Why isn't it possible that Asians, too, think? I just don't understand. Why should someone think that democracy, tolerance, freedom of expression, rule of law, human rights, good governance, transparency, etc. are somehow western?

That was precisely the message of Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad, who wrote an apologia for autocratic governance ([#1] We are not America [/#], Feb 26). Let us make no mistake about certain things: Autocracy is very much prevalent in western societies as it is here in eastern.

One of the worst autocratic regimes that the world saw ruled Germany barely 60 years ago. But then, within a period of 10 years, the same Germany became a model democracy and the loudest proponent of human rights. Whatever happened?

Treating a human being as one is neither 'western' nor 'eastern'. It is simply a laudable value. Experience has thought the human race that its continued existence would be possible only if it recognised the equality in rights and dignity of each and every individual.

True, many western societies have successfully incorporated the idea of equality in rights and dignity into their value systems. But that doesn't mean that regressive elements are not present there, too.

In any case, how about the view expressed by Pak Lah: Can autocratic governance be at all legitimate? No! Autocratic governance is simply bad governance, be the society 'divided' along religious or ethnic lines.

In order to see the fallacy of the first argument put forward by the writer, consider Europe during the 16th and the 17th centuries. There were no democracies then, but nearly every single state participated in religious wars. However, the same cannot be said of democratic states. Can anyone name even one democratic state that has participated in any such religious war?

How about the second argument? Do democratic states facilitate ethnic strife? Again, the answer is obvious: No! Autocratic states are the culprits. From Hitler's Germany to Milosevic's Serbia, all of them were either autocracies, or 'rogue' democracies. Autocracies may appear stable, but it is false stability, nothing more than a volcano, sleeping. It is no surprise that Yugoslavia, which was 'peaceful under Tito, exploded at the sight of a fissure at the centre.

Religious wars occur when one group fails to tolerate the beliefs of another; ethnic ones occur when one group fears that it is losing its bargaining position vis--vis the other. Autocracies attempt to resolve these conflicts by containment (or postponement). Democracies resolve them by transformation of the hearts and minds of potential participants.

If history is any guide, democracies seem to have clearly trumped autocracies in erecting better polities. If it is so obvious, I see no reason why some should be so wanting to live under repressive regimes.