Amy Chua's highly over-rated book is reviewed rather uncritically by Daniel Lak ("The worst form of government, except all the others" #129). Actually Chua's book hasn't set the world abuzz as Lak seems to infer. It is seen as a case of academic over-simplification, over-stressing the ethnic point, and being over-pessimistic about democratisation, and under-estimating the post-colonial strengthening of the local elites.

Chua ignores all facts that don't fit her theory of democratic decay. Let us not forget that democratisation also brought out the potency of other social forces-like the middle classes in Thailand and the Philippines, not to mention Taiwan and South Korea. It is democracy that made these the vibrant nations what they are today. These classes got both economic and political power because of democratisation and liberalisation. And, in many instances, they are the fulcrum of reform, forcing more socially conscious elite and more accountable government. You have a politically and economically empowered middle class that is leading reformist political parties, NGOs, media and helping break the elite stranglehold, if not so successfully in the economic sense, at least the elite hegemony in the ideological sense. For example by promoting the idea of real democracy to include social justice. This is completely glossed over in the book. Chua is also too cynical and her mind is made up not to see the grassroots democracy that is at work, despite the stranglehold of the elite and the market. Chua's book is nothing but typical bourgeois pessimism among the elite about a country's situation which they themselves helped create. Lak is right about one thing though-what is the alternative? Fashionable gloom about "illiberal democracy" is all very well, but in the real world it doesn't help things any.

Sonia Hernandez,
email