"Call It Indian Democracy" — Mahbubani vs a Western Liberal

Summary

The discussion challenges the idea that every democracy must fit a Western liberal or illiberal label. Kishore Mahbubani argues that the West represents only a minority of the world’s population, and that many countries—especially in the Global South—prioritize competent governance and improvements in living standards over political labels. He says Western democracy promotion has also bred distrust, pointing to interventions in Libya and Iraq and the aftermath of regime change. He further argues that the United States’ political system gives wealthy interests disproportionate influence.

Michael Ignatieff responds that democracy requires checks and balances, a free media, and the rule of law; without them, elections can amount to “majoritarian tyranny.” Drawing on his experience in Hungary, he emphasizes the importance of independent universities and warns that concentrating power can foster corruption. Hungary’s voters eventually removed Viktor Orbán, he notes, showing that even an illiberal system may retain a route for political change—though that does not erase its risks.

A contributor describes the appeal of illiberal politics as a combination of stronger majority rule, greater national sovereignty, less migration and multiculturalism, and more conservative ideas about identity and belonging. The discussion also recognizes that Asian democracies such as Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia have developed in their own ways, rather than simply copying Western models.

On India, Mahbubani rejects the liberal/illiberal binary and proposes calling it “Indian democracy.” He points to improvements in living standards for hundreds of millions of people and argues that political systems reflect countries’ histories and circumstances. Japan’s long-running dominance by the Liberal Democratic Party is also raised as an example of how difficult it can be to apply simple labels.

The panel considers the challenge posed by Singapore and China, whose economic performance is often cited in support of non-Western political models. Mahbubani recalls Singapore’s transformation from poverty and argues that China’s history makes stability and strong central government especially valued by many citizens. A counterpoint is that China lacks a regular institutional succession process, while democracies can replace leaders through elections.

The closing fact-check says Orbán’s defeat on April 12 and the reported 53% vote share and two-thirds majority are broadly consistent with the account. Singapore’s rise from roughly $500 per-capita income in 1965 to around $90,000 today is also described as within range. Mahbubani’s estimate of 120–130 million Chinese trips abroad is reported to be low: the figure cited is 168 million trips.

The discussion ends with an open question: if India is neither liberal nor illiberal, who sets the rules for judging it?

Presenters and Contributors

• Kishore Mahbubani
• Michael Ignatieff
• Marlène Laruelle
• Roger Hearing