emerged economy, and efficient in “gradually and steadily leading to the integration of the economy with the harmonistic of currencies, financial systems, and infrastructure” (Bassoon 1991: 9) The political process has deviated from a “regime of confrontation to a regime of negotiation”, asserts Bassoon (1991:12).

In addressing the problems underlying the country political, social and economic spectrum, policy response required a unified participation in eradicating and transforming the then white-rule racist and undemocratic Constitution, and implementing an effective representative political governing structure (African National Congress, 2011) African Renaissance in Historical Perspective Bјsheer and van Amerce (2005: 162) consider that the African Renaissance perception has a rigid heritage that traces back in the History of the African continent.

They describe events like the “rebellion of slaves in the ‘new world order’ n the late eighteenth century’ as interpreted by Manage (2001), and other comparable events, were the early basic “breeding grounds for pan-Africans”, a term that is largely supposed as an influential “predecessor of, and source of inspiration for African Renaissance. (Lundeberg ; Hellhole 1999; Bјsheer and van Amerce 2005: 162) Bјsheer and van Amerce (2005: 166) remarks that even though the pan-Africans objective shrunk quickly after being introduced, Julius Anywhere’s image of a “United States of Africa” integrated by boundaries and united by a common language of prosperity, perished and has been kept awake by “many represents of Africans development” (Bјsheer and van Amerce (2005: 167) What started centuries ago in the form of “African uprisings” is “reflected in the present day struggle of the African continent to overcome hardships such as ‘unstable political systems’; ‘predatory elites’; a high ‘international debt burden’ and unfavorable international trade regimes” (Bјsheer and van Amerce (2005: 171). The present-day use of the African Renaissance approach was pronounced foremost by former South African President, Taboo Imbibe, and is broadly understood as a ‘resurrection’ of the African continent, as it stimulated Africans to seek “African lotions for African problems” Bјsheer and van Amerce (2005: 172). It focuses on concerns like “regional cooperation, the emancipation of disadvantaged groups, sustainable economic development and the deepening and sustenance of democracy’ (Bјsheer and van Amerce (2005: 173). My African Experience, My African Renaissance What does the African Renaissance notion in its current state encompass?

Components of the concept, Vale and Masses (1998: 272) suggest, are intentionally kept unclear, so as to “create space for embroiling people for championing the AR concept” (Vale and Masses 1998: 272), because it is utilized by a broad spectrum of actors, from “politicians and policy-makers, to businessmen and scholars” (Vale and Masses 1998: 273) – it is almost impossible for the term to lose its gist. Vale and Masses (1998: 273) observe that the “visionary language of the African Renaissance was understood by five suggested areas of engagement: the encouragement of cultural exchange; the ’emancipation of African woman from patriarchy; the manipulation of youth; the broadening, deepening and sustenance of democracy; and the initiation of sustainable economic development” (Vale and Masses 1998: 273; Bјsheer and van Amerce 2005: 179).

Apart from unveiling the core themes of the theory, it is necessary to explore the scope of the concept in the contrasting views explored by Vale and Masses (1998: 278) in order to understand whether or not the development of the African Renaissance is really necessary for South Africa- both on domestic and foreign policy levels. The authors differentiate between two explicit views of South Africa in Africa: the “globalize interpretation”- which was “cast in the modernist tradition”, and embraces a modernist approach of globalization, with fair emphasis on appropriation, liberation’s and the sort. The second approach- “Africans approach”- adopts the African Renaissance to “unlock a series of complex social constructions” embodied around African status.

The former suggests a “continental effort by South Africans” to attain “sustained economic growth and wealth accumulation”, the latter calls for a “more post-structural interpretation” of global affairs (Vale and Masses 1998: 278) The essence of South Africans African policy- motivated by Ember’s perception of Renaissance targets escalating South Africans strategic arrangements on the continent, which apart from establishing “good provenance” , also include “introducing new economic policies” that would ensure access to good education, adequate health care, decent houses, clean water and modern sanitation” (Taylor and Williams, 2001 : 269) Despite much criticism on the concept for having a driven vision but being nothing more than a “wish list”, the African Renaissance perspective is significant and necessary for South Africans, because it is an efficient tool for the nations’ ambitions towards a peaceful, equal and democratic state from the appalling former white-rule government characterized by oppression and injustice. The theory has been relevant in re-building South Africans social, political and economic set-up, and has played a significant role in re-shaping South Africans role and recognition in international affairs.

For example the country capacity and success in hosting the 2010 FIFE World Cup Just a few years ago, and the possibility of being the first African country to hold permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (Taylor and Williams, 2001 : 269). It is the very same polices shaped by the AR theory behind the progress and political and socio-economic adjustments, noted by Mislabel (2011) to have purposed with “abolishing all forms of corruption and apartheid incompetence’. The post-1994 NC led government “adopted progressive policies that sought to ensure the economic advancement” of previously deprived social-classes and races. These policies comprise of “Transformation, BEE, employment equity, affirmative action, preferential procurement” (Mislabel, 2001).

They are a monument of a “shining success of democracy’- as they have indeed promoted economic growth and human rights in the democratic South Africa. This, of course, is not to overlook the negative reality concerning dishonest practices that have gathered around policies like BEE. ‘I Am an African’: Contradictions and Inconsistencies The African renaissance is an inclusive concept, developed for on principles of equality and democracy for a united African society, and seeks to promote the dreams and ambitions of the African citizen irrespective of race, gender, ethnicity or religion. In “African Renaissance language”, and on the “Cosmopolitan and African image” projected in Ember’s ‘l am an African’ speech- who is an African?

It is critical to explicitly spell-out what is meant by ‘African’, to examine the extent of African contribution in IR (Smith, 2008) “l know that none dare challenge me when I say- I am an African! ” Taboo Imbibe. Africa is a diverse continent and “South Africa is experiencing an African Renaissance built on its diverse and fascinating cultural heritage” (South African Tourism, 2011). Consequently, these people’s “worldviews and insights will be equally diverse” (Ackermann). In a similar vein, “only if African insights are significantly different from the existing ‘R, will they make a worthwhile nutrition to the field” (Karen, 2008). An African to me is anybody and everybody who resembles the wealthy and ‘colorful mosaic’ spectrum that embraces the fabric’ of the African society.

He needs to pride himself in the African culture and history- and reflect the “spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect” that penetrates the African society, and aid to “re-enforce the country pride in its multi-ethnic roots” (South African Tourism, 2011). Color doesn’t begin to own the rich concept- African. Simply put an African is an African. Undeniably, politics still runs across race nines in South Africa, but the common vision for a stable and democratic Africa, embodied in the African Renaissance policy can erase those lines, and assist in moving forward as a ‘trailside’ state built on policies that are inclusive and rooted in achieving equal opportunity for all. The policies that emanate from the African Renaissance objectives, I. E.

BEE- refuted to favor only the black population- were formulated to fix the problems of the past which deprived certain groups of people (Mislabel 2001), and should be understood in not-so extremist meaner ‘exclusionary), because they were employed to ‘make right’ -to correct the country past apartheid fallouts. We have different but not contrasting cultures, and all seek a common goal: political, social and economic success. The AR policy was designed upon similar vision and objectives, and no doubt can contribute towards the advancement of the everyday ordinary South African. Conclusion “To succeed, South Africans African Renaissance will draw together widely divergent ideas on what it is to be African in the eve of the 21st century’ (Vale and Masses 1998: 280).

This paper has dissected Ember’s sentiment of an African Renaissance as n African ‘resurrection’: South Africans policy for All Africans, All South Africans. It is up to every South African to realism the common platform of interests, and pursue a shared effort to ensure the profit of the African Renaissance policy, and translate its vision in a Just and equal democratic society without excluding the ‘African’-which is anyone and everybody. Cooperation is fundamental. Racial quarrels and conflicts are a good recipe for failure. Holding anger, I have come to realism, is no different to holding a sneeze- sooner than later you’re bound to get hurt.

Hofstede originally identified four dimensions of culture: power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance. Power distance represents the degree of a culture’s acceptance of inequality among its members. Individualism and collectivism represent a culture’s main focus, being either the importance of the individual or the group. Masculinity and femininity represents the stereotypical characteristics of men and women as being the dominant cultural values. Uncertainty avoidance is essentially a collective tolerance for ambiguity for a culture.

Later research with Michael Bond (Hofstede & Bond 1988) added a fifth dimension called long-term Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn. com/abstract=1114625 orientation. This dimension, originally called Confucian Dynamism, measures the preferences of a culture for a long-term and traditional view of time. Hofstede’s work has attracted a number of critics. Some have expressed concerns about the generalizability of the sample, the level of analysis, the comparison of political boundaries (countries) to culture, and the validity of the instrument (Mc Sweeney 2002; Smith 2002).

Others have challenged the assumption of the homogeneity of each studied culture (Sivakumar & Nakata 2001). The additional dimension of long-term orientation (LTO) has been challenged on the grounds of conceptual validity (Fang 2003). While many of the concerns raised by his critics can be considered to have some validity, Hofstede’s research, nevertheless, represents the most comprehensive analysis of cultural values to date. This paper provides a preliminary look into the cultural assessment of a country not included in the Hofstede data set.

Myanmar is located in Southeast Asia, bordering Thailand, China, India, and Laos. The country, formerly called Burma, gained its independence from Britain at the end of World War II, after a hard fought struggle with the colonial power and the Japanese invaders. Burmese nationalist and national hero, Aung San fought for his country’s independence and for democratic rule (Khng 2000). His daughter, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi continues the struggle today inside Myanmar, even as she lives under house arrest.

While Myanmar interacts with its ASEAN neighbors, a number of Western countries have placed economic sanctions on the country for its lack of democracy. These sanctions have limited foreign investment and other forms of economic exchange. A military junta has ruled the country for the past 17 years and the country has operated in various states of isolation from the world over those years. As a result of its isolation, very little research has been conducted on its culture or values orientation.