Mongolia, a liberal exception in Asia

April 2014

1Mongolia benefits from a special status in the collective mindset and this is illustrated by an increasing number of documentaries and TV reports. The Mongolian exceptionality can also be found in the political area. Located in the heart of Asia, Mongolia enjoys a liberal political regime and can be considered an exception in a region known for authoritarian regimes and eaten away by increasing geopolitical tensions. This situation is intriguing because nothing presupposed that the Mongolian authorities could lead a democratic transition, where so many other countries have failed.

A campaignger for the democratic party, Ulaanbaatar, June 2013.

2Mongolia is always defined as a “free country “in the annual ranking of the Freedom House, that is, a country where political competition is free and where civil liberties are respected. Although this ranking can be criticized on many aspects, it shows that the high level of freedom in the Mongolian society makes this country an exception in the post-socialist world. A comparison with other countries of the region gives an insight of this Mongolian specificity. Thus, Central Asian countries are mainly governed by an authoritarian government system. North Korea, whose situation used to be mostly similar to Mongolia’s in 1989 (political land-locking, proximity with two big neighbours), followed a different trajectory, leading to an increasing isolation. Those comparisons show the singularity of the Mongolian situation where citizens benefit from a high degree of freedom and, in a way, of an equality illustrated by a remarkable equality between men and women. The recent demonstration during which men demanded equality is a symbol of this situation and led T. Spoorenberg to define Mongolia as “an island in the middle of the ocean”.

3The political evolution of the country since the beginning of the 1990s confirms this specificity. The democratic and peaceful revolution of the winter of 1989-1990 led to a coalition government made of the former single party – the Mongolian people’s and revolutionary party – and of the components of the democratic movement whose demonstrations led to the withdrawal of the politburo and the falling down of the socialist system in Mongolia. This coalition government adopted a new Constitution in 1992 which insists on democracy, multi-party elections and Human rights. Consequently, the stability of the Mongolian political system needs to be emphasized. Changes of parties in power often occurred and elections are considered free and fair. 2008 was an exception in this matter. The results of the parliamentary elections were contested by demonstrators who set the MPRP’s headquarters on fire. Five people died and former President Enkhbayar declared the state of emergency as well as a curfew. However, those tragic events led to a coalition government to tackle the crisis. Much more than this political stability, the evolution of the Mongolian political regime has to be pointed out. When most Central Asian states built an authoritarian form of government where the presidency is a dominant player, Mongolia’s evolution was completely different. The Mongolian political system has gradually changed from a semi-presidential system to a parliamentary one, in which the power of the President has decreased. This particular evolution confirms the Mongolian rooting in a liberal system which makes the country a counter-example in the region.

The Great Khural, the parliament of Mongolia.

4The Mongolian success is all the more striking that few elements led to believe it would happen. A posteriori, Steven Fish talks about a “democracy without prerequisites” to describe the Mongolian evolution. Among the elements which could lead Mongolian transition to fail, land-locking between two authoritarian big powers is the most redhibitory. The lack of democratic experience is another element often mentioned since Mongolia had not experienced a democratic system before 1990. The Mongolian case is also a counter-example for theories which postulate that democracy takes root in a favourable economic context. On the contrary, Mongolia built its democratic system during a severe economic crisis. Mongolian GDP fell down 40 %, unemployment appeared, and rationing system had to be implemented. It took 10 years for Mongolia to recover from this transition crisis. However, those economic difficulties did not distort the Mongolian run-up towards democracy. The fact that the new Mongolian economic growth was based on the rediscovery of the Mongolian potential in mineral resources is another unfavorable condition. Numerous examples of African and Central Asian countries led researchers to emphasize the risks inherent in an economic development based on natural resources. However, Mongolia, here, also escapes an authoritarian drift.

5Within this complex framework, Mongolia’s democratic transition success drew the attention of many researchers who tried to explain this Mongolian exceptionality. Some insisted on the heritage of Gengis Khan as the main legacy which inspired Mongolian democracy. Others insisted on the role of the Mongolian Constitution which guarantees a balance between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary powers. Some underline that democracy was a necessary strategic tool to guarantee the independence and sovereignty of the country ; or emphasized the economic dependency to international assistance which led Mongolian decision-makers to conform to the wish of international donors. All these factors help to understand the Mongolian success. However, they do not explain the easiness with which democracy rooted in Mongolia and the general consensus that this form of government enjoyed since the beginning of the 1990s.

A campaign rally for candidate Ts. Elbegdorj, Ulaanbaatar, June 2013.

6Mongolian people, when asked about it, mention another key for understanding. They often link the democratic system of government to the Mongolian traditional way of life and the Mongolian “natural” attachment to freedom. This affirmation, sometimes slandered, builds a link between the elementary social organization, that is, the nuclear family, and the socio-political system of the country. It lies on “the idea that family connections – between parents and children, between husband and wife, are a pattern for political connections1”. Because of nomadism and geographical constraints, the Mongolian family system is nuclear where children, with the exception of the youngest, leave the household when married. Thus, respect towards authority, towards the father, diminishes. The child who leaves the household benefits from much more freedom because he distances himself from his father’s authority and becomes the chief of a new family unit. This daily attitude to freedom and the relative rejection of relations of authority results in a character trait shared by the Mongolian and the French : a highly developed critical mind.

A campaign poster, Ulaanbaatar, June 2013.

7This correlation between an elementary social organization, that is, family connections, and political organization does not show a direct determinism between those two elements, but allows to imply that it has probably facilitated the implementation and acceptation of a liberal political regime in Mongolia. This attitude is in compliance with the daily attitude of the Mongolian people towards authority and freedom. It partially explains this Mongolian attachment towards political liberalism, democracy being an under-product of this attachment. This aspect needs to be added to the complex imbrication between the factors previously mentioned.