SEA Authoritarian

Name:

Course:

Lecturer:

Date:

SEA Authoritarian

Introduction

Southeast Asian countries are located south of China, east of India and north of Australia (Owen 5). They include Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Burma (Myanmar), Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam and the Philippines. The regions share some customs although each region has unique characteristics. It has experienced tremendous population growth over the years and by 2003, the regions population was estimated to be a little more than half a billion people (Owen 6). The area was traditionally ruled by monarchies. The kings, queens and priests enacted rituals and some claimed monopoly of power (Owen 53-54). There was a struggle for political authority between the monarchs, various elite functions and village leaders. Since 1950s, many parts in this region experienced a bureaucratic and authoritarian form of leadership. The countries tolerated this form of leadership because it was better than what they had previously known. As people’s awareness and exposure to the outside world continues to increase, some of these countries have managed to change their political structures and they have moved towards a more democratic state thus enabling the people to realize true freedom.

Vietnam

For a long time, Vietnam was led by a politically corrupt leader who abused power openly and made serious mistakes on the country’s economy. Le Kha Phieu was the president then and he was voted out of office during the communist’s party ninth congress in 2001. The political situation in Vietnam had changed and he was seen as a compromise candidate who had little support from the people. The political power of the provincial leaders had also increased (Abuza 121). It is not clear why people would choose to be led by such a person for all that time. He had served the country for a long time and during this time, the country suffered greatly. Leaders could do as they pleased since they were not punished for abusing power or for poor performance. People are usually to blame for the bad leadership in the country, especially if they have the power to elect their leaders. Electing the wrong candidate is a guarantee that the country will also suffer. Phieu was a compromise candidate. The country was facing a political gridlock at the time and he was the only candidate who could take over the presidency. Requirements such as age, rank, experience, current posts and ideological positions determine the eligibility of a candidate.

People’s indecisiveness regarding policies can contribute to a country’s deteriorating state. The central committee had set in place a rule that no one over the age of 65 would be elected at congress. The sitting president, who was in his fifth term, was 67 years old. Instead of maintaining the rules they had set, the committee decided to make an exception for the president after he had campaigned about their decision (124). Countries, which have fought for their independence, are likely to elect a leader who fought during the war since their recollection of the war is still clear. However, younger generations may not know the full implication of the war and they will elect a leader for different reasons. During Phieu’s era, the economic conditions of the country deteriorated due to the Asian economic crisis. The leaders could not agree on how they were going to resolve the crisis. Divisions along party lines and political ideologies contribute to a country’s poor economic state. Loyalty of political parties makes the people disagree on the right way forward. Presidents and other senior leaders are not exempt from this and they will sometimes make poor judgments because they do not want to have the same opinion with their opponents.

Thailand

The political structure in Thailand was previously described as a bureaucratic polity meaning that it is bureaucrats and the military run the country for their own benefit. However, many protests opposing this kind of regime helped shaped the country to what it is today. This showed that the people were ready to accept democracy and change in their country. From 1973 to 2001, the country was ruled by King Bhumibol. Thailand has a network monarchy, which is centered on the president. This monarchy is not the traditional form of monarchy where the king holds all the power. It is a semi-monarchal rule whereby the king and his allies forma para-political institution.

Network monarchy began after political upheavals in the country and the king realized that the country could no longer go back to absolute monarchy. Network monarchy had to compromise with untrustworthy politicians, employ structural violence and involve politics of alliance building. The king appointed someone to head the network and only intervened during a crisis. The monarchy was responsible for making political decisions during times of crisis. It was the source of national legitimacy, it intervened in political developments and the king helped in setting the national agenda. The prime minister helped in determining the nature of the government and monitored the military. During this time, governance depended on placing the right people in the right jobs. Changes have occurred since 2001 when the Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, was elected.

In a network monarchy, democracy is not given priority and principles such as the rule of law and popular sovereignty rarely apply. Many supported the network monarchy since they saw the benefits associated with it. Benefits such as enhanced prestige, improved access to information and power, and receiving special assistance drove many people to accept this political structure. The military led coups to protest the level of corruption and the political dictatorship in the country. The success of these coups however, was determined by the king’s support to the sitting prime minister. Politicians usually look out for their best interests and the monarchy is no exception. The king denounced the politicians for their self-interests, negligence and corruption (McCargo 509). He realized that the monarchy no longer had power of deciding who the prime minister would become.

Malaysia

Malaysia has had a strong authoritarian rule especially with president Mahathir. He personalized this authoritarian rule through packing, rigging and circumventing. Packing involves appointing loyal people to top party and government posts and removing the rivals. Rigging is modifying institutional rules and procedures to prevent competition. Mahathir rigged the ruling party’s election procedures by changing its constitution. Circumventing means, “Creating alternative policy channels to divert influence and resources away from rivals in mainline government departments and towards loyalists in packed institutions” (Slater 90). He weakened the democratic institutions such as the media, the judiciary, the cabinet, parliament, the sultans, the police and the ruling party. Much as these highly defined institutions were weakened, they also exercised their authority on the people (Slater 83).

The president faced opposition in the late nineties and he transformed the country’s political system into a pseudo-democracy. This did not end the country’s authoritarian rule but the leaders and the institutions practiced soft democracy. Malaysia is a good illustration of how presidents and other leaders can use institutions to advance their authoritarian rule. Mahathir had the full support of the federal police and other institutions backed him up, this made any efforts to end his regime impossible. Reward and punishments, rather than affection, forced the people to obey the prime minister. This was seen in the political leaders and leaders of other institutions. The position he had at the ruling party gave him enough power to intimidate anyone or anything opposing him (Slater 88).

Singapore

The majority of Singapore’s population consists of the Chinese and Indians. Singapore was considered a migrant colony since the present people moved there from different regions. It separated from Malaysia and became independent in 1965. There were many atrocities committed during those days. The police used to arrest people at will and there was media censorship. The ruling party in the country is the Peoples Action Party (PAP) and it is considered by some to be authoritarian since it limits the freedom of the opposition. The government is involved in many aspects of people’s lives. For instance, it dictates the family and personal lives of the people. In addition to this, the government controls most of the economy. The government has used a different kind of authority which has ensured that it continue to retain support from most of the population.

Unlike governments in other Southeast Asian countries, Singapore has tried to maintain a corruption free government. It has ensured the continual development of the economy thus ensuring that many people have jobs and a high standard of living. With such enviable records, a majority of the people do not see the need to change the political system although they may feel discontented. The government controls the media and limits exposure to foreign influence. The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media was appointed in 2007 to make recommendations to the government regarding the regulation of the new media. However, the government did not accept all the recommendations made. Although the economic situation in Singapore has improved dramatically, a lot more needs to be done since there is a huge economic gap between the middle class and the senior executives who control the country’s wealth.

Burma

Burma is controlled by military leaders who use organized violence to control the people, especially those who fight for democracy. The State Peace and Development Council currently control the country. The military government abandoned the name Burma and changed it to Myanmar in 1989. However, the United States, many European countries and some of the domestic political oppositions in the country have chosen not to recognize the name and they have chosen to retain the original name of the country, Burma, because of the nature of the authoritarian leadership in the country (Owen xx). Divisions usually occur in the military between the political and professional soldiers but this has not been the case in Burma.

Burma gained independence in 1948, after successfully fighting the Japanese, and was recognized as a democracy. However, the country still had to deal with threats of emerging civil war, which were mostly from the ethnic rebels and the communist. The Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League was the main ruling party. The country suffered economically because it did not have foreign investments. The armed forces took control of the country in 1988. Elections were held in 1990 and the opposition took up most of the seats. The armed forces had set up the State Law and Order Restoration Council under which it ruled. The restoration council tried to improve the economic conditions of the country by allowing foreign investment. It still controlled the country even after the elections. The military and the opposition still fight for control.

The military has been accused of attacking the media and limiting their freedom. Sometimes people will tolerate authoritarianism or dictatorial leadership because they see no hope of acquiring a better nation. The people tolerate this kind of leadership because they do not have a better option. The restoration council established martial law in most parts of the country after the military took control. Lack of a serious opposition leads the people to be in favor of the ruling regime. The NLD, which was the main opposition, fell out of favor with many people because of its indecisiveness and lack of direction. On the other hand, the military was, and still is stable, and it has used this as a way of enticing more people. It initiated economic reforms and ensured that the country realized its dream of having a new constitution. NLD on the other hand, led demonstrations to oppose the new constitution. During this time, the military arrested many demonstrators and limited their freedom of expression. The NLD did not push through with their campaigns and they did not see reforms made.

Indonesia

Indonesia has exercised authoritarian rule for a long time. It has the largest population in the Southeast Asian countries. The country is largely divided between religious and ethnic lines. It transited to electoral democracy in late nineties, when the people had a chance to vote for the first time in more than forty years. Like many authoritarian nations, problems of corruption in the government still abound. People are often willing to overlook such abuses of power especially if they see improvements in the economy. Despite many people opting for democracy and exercising their democratic rights by voting, the country still showed signs of authoritarianism. From mid sixties to the late nineties, the country was governed by Suharto, who during this time exercised his authoritarian rule. He made the major decisions regarding the country while he enticed the military and selected elites. Nepotism was high during his tenure.

The government controlled the media, elections and political parties and matters were made worse by the fact that the judiciary was corrupt. People will often tolerate authoritarian governments if they live under better conditions than they had been subjected to. For more than three decades, the people of Indonesia tolerated Suharto and his “New Order” because it gave them a chance to live with stability. This is despite the fact that they had to live with corrupt and greedy leaders who did everything for self-interests. The military felt that they had a right to live a better life and they exercised their control over large parts of the country. The people tolerated this leadership because they were politically stable and there was no war.

Cambodia

The Khmer make up the majority in Cambodia. The largest minority groups are the Chinese and the Vietnamese. Cambodia got its independence from the French in 1953. Civil war began in the late sixties and lasted for many years. Hun Sen became the leader of the Peoples Republic of Kampuchea in 1985 and he has maintained his position since then. The two main parties formed a coalition government after Hun Sen was defeated in 1993. Sen however organized a coup in 1997. The government exercised tight political control and power. Sen and his CPP party have been accused of authoritarian rule. They control the opposition and they have often been accused of treating them unfairly. They also control the media and they harass journalists who oppose them. During the seventies and eighties, Cambodia suffered under the hands of Pol Pot. He was responsible for the suffering of the people and many people died under his rule. When Hun Sen came to power, the people preferred him because they could live in peace.

The conditions under which people have lived through will sometimes make them tolerate authoritarian rule. They compare the conditions they were in before the authoritarian rule was established and the conditions after the authoritarian rule was established and they choose the lesser evil. If authoritarian rule gives the people a chance to end their suffering and misery then they gladly embrace it, at least for some time, until another generation, which had not experienced those conditions, comes along. This generation will be the one to initiate the changes needed in the country as they are exposed to other things and they seek better living conditions. The government controls the media and the media is subjected to government censorship, reporting only what the government wants the people to hear. Journalists and political leaders who oppose the government have faced intimidation from government leaders and officials and some have been killed. Still, most of the people prefer to maintain peace rather than protest because they cannot compare the current living conditions to those they were living in before the CPP took control.

Philippines

The Philippines has had to fight many battles for their sovereignty. The Philippines had been under Spanish rule for a long time but they finally got their independence in 1898. This paved way for United States of America, which took control after the Spanish. The Americans granted them independence in 1946. They also had to fight against the Japanese invasion, which they successfully did. The people were united as they fought for independence and control of their own country. They later forgot this unity after they were granted independence, and they started fighting amongst themselves based on ideological principles and class divisions. Perhaps the most notable leader was Ferdinand Marcos. He was chosen as president in 1972 and he used this opportunity to impose his rule on the people. He used martial law during his period as president and those who opposed him were arrested. He controlled the media, industries and organizations. Human rights were violated and there was rampant corruption. His oppressive rule ended in 1986 during the people power revolution that was led by the opposition.

Marcos dictatorial leadership had been tolerated for more than a decade because he enticed the people with patriotic ideologies while dismissing foreigners. The country’s road to democracy began in 1986 after Aquino was elected president and Marcos went into exile. President Aquino faced much difficulty as she tried to lead the country to democracy. Human rights were especially observed since they ensured that the country did not go back to authoritarian rule. People who were there during Marcos reign would find it difficult to oppose the sitting president since the country became a democracy. This is despite the fact that the president holds a lot of power and there are many reforms to be made.

Conclusion

It is possible for Southeast Asian countries to move towards political liberalization and realize democracy. People have to change their mindset and show a willingness to change. Many do not seem to know their rights and some consider it a favor when the government provides them with basic amenities, which are actually their rights. They need to take a more active role in knowing how the affairs of their country are being run. It is unfortunate that there are some countries, which are still controlled by one leader. Malaysia is especially a sad case, more so because the prime minister has managed to control the institutions. Many countries, which enjoy their democratic rights, had to fight for that freedom. Just as these nations fought for their independence from the Dutch, British, French and other colonizers, they should be able to fight for the dictators who try to control them. Democracy is not an easy process and it may sometimes take years before it is realized. The people living in a particular country are the only ones who have the ability to change it. If they do not know that they are living under oppression, then they will not see the need to change anything regarding their country. Presidents and prime ministers have realized that they can easily entice the people by using small rewards and avoiding harshness and punishments. They have in turn taken away people’s right of free expression and other human rights. It is up to the affected people to initiate the process of political change and move towards more democracy.

Works Cited

Abuza, Zachary. “The Lessons of Le Kha Phieu: Changing Rules in Vietnamese Politics.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 21.1 (2002): 121-135. Print.

McCargo, Duncan. “Network Monarchy and Legitimacy Crises in Thailand.” The Pacific Review 18.4 (2005): 499-519. Print

Owen, Norman. The Emergence of Modern Southeast Asia: A New History. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 2005. Print

Slater, Dan. “Authoritarian institutions and the Personalization of Power in Malaysia.” Comparative Politics 36.1 (2003): 81-101. Print.