Politics in South East Asia - Essay Example

Politics in South East Asia: On careful analysis of the countries that make up the South East Asia region, it is evident that some countries seem to have place more stable regimes when compared to others. While some countries have been able to embrace democracy others, have remained authoritarian regimes. This could be attributed to numerous factors, among them the history of these countries, to both internal and external factors. South East Asia is a region that is located to the South of China, the East of India and to the North of Australia. There are some eleven countries in total that make up the region. The region is again divided into two regions. These are, the mainland South East Asia (also referred to as Indochina) and the maritime South East Asia. (also known as the Malay Archipelago). The mainland South East Asia comprises of countries such as Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar (Burma) and Vietnam. On the other hand, the maritime South East Asia is made up of Brunei, East Timor, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore. To be able to understand the contemporary politics of South East Asia, it is important to analyze the region in the context of colonialism, the nationalist movements that developed as a result of the colonialism and the effect that they had on the respective countries. Lastly, it is also crucial that the geo strategic essentials of the cold war are put into careful consideration. For instance, it was the colonial rule that led to the establishment of territorial boundaries and the institutions in the South East Asian countries. More over, the nationalism that later developed was responsible for the rising of new political discourse in the countries. What’s more, the advent of the cold war was important in that it helped to determine the nature of authority in the post colonial South East Asian countries. The bottom-line is that authoritarian regimes are common and widespread in South East Asia. Still, some countries are democratic. According to Hub pages, the region has for a long time struggled between military strength and democratic civilian leadership. Dictatorships were the norm for most of the countries and in some cases such as Burma, the authoritarianism still prevails to date. (2008) Cambodia is considered to be a successor state of the once powerful Hindu and Buddhist Khmer empire of the 11th and 14th century that ruled a huge part of the Indochinese Peninsula. In 1857, Cambodia became a French protectorate up until 1953. The French administered Cambodia as part of the colony of French Indochina. However, at some point between 1941 and 1945 Cambodia had been occupied by the Japanese. In November 9 1953, Cambodia became a constitutional monarchy under king Norodom Sihanouk after gaining their independence from the French. While on a trip abroad, Sihanouk was overthrown in a military coup by the then Prime Minister General Lon Nol. To gain back his power, Sihanouk sought the support of the Khmer Rouge communist rebels. In 1975, they were able to take over power. A lot of people died due to disease and starvation during their reign. Also, many more fled across the border into Thailand. The Khmer Rouge was however stopped by the Vietnamese who invaded Cambodia to stop massive killings of the Cambodian people. Nonetheless, this again resulted in warfare between the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese which continued well into the 80’s. With the help of the United Nations, a comprehensive peace settlement was arrived at in1991. However, the Khmer regime brutality to large extent destroyed the social, economic, cultural and even political life of Cambodia. It is important to understand this history of Cambodia so as to understand politics therein. The Khmer Rouge regime was communist in nature and this has important ramification in Cambodia’s politics today. The regime destroyed Cambodia and it is only over the last few years that organization and restructuring of Cambodia began. Thus in Cambodia, there has never really been a stable regime even after the fall of the Khmer Rouge. (Steinberg, 1985) The Philippines could also be considered as having in place an authoritative regime. However, through their constant interaction and involvement with the United States, in such matters as trade, they were able to avoid a prolonged military regime. The United States, also supplied capital to the Philippines. Ultimately, the Philippine bureaucratic structure was able to maintain control over the military. This is in total contrast to the situation in the Cambodia where the military had the backing of the Chinese which meant that they could easily usurp the control of the bureaucratic systems therein. Also, in the Thailand and Indonesia, the military had its own sources of funding. The result of this is that the militaries were then able to act in total independence of the bureaucratic systems, taking over power and wielding their control in these countries. (Hub pages, 2008) Before 1959, Singapore was a self governing state under the British empire. After the 1959 general election, the People’s Action Party rose to power under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew. Though, politics can be considered to be different in Singapore compared to the other countries in the region in that it has in place what would be considered to be both elements of authoritarianism and democracy. For instance, while it is characterized by multi partism, the People’s Action Party still remains the dominant political party. More over, the party seeks to interfere with the opposition through censorship and even filing of civil suits against them. While freedom of the association, speech and even assembly is provided for in the Singapore constitution, the freedom is then infringed upon as it is limited to a certain extent. Nonetheless, Singapore is more social, economic and even politically stable than Cambodia. (Steinberg, 1985) Even so, Hewison posits that Singapore can be said to be practising what may be referred to as ‘Asian style’ democracy. In Asian style democracy liberalism is rejected, however, western style democratic values are still held. Thus, Singapore is regarded as having adopted an illegal approach to democratization. Conversely, such countries as Thailand and Indonesia are viewed as better examples to democratization. (1999) Nevertheless, for these countries too, authoritarianism was still a forerunner to their democratization. (Hewison, 1999) Slater opined that the years following 1945 culminated in a politically diverse South East Asia. These were the years during which the South East Asian countries sought to gain their national sovereignty from the west and even Japan. Thus, the post war period saw the emergence of some strong states in the region, the likes of Singapore. Conversely, there are also weak states the likes of South Vietnam. On another level, there are also countries that had in place what could be considered as very strong party systems. Malaysia falls in this category. However, some countries like the Philippines are more or less party less state. Additionally, such countries such as Burma (Myanmar) have in place what would be considered as dictatorships that have also been long lasting. On the other hand, a country like Thailand has in place authoritarian regime that the exact opposite of Burma, having a weak but nonetheless an authoritarian regime. Indonesia on its part seems to have in place political parties and institutions of middle standing in terms of ability, vigorousness and even stability. (2007) The question then is why some countries are authoritarian while others yet are democratic. It has already been established that history does in indeed play a crucial role. For instance, the fact that Singapore is democratic, albeit with traces of authoritarianism, can be attributed to its history with the British. It was once under British rule. It may be argued that the British exerted considerable influence in its democratization. In Vietnam and Lao, the Vietnam war resulted in their adoption of the one party political system which had its influences from China. In the end, communist parties took the hold over power (in Vietnam and Lao), and are still in place up to date. After taking over power, the authoritarian governments seek to interfere with the state institutions and even enforce policies that seek to keep their firm grasp on power. This is the reason that they have been able to persist. They are able to control institutions, development and even policies to their favour. (Slater, 2007) According to Slater, the reason why there are successful democracies and also authoritarian regimes in South East Asia lies in contentious politics in this region. Contentious politics are believed to shape the actions of the elite in these countries. More over, they also affect the institutional profiles therein. The other reasons why there are such disparities can also be attributed to the presence of external influence, the abundance of economic benefits and the availability of shared national symbols. In contentious politics lies the role of the elite in the particular country. For instance in Singapore, the economic elite entered into an arrangement with the state that would guarantee their protection. This was after the colonial period. In return, the elite paid higher taxes than the rest of the populace. In addition, they funded political party activities. In most cases the political parties that they finance are those that are authoritarian. On the other hand, the communal elite sought to legitimize these regimes by mobilizing followers and even helping to quell opposition. Thus, as long as there will always be economic and communal elite, then the authoritarian regimes will always persist. This kind of patronage is a threat to democratization. (2007) The elite and the authoritarian regime only join forces so as to achieve certain ends which are not always what is best for their respective countries. The authoritarian regimes to safeguard their hold on power and appear legitimate and the elite to protect their own selfish interests. This also brings into close focus the institutions of these countries. Weak institutions allow for patronage and even interference in the bureaucratic process. In the end, the authoritarian regimes continue their hold on power. It could also be pointed out that, as the world becomes more of a global village, the hitherto authoritarian states have had to change in order to adapt. This has in most cases meant democratization. Maybe the countries that have democratized have realized there is more to gain than lose with democratization. With pressure from the international community in the form of wide spread condemnation on their authoritarian ways, the best way out has been to embrace democracy. Thus, external pressure and geographical location are important factors to why some countries have been able to democratize while others remain as authoritative regimes. For instance, Thailand has been able to democratize owing to her geographical location. Thailand is located between two imperialist democratic powers. France and Britain. With this close proximity comes pressure to democratize. The distance seems to work in the favour of authoritarian regimes. Case in point, the end of the cold war meant that the US was the sole super power. However, due to the distance and the geo strategic obstacles, the US was not and cannot effectively impose its democratic influence on the region. On the contrary, China is in close proximity to the region and can considerably exert its influence. The end result is that the US pressure for reform is not as effectively felt hence the authoritarian regimes see no reason to change. (Hub pages, 2008) Most of the authoritarian regimes in South East Asia have come into power by way of military coup/take overs. The militaries were able to survive for as long as they did primarily because they got assistance, especially financially, from outside as the case with the Khmer regime of Cambodia who got their support from China. Others yet, controlled industries and corporations in their countries after taking over power. These entities in turn provided them with the resources that ensured their independence from the bureaucracy. Hence they were able to persist. (Hub pages, 2008) This was the case in Thailand. On another level, the creation of hybrids, such as in Singapore is what has led to the persistence of the authoritarian regimes. The country has in place some democratic ideals but still authoritarian and dictatorial in that in controls the political, social and economic life in the country with an n iron fist. These regimes manipulate political institutions while at the same time holding elections, which is an element of democracy. (Taylor, 1996) The end of product of this is that these governments gain legitimacy despite the fact that nothing really changes, they still remain authoritative only using state institutions to their advantage. (Case, 2005) According to Marklund, Forss, Len, Neretnieks, Klimesova, Guo & Swanstrom, the role or regional cooperation organizations, is also of prime importance. The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been crucial in the opening up of certain countries, such as Myanmar, due to constant interaction and cooperation with other countries. However, the association has also adopted the principle of non interference. Member states are not supposed to interfere in the internal politics of another state. The result is that when authoritative governments are not subjected to external pressured they might see the need to change. (n.d.) Another major reason can be attributed to the failure of Indonesia to act as the leader in the region. Indonesia is both economically and even politically successful. This makes Indonesia very influential in political and economic issues of the region. This way it is better to give leadership on both political and economic issues in the region. It should be able to serve as the role model in democratization in the region. (Marklund et al, n.d.) In Myanmar for instance, the authoritarian regime has been in power for quite some time. The reasons why it has been able to persist for so long is first of all, the military has always claimed that it won the country’s independence and helped safeguard the country’s unity. However it refuses to give up power based on the argument that it does not have faith in a civilian government to maintain unity. It often cites the chaos that erupted soon after independence as the reason why a civilian government cannot be trusted with power. It uses such reasons (excuses) to legitimize itself. Secondly, there are no formidable rival to challenge the authority of such regimes. In Myanmar, there exists a political opposition that could challenge the authoritarian regime, in the form of the National League for Democracy under the leadership of Aung San Suu. However, the opposition is largely divided which makes it weak and can therefore not pose a serious challenge to the authoritarian regime. (Marklund et al, n.d.) The South East Asian countries are heavily reliant on trade for economic growth. This became more apparent after the cold war. Consequently, they have had to adopt export driven ecomomic policies. For this reason they have even more dependent on the international markets for economic growth and also for political stability. Dependence on the international markets translates to dependence on the United States. The result is that some countries have adopted democratic ideals in their politics and with constant interaction with the US the ideals have not been given up. (Ross, 2003) A good case in point is Indonesia. The country can also be considered to have strong institutions without undue influence from the military. The South East Asian region is a diverse region in terms of the politics therein. While some countries such as Thailand and Indonesia have been able to adopt democracy. Their counterparts the likes of Myanmar (Burma) are still authoritarian regimes. The differences could be attributed to history, internal and even external forces. Nonetheless, authoritarian regimes seem to persist in the region. However, countries like Indonesia and Thailand have not given up on democracy. There are reasons why for example authoritarian regimes seem to persist. For instance in the case of Myanmar, the military fronts its legitimacy and right to power on the premise that it was responsible for the country gaining its independence. Again it also point out that a civilian government cannot be trusted with power. However, the most convincing argument lies in the fact that no serious threat or challenge is posed by the opposition on the regime hence its persistence. Other reasons lie in the fact that such regional institutions as the Association of South East Asian countries are not firm enough preferring instead to adopt a non interference stance into the issues of another country. More over authoritative regimes continue to hide behind hybrids. Conversely, the reasons why some countries have been able to safeguard their democratic gains could lie in their strong institutions. This way there is no undue and uncalled for influence by the military. What is more, these countries can be said to be in constant interaction with other democratic states internationally hence they have not let go of democracy. International trade has been one area of cooperation and interaction. Their participation in international activities also means they are exposed to criticism and pressure to uphold democracy. The location of these countries has also had an influence. For instance, Thailand has France and Britain in close proximity in close proximity hence the pressure to democratize however some countries like Myanmar are some what isolated. If the democracies in South East Asia are to be safeguarded and the authoritarian regimes transformed, such issues, as the internal institutions need to be strengthened need to take central focus. Also, pressure from inside these countries and from the international communities need to be stepped up. Regional associations should also play a more proactive role. References. ‘Authoritarianism in South East Asia.’ Hub pages. 2008. 31 October 2008 Case, William. ‘South East Asia’s hybrid regimes: When do voters change them?’ Journal of East Asia studies, 5(2): 2005. Hewison, Kevin. ‘Political space in South East Asia: Asian style and other democracies.’ Democratization Journal, 6(1): 1999. Marklund, Klas, Forss, Alec, Len, Christopher, Neretnieks, Karlis, Klimesova, Martina, Guo Xiaolin, Swanstrom, Niklas. South east Asia. (2008). 31 October 2008 Ross, Robert S. ‘The US-China peace: Great power politics, spheres of influence, and the peace of East Asia.’ Journal of East Asia studies, 3(3): 2003 Slater, Dan. ‘Ordering power: Contentious politics, state building, and authoritarian durability in South East Asia.’ American Psychological Association, 2007. Steinberg, David Joel. In search of Southeast Asia: A modern history. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985. Taylor, R. H., ed. The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. New York: Wodrow Wilson Center Press, 1996. Read More