Democratization in Southeast Asia : past trends and prospects

Résumé du document

This essay deals with the issue of democratization in the Southeast Asian context. Dramatic changes have occurred throughout the region in the second part of the twentieth century. Rapid economic growth and industrialization were at the center of the so-called Asian miracle of the 1960s and 70s, often associated with the strong leadership and benevolent authoritarianism of the developmental state. The Cold War provided excellent background for the maintenance of large armed forces, and internal dissent was efficiently silenced. When criticism was nevertheless made against undemocratic regimes, local leaders were quick to point out cultural exceptionalism, arguing that their governments were only expressing the uniqueness of Asian culture and values.
Yet, Southeast Asian countries were not left untouched by the recent “wave” of worldwide democratization . South-Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia… Examples are numerous of processes of democratic reform in the region from the 1980s onwards. How did these processes come to be, and how well did they perform?
It is very difficult to provide a comprehensive explanation of all the factors involved, due to the diversity of economic, social and political backgrounds. I will focus first on the dynamics of democratization in the 1980s and in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, before turning to the main challenges democratic movements still face in some parts of Southeast Asia.

Extraits

[...] Democracy in Southeast Asia Three main factors contributed to the first steps toward democracy in the region, at the beginning of the 1980s[2]. Firstly, sustained economic development on a capitalist basis had profoundly modified the patterns of class relationship. Industrialization and urbanization had created a large class of workers, in some places highly organized, which demanded improvements both in their economic situation and in their political rights. Their claims answered those of the middle-class, the students and other intellectuals. On the other hand, after the land reforms of the 1950s-60s, no landlords remained to act as a countervailing force. [...]

[...] South, Ashley, “Political Transition in Myanmar: A New Model for Democratization”, Contemporary Southeast Asia (August 2004), 233- 255. The notion of “waves of democratization” is developed by Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave (Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press, 1991). The subsequent paragraph is inspired by the reading of two articles: David Potter, “Democratization at the same time in South Korea and Taiwan”, and James Putzel, has democratization been a weaker impulse in Indonesia and Malaysia than in the Philippines?”, both in David Potter, David Goldblatt, Margaret Kiloh, and Paul Lewis, (eds.), Democratization, Milton Keynes: The Open University 219-239. [...]

[...] The beginning of the following article: Yung-Myung Kim, Asian-Style Democracy A Critique from East Asian Survey (December 1997), 37(12): 1119-1134 provides an in-depth description of the different claims of “Asian values” defenders. Most convincing amongst those: Thomas M. Franck, Human Rights Universal?”, Foreign Affairs (Jan/Feb 2001) 191-204, and Amartya Sen, “Universal Truths”, Harvard International Review (Summer 1998) 40-43. Quoted in Baladas Ghoshal, “Democratic Transition and Political Development in Post-Soeharto Indonesia”, Contemporary Southeast Asia (December 2004), 517. That is the point Ashley South develops in “Political Transition in Myanmar: A New Model for Democratization”, Contemporary Southeast Asia (August 2004), 233-255. [...]

[...] The second challenge to democratic pressures in Southeast Asia is an ethnic and national one. Taiwan has managed to build its democratic system on the very basis of nationalism, offering its people an opportunity to decide against the influence of Chinese mainland, but its situation was very unusual. In most big countries in the region, large ethnic minorities are part of the population, and this may cause several problems for democracy. Indeed, it is very easy for an authoritarian nationalistic government, such as that of Suharto in Indonesia, to justify its harsh policies through the imperious necessity of maintaining the country united. [...]

[...] Today, Southeast Asian democracies seem to be amongst the most consolidated in the developing world. One of the worst financial and economic crises of the century only reinforced democratic achievements and led other countries on the path to liberalization. Nevertheless, some constraints still remain on the process, not only because of ethnic and racial divisions, but also because the idea of authoritarian cultural exceptionalism is still strong throughout the region. References Acharya, Amitav, “Southeast Asia's Democratic Moment”, Asian Survey (May- June 1999), 418-432. [...]