Development and Democracy in Asia

Development and Democracy in Asia: Trends and challenges

John Samuel

This is the transcript of the Key-note Address delivered at the International Meeting of the CARE International in Laos on 11th February 2008. A slightly revised version was delivered as the Key-Note Lecture on March 1, 2008 at the 35th year Conference of the Asia Partnership for Human Development in Bangkok.

Here is the good news! The economy of Asia is surging ahead. Sustained economic growth seems to have contributed to the reduction of poverty. The world bank report says that the poverty rates in Asia as whole almost halved in the last decade, with head count ratio ( based on the consumption level of less than $1 per day) falling from 34.3 percent in 1990 to 19.3% in 2003. Most of the countries are making steady progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) by 2015. China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam all witnessed more than 50% of poverty reduction since 1990 and these countries are supposed to be on track to meet the MDG targets of a further 50 % of reduction in income poverty by 2015. Literacy rates are going up, infant and maternal mortality is falling and people are living longer. Asian Cities are booming with the sign of prosperity. More and more billionaires are laughing their way to the banks- year after year. The pundits say that the time of Asia has come- it is an Asian Century. Booming economies, China as the global factory, India as the global office, and the stock exchanges are rocking! Asia is shining! Asia is rising! The story looks good!


The story looks good till you notice the underbelly of economic growth: unprecedented level of inequality, violence, epidemics, congested roads, teaming slums, polluted rivers and failing democracies. The story looks till you begin to hear the stories of Dalits, tribals, ethnic minorities, women from hinterlands of rural deprivation- the stories that you may never read in the Newspaper- unheard stories of invisible people: people who are displaced from the land and livelihood, people who prefer to commit suicide than selling their dignity, children go to bed hungry every single day. Two third of the world’s poor live in Asia. There will be still more than a billion people living with less than an income of $ 2 dollar a day in 2015. Asia is shining or whining? Economic growth is good for billionaires or billions of people?

What is the balance sheet of Asia’s Economic growth? Whose growth is it anyway? Who grows and who loses? Can economic growth along eliminate poverty in Asia? What are the key challenges for Development, Democracy and Human Rights in Asia? We need to situate the story of economic growth in the well being, human security and human rights of the most marginalized and excluded people in Asia. In spite of all the growth, if there are still more than one billion people with less than $ 2 a day in 2015, the story can turn sour! But it seems the ruling elite and media barons will not like to hear the bad news.







1. Growth with Inequality: Economics of Violence

Economic growth with inequality creates an economics of deprivation and violence. The present mode of economic growth displaces millions of rural and urban poor from their land and livelihood. As a result of unprecedented displacement due to mining, infrastructure projects, corporate farming, a new generation of social-economic refugees and new poor are emerging across Asia. They are growing in urban slums, rural deprivation and highly concentrated pockets of extreme poverty. A new discontent is brewing and it can adversely affect development, democracy and human rights in Asia.

While economic growth helps to create more opportunities for the more educated section of the middle class and a process of “trickle” down effect on a section of the poor, it is creating unprecedented level of inequality within countries and between countries.
Though China and India, two of the most populous countries in the world, are witnessing high rates of economic growth, there are lagging regions in both countries that have poor infrastructure or public service provisions. The urban and rural poor also face discrimination based on ethnicity, race, religion, cast, gender and place of origin. Women in are more marginalized and vulnerable to a systems that perpetuate inequality, discrimination and consequent poverty.



The economic growth is based on few urban centres and specially created economically dynamic zones in the coastal areas of many countries. The few urban centres are the key drivers of economic growth, while two third of the population in most populous countries- like China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan, still live in rural areas depending agriculture for their livelihood. Hence, the historically marginalized sections like Dalits in India, ethnic minorities in China and South-East Asia and religious minorities in many countries are alienated from the economic growth or the mainstream political process.

This urban-centric, uneven and jobless economic growth perpetuate a sort of systemic inequality based on identity, gender and location all over Asia. Most of the communities, at the receiving end of exclusion are historically marginalized in terms of economical or political opportunities. When inequality has a direct co-relation with identity, it gives rise to new discontent. Such a sense of discontent and shared sense of alienation can often give rise to a new politics of violence- reacting to the prosperity of the dominant communities.

In the midst of islands of prosperity, there is a growing sea of poverty, discontent and consequent reactionary politics. This can perpetuate a cycle of violence, erasing the benefits of growth as well as the poverty reduction. So the paradoxical trend of growth with inequality may not be able to sustain growth on a long term basis. Political stability is a pre-requisite for economic growth. Inequality can create more political instability, adversely affecting sustainable economic growth. This can eventually perpetuate a new cycle of poverty, violence and the violation of human rights in Asia.

The present economic growth is vulnerable as it is largely dependent on service sector and largely export oriented manufacturing sector, often at the cost of the growth agricultural sector that provides livelihood for the large section of poor and marginalized sections in Asia.

The urban-centric growth, with very less investment in rural infrastructure, economy or agricultural, also lead to an unprecedented sort of migration from rural areas to urban areas. This explosion of populations in urban centres without adequate infrastructure and gainful employment opportunities can create a new generation of urban poor. Urban poverty and inequality- with direct links to identity- can create more occurrence of violence against women and crime rates in many of the countries.


This the present mode of neo-liberal economic growth is not sustainable in the long run as the billions of people are at the receiving end of marginalization and poverty can spoil the party- giving rise to a new cycle of poverty in Asia.

2) Emerging Agrarian Crisis: Erosion of Human Right to Food.

At the dawn of the Indian independence, Nehru said “Everything else can wait, but not agriculture”. This was based on the recognition the widespread poverty has its roots in agricultural stagnation.


One of the emerging trends is the potential agrarian crisis in different parts of Asia. This present mode of neo-liberal economic growth is largely dependent on trade and service, and there is consistent decline in the agriculture sector. There has been less investment in agriculture sector, in terms of irrigation, increasing the productive capacity, market facility or research. For instance, in spite of spending US$ 25 billions from 1990 to 2005 for constructing Dams, the actual areas of the irrigated land declined from 17.8 million hectares in the early 90s to 14. 3 million hectors in 2005.

As a result the economic growth in service and manufacturing sector is often accompanied by decline in agriculture sector. This has two consequences. Firstly it affects the livelihood and income levels of large number of small and marginal farmers and agriculture sector. Secondly it the decrease in food production makes countries vulnerable in terms of food sovereignty and food security and as a result of there will be fewer chances to regulate food prices.


Small scale farming has become increasingly unviable, in the absence of enabling economic and policy environment. Often cheap import of food products from rich countries adversely affected the viability of small farmers. As a result most of the marginal farmers either shift to cash crops (like rubber, cotton) or migrate to urban areas in search of new economic opportunities. Many of the small farmers are indebted due to wide fluctuations in food commodity prices. In the absence of subsidies or new investment in irrigation, most of the small farmers end up in vicious cycle of debt. When they fail to repay the debt, many of them end up committing suicide rather than losing their sense of dignity as self-reliant farmers with their own independent source of income and livelihood.


Less food production, more dependence of imported foods and increasing food prices in the international market perpetuate more poverty as poor people will not have enough income to buy food and essential commodities.

The increasing trend of corporate farming and the entry of big monopolies (like Reliance) in India can displace small farmers, petty traders and millions of rural poor from their livelihood. In the context of big corporate farming, small farmers end up selling their lands and end up as landless laborers in informal economic sector, with less bargaining power.

In the unprecedented level of growth in the urban areas have converted land from a productive assets to a market commodity. The new Special Economic Zone, Export Zone and Industrial Zone also displace millions of small farmers and agricultural workers from their land and livelihood. While a very small section of small farmers may benefit from the process of transition of agricultural land or productive assets to market commodity, it also creates new deprivation and discontent.

The new enthusiasm for biofuels, converting large tracts of agricultural land for the production of biofuels, can adversely affect the food production. The decrease in food production and increase in old prices can increase the prices of food in a dramatic way, making basic food unaffordable to large number of poor people. Actually US$ 1 dollar will not be able to meet even the basic needs of the poor people.



This will create the excluded and poor people more vulnerable in terms of their rights to food and nutrition.




3) Jobless Growth: Challenges to Rights to Livelihood.

While the present mode of neo-liberal growth helps to create relatively high-salary job to skilled workers and those with professional training, it does not create significant number of jobs for unskilled or semiskilled workers- who form the majority of the workforce.
For instance, the entire IT and BPO sector provided job for only 1.2 million workers among 500 million workers in India. Even in China, the manufacturing sector provides job largely for a minority of work force, while large number of small farmers and agricultural workers are forced to migrate in search of seasonal jobs in the construction sector.

Casualisation of ‘labour, along with an increasing number of workers in the informal sector, make the workers more vulnerable without even basic rights or social protection.
When there is an increasing number of unemployed youth in an unequal society, there is more chances of violence, instances of increasing crimes and consequent criminalization of society and politics. When many of the educated unemployed youth are from a particular social , ethnic, religious or regional groups they also become the recruiting grounds for terrorist organisations, Jihad groups and politically violent outfits such as Maoists. Such criminalization of society and politics will make economy vulnerable in the long run and also destabilize the political process.


4) Marketisation of DevelopmentDevelopment is the enhancement of freedom from want and freedom from fear. In a liberal democratic frame work, it is the primary responsibility of the State to ensure public provisions and social protections to facilitate development. While state has a key role in mediating between liberty and equality, the civil society organisations also play a very important role in ensuring and promoting development. With the advent of neo-liberal policy hegemony in most of the world and Asia, the developmental or welfare state is on retreat in terms of ensuring basic public services such as health, education, water and sanitation and ensuring gainful employment.

The poor in Asia still have less access to affordable or quality public services. Though private sector and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play an important role in providing education, health and livelihood opportunities, such service may not reach the poor and excluded people on a large scale. As a result of unprecedented migration to urban areas, there will be new challenges to social and human development. The urban poor face economic deprivation, poor housing, and lack of basic services like water or sanitation and increasing criminality. There is indeed a need for large scale social and economic investment and public expenditure is required to address causes and consequences of urban poverty. As urban poverty will be one of the major trends in the next many years, there is an urgent need to ensure stable employment opportunities, access to residential land, housing and adequate public services like water, sanitation, health and education.

While NGOs have been supplementing the role of the state in providing services or advocating for the rights of the marginalized, most of the time such provisions were dependent on the International Aid or fund raised from the public in the rich northern countries. However, in the coming years there is a strong chance to shift the present development dynamics, primarily promoted by the state and NGOs.




Though the international aid from the OECD countries have increased in terms of quantity, the quality of the aid has been decreasing over a period of time. A very significant portion of the international aid is spending on security related issues or to fight war on terror. Though there has been significant increase in the volume of aid to countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, most of it is spend on buying arms and ammunition from the same northern countries to fight war on terror. Another significant portion of the aid is spent to promote neo-liberal policy framework towards privatization of key sectors, including the public services. Though the volume of aid would gradually increase in short term, there will be substantial reduction of aid to Asian countries by 2015. In fact, if the present rate of economic growth sustains, there will be hardly any international development funds available for International and local NGOs. This will have implications in terms of the role and work of most of the INGOs- dependent on funding from bilateral and multilateral organisation.

While the international bilateral and multilateral funding to Asia may decrease in the next 7 to ten years, the role of Corporate Foundation and Trust will become more significant. Big corporate foundations like Gates Foundation or Tata Foundation may become key players in determining the funding dynamics in the international aid system. Over a period of time countries like China and India also may emerge as key donor countries and they may develop alternate mechanism to the Development Assistance Committee of OECD countries. The dynamics of the present fund-raising markets in the rich northern countries also may undergo a significant shift. The fund-raising market will be increasingly saturated and the cost of fundraising in the Northern countries will increase substantially in the years to come. When INGOs dependent on northern bilateral funding and northern fund-raising market will find hard to raise more money, they may be forced to scale down the number of staff and also change their present mode of operations. More resources may go to poorest African countries and this may create more challenges for raising money for the work in Asian Countries. A potential economic turn down in the next five years may create further challenges to the raise income for the INGOs.


The shift in funding dynamics, coupled with the rise of corporate power and foundations, may further accelerate the marketisation of development and also that of public services. Increasingly big corporations will be forced to invest more money for public services like primary education, rural health and livelihood programmes (like micro-credit and micro-enterprises) through corporate foundation. As big foundations and corporations will largely working on market principles, and they will have less skills and domain knowledge, they may hire the services of big NGOs or Private Development Consulting Companies to “deliver” particular services on a tangible basis in a particular area. Thus there is an increasing possibility of new techno-business model dominating the entire formal development sector. The new CSR regimes and new corporate foundations may increasingly push NGOs and Development Consulting companies as a part of the new service sector economy. So in the future, many of the new players will increasingly look like BRAC in Bangladesh. This means they on the one hand become business enterprises in the market place and on the other hand they would invest a part of their income for the larger social causes, service delivery and advocacy. This is because of the fact that big corporations need politically stable environment, more skilled work forces and a more sustainable market. So investing in social sector becomes a core part of the business strategy to survive as well as to exert political influence, particularly in countries like Indian and China. Even state may give tax concessions and exemptions for such “social” investments.

In the last thirty years, NGOs and INGOs have gone through a dramatic transitions Many of the organisations only retain their brand- while their purpose, vision, mission and structures dramatically changed due to the funding dynamics and external soci-economic and political environment.. There is n strong possibility for them to adapt the shifting funding dynamics with another metamorphosis. This is because of the fact that all big organisations has a strong tendency for self-preservation and shift their strategies and mode of work adapting to the shifting market and demands. This marketisation of development and public services may change the very sociology of professionals in the development sector.


The marketisation of development also may lead to a new generation of Civil Society activism- often locally funded – in Asia. This shift will have very interesting consequences in the dynamics of politics and development. In the next few years, a significant number of competent and experienced NGO professionals may be hired by the corporate sector and number of activist- policy people may shift to mainstream political process.

Increasing inequality and consequent social unrest and violence will force the States to change their strategies. Hence, there is a chance for a new social-contract between the Sate and Market to develop a new “social stability-protection” regime. If the key Asian countries manage to sustain the economic growth, this will also substantially increase the revenue of the state, with more money available for public services. However, such public service provisions many be executed by NGOs or Development Companies more in techno-business delivery model.

The key challenge is whether such an approach will be able to address the causes and consequence of poverty and injustice. Though this will have adverse impact on the lives of the poorest of the poor, such an approach may help to address the issues of the vulnerable poor.



5) Environmental Injustice and Climate Change

The threat of global warming and climate change looms large on Asia, there in increasing possibility of drought, natural disasters, and unpredictable weather condition. The unpredictable weather conditions, natural disasters, scarcity of water and increasing drought may adversely affect the food production. The poor and excluded people will be more vulnerable to the impact of climate change. The increasing urbanization, pollutions, lack of adequate sanitation and consequent congestion may also increase the instances of new epidemics in Asia.


The unbridled industrialization, increasing number of cars- with less roads, increasing deforestation, pollutions of rivers, and more carbon emission will further the challenges that arise out of climate change. The present modes of polluting urban –centric growth on the other hand create social inequities and on the other hand increase the vulnerability to climate change.

There is also an increasing trend to privatize common property resources, forests lands and water resources. The increasing urbanization, prevalence of drought and the pollutions of rivers will make water one of the most contested commodities in the years to come. There is an increasing possibility for conflicts within countries and between countries on the issue of water resources. The new enthusiasm for bio-fuels and monoculture too will adversely affect the environment.


Environmental Injustice is often perpetuated by the rich and highly polluting countries over many years, the irresponsible economic growth and polluting industries, the misuse of energy and resources by rich countries and rich people. It is often the poor countries and poor people who are at the receiving end of such environmental injustice. They are the worst sufferers of natural disasters, new epidemics and consequent cycle of poverty and debt. The increasing instances of natural disasters may give rise to new disaster capitalism in Asia.
















6) Democratic Deficit


Asia is a very heterogeneous region in terms of political system, governance and socio-economic conditions. Asia region spread from Central Asia to Pacific, from Mongolia to Indonesia, has a huge diversity in terms of ethnicity, religion, race, climate and political context. While there are few countries with a relatively stable democratic system, most of the countries in Asia are run by authoritarian rulers or military regimes.



In Asia, economic growth has also been accompanied by subversion of the democratic governance or an increasing instance of authoritarian governments. Though, in the last twenty years, many of the countries have moved to formal democratic political systems, based on multi-party elections, many of such countries are also facing very rather fragile democracies, often controlled by an elite power clique or military. There is an increasing influence of market forces, media establishments and military strong men in the political process and governance of many countries. As a result there is less space for civil society process and citizens activism in many of the countries.

Increasing inequality, new identity politics, weak political party system, corrupt governments and lack of competent and democratic leadership contribute to the deficit of democracy in many countries. Economic growth has often made rich richer and poor poorer. As a result, there are highly influential corporate monopolies emerging in many of the countries. The new class of corporate billionaires and the media barons often tend to subvert the governance and democratic process for their own vested interests. While economic growth has helped to create a new middle class, and an expanding market, there is an increasing trend of depolitisation among the middle class. This is also partly due to the weak, feudal and often corrupt political party systems. Citizens are often reduced to consumers, rather than active agents in political process or governance.

Often the so-called formal democratic system is superimposed on a very unequal and unjust society or feudal polity. As a result, in site of democratic rhetoric or posturing, in most of the countries of Asia, substantive democratic process is in crisis.


South Asia, home of the largest number of poor people in the world, has been facing political instability due to increasing inequality, ineffective governance, increasing ethnic, religious or political conflicts and corrupt governments. In spite of a relatively stable democratic system, India too is facing big challenges that emerge out of inequality, cast-driven politics and the rise of identity politics. The increasing inequality and persistent marginalization and injustice often give rise to politics of violence as ultra-left and revitalized Maoist groups are present in 160 districts out of 600 districts in India. The political process of South Asia is still driven by feudal values and identity politics. In almost all countries of South Asia, the ruling elite often promote their clan, family and dynasties. This has been evident in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and now in Nepal as well.

In many ways, the strength, limitations and the contradictions of the political party system get reflected in the process of governance and the character of the state
Erosion or subversion of the political party system contributes to democratic deficits in many of the countries in Asia. Political parties are often controlled by privileged families, power-cliques and fund mangers, blessed by media establishments and sustained by the corporate funds. As a result, elections are reduced to media stunts with “brand” slogans, rather empty “policy rhetoric”, devoid of any in-depth political process or social mediation. This leads to corporitization of party politics and consequent depolitisation of the citizens as they become almost like market constituency and consumers of governments.


In the absence of a multi-party system- with grass-roots presence, a committed cadre of leader and wide network with in the society- democratic process can be subverted and political process can be appropriated by a minority of vested interests. Though many of them may conveniently use one political party or even create one to serve their purpose of sustaining power, they tend to annihilate and subvert all other political party process. This is one of the single biggest challenges for the sustenance of a vibrant democratic system of governance

Political parties have been reduced to mere electoral mechanism or network to capture the power of the State. They are less and less social institutions or legitimizing agents of political process and increasingly turned in to “interest-networks” promoted by the larger economic forces and identity politics of various shades. This increasing dependence on media and corporate funds undermine the autonomy of political party system and democratic process. As a result, the new political-corporate elites are in the business of subverting the state as well governments to maximize profit for few dominant economic forces in a given economy.

.


The social function and legitimizing role of political parties are under unprecedented strain. In most of the countries, political parties have rather less institutional history and social roots. Many of them emerged as a corollary to the state power and an instrument to sustain the state power. In most of the countries, particularly decolonized countries, the nation states as well as political parties are the consequences of decolonization rather than causes of decolonization

.
Political parties are filled with career politician with a single point agenda of getting of piece of state power and the privileges and paraphernalia that come with the package. There are less and less poets, philosophers, visionaries, scholars, social activists, or policy experts in political parties. As many social activists, writers and intellectuals choose to work within the civil society, political parties are facing an acute deficit of creative and ethical leadership.

Though there is a trend towards local self governments, often such process are controlled by undemocratic political parties, or authoritarian governments, without substantive democracy, financial devolution or empowerment. Women and historically marginalized groups and religious/ethnic minorities are often excluded from the main steam political process or governance.

As a result of authoritarian regimes, or the governments controlled my Military Junta( as the case of Myanmar) and the subversion of democratic process, there an increasing instances of suppressing people’s struggles and consequent violation of human rights. The war on terror and increasing militarization further reduced the space of citizens and civil society in most of the countries of Asia.

Thus democratic process and system in Asia is under tremendous strain. There seems to be an increasing trend of corporate-media-military clique, along with the political elite-often with patriarchal and feudal character- subverting the state and democracy in Asia.


7) Increasing Conflicts and competing Fundamentalism

Most of the countries in Asia are the theatre of ethnic, religious or political conflicts. There is hardly any country in Asia without one or other kind of violent conflicts. While string authoritarian governments try to suppress such conflicts, there is an increasing inability of governments to address the causes and consequence of conflicts. This also leads to a sort crisis of governance in many countries.

It is the emergence of identity politics, increasing socio-economic inequality and competing fundamentalism that propel chain of violent conflicts in many parts of Asia. The new war on terror by the powerful countries further worsened the situation.


Increasing instance of political or ethnic conflicts, new forms of terrorism to counter governments and rival groups and armed insurgencies further strengthen the militarization in most of the Asian Countries. Often such conflicts are perpetuated by powerful interests and powerful countries in the North. In fact, violent conflicts in different parts of Asia sustain the small arms and weapons market in the global north. This also creates a whole parallel economy, based on trafficking of narcotics, arms and people. There is an increasing connection between criminalization of politics and politicization of criminal gangs.

One of the key reasons for the conflicts is the co-relation between inequality and identity. In many of the countries historically marginalized groups like tribal communities, Dalits or ethnic/religious minorities are at the receiving end of corporate and state power. They have less benefited from the economic growth. The urban –centric growth often helped the privileged class, creed or cast in many countries. Socio-economic inequality, political marginalization, and economic deprivation often propel new kinds of identity politics and consequent violence. As the states become increasingly week, corporate becomes more powerful and the arms industry grows without regulation, there is an increasing possibility of new kinds of conflicts within and between countries.

There is trend towards a neo-conservative politics and policy process in different countries. Imperialist globalisation and new militarization often give rise to different kind of religious fundamentalism and politics of exclusions. The rise of new fundamentalism in Islam and the increasing prominence of Hindu, Buddhist and Christian fundamentalism can create new kinds of political tensions, conflicts and instability in many of the countries. The rise of violent isalmist politics in many of the countries may further increase state repression and consequent chain of reactionary violence.

A potential economic recession in Asia also can create new right-wing nationalist political formations, new xenophobia, and increasing violence.

8) Emerging Hegemonic Powers

The rise of China and India as economic and military power will create new dynamics in the international political economy and political relationship. On the one hand these two countries will compete for natural resources and markets within Asia and on the other hand these countries will move towards more coordinated efforts to resist the power and manipulations by the G8 countries.

The emergence of China and India as global economic powers may also increase the arm race in the region, with a more entrenched military presence of the USA and NATO forces in the region. However, this also may give rise to new multi polar international politics. There is an increasing tendency of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) forming a new axis of economic power and military cooperation. The international political economy and political process is increasingly in a flux. With the emergence of new economic and military power, there can be either a potential for cooption by the G8 countries or a new conflicts( including military) for resources , market and for the maintenance of the global power hegemony of the US and allied countries.


Though at the moment India and China are more unilateral in their policy approach, there will be increasing pressure for them to work with regional economic and political formations such as ASEAN and SAARC. These countries may have to change their policy and political approach to sustain their growth and influence in the region and the world. They will have to increasingly dependent on their neighboring countries and people for their political and economic stability.



Way forward

The emerging trends and new challenges to Development and democracy need to be addressed with new political imagination, policy formulation and development priorities. This will require a whole range of actions including invest in a generation of leadership, increasing the social protection, higher investment in Agriculture and rural economy. There has to be move towards more sustainable and green growth trajectory that benefits a large majority of people in Asia. One of the biggest challenges in the next few years will be the increasing urban poverty, discontent and consequent violence. Hence, it is important to invest in urban housing, infrastructure as well as employment opportunities. At the same time it is important regenerate the rural economy and invests in rural business to stop the rural- urban migration.

The emerging trends and challenge will require the policy makers to develop social and economic policies, beyond narrow neo-liberalism, to ensure affirmative action, more political space for the marginalized and excluded groups, and very clear measures to address issues of inequality, injustice and identity.

The changing dynamics in development and democracy also may require a different strategic approach from the international development and non-governmental organisations. They may have to move into a mode that sustains international identity, while nationalizing its governance, management and fundraising. The social and political legitimacy of INGOs will be increasingly questioned by the new political elites as well as the media. The increasing difficulty to sustain the fundraising from bilateral and fundraising market will force many of the INGOs to further prioritize their work and change their strategic approach.

However, it is civil society process and citizens actions that can make the biggest difference to political and economic process. Hence, there is a need to invest in a new generation of civil society and citizens’ process, and new generation of leadership. Citizen Mobilization, reform of political parties and democratization of society and politics can make a qualitative difference to Development and Democracy in Asia. Regional Cooperation between countries, integration of market and people, and more democratic and just governance can turn the challenges in to new opportunities for social, economic and political transformation in Asia.