Organizer and Chair: Clark D. Neher, Northern Illinois University
Discussant: Muthiah Alagappa, East-West Center
The proposed panel concerns how Southeast Asian nations are relating to the wave of democratization that has swept many areas of the world. The papers will deal with the notion of "Asian Democracy," featuring dominant political parties, an identity between the state and the leading party, strong states, patron-client cultures, and emphasis on authority.
Each of the Southeast Asian nations will be analyzed in terms of the relationship between levels of democracy and levels of economic development. The general view is that the higher the level of democracy, the higher the standard of living.
The Winds of Democratic Change in Thailand
Clark D. Neher, Northern Illinois University
My own paper will deal with Thailand, a nation that exemplifies the progression from an autocratic to semidemocratic regime during an era of rapid economic growth and higher educational attainment. Today, the Thai constitution gives powers to elected members of the parliament. The Thai polity is characterized by universal suffrage and open campaigning, but tainted by buying and selling of votes; civilian prime minister; elected members of parliament; multi-party system; free press. Political parties are characterized by personalism and patronage more than formal institutionalization, ideology, and coherent platforms. The army is now on the sidelines, but threatens civilian rule.
The overall pattern appears to be that Southeast Asians are adapting aspects of Western governments that are appropriate to their own cultures. Democracies are in the process of being formed and molded in the context of each nation's indigenous values and behavior, and in light of democratic ways flowing from the influential West.
Democratization in Singapore
Nara Ganesan, National University of Singapore
Singapore, together with Malaysia, has had a long history of adherence to democratic procedures in Southeast Asia. In fact, following home rule in 1959 and independence in 1965, elections have been held uninterrupted up to now. Whereas political contestation was vigorous in the immediate post-independence period, government clampdowns on left-wing organizations allowed for single party dominance since the mid-1960s. Elements of political opposition only re-emerged in 1981 during a by-election. During the last elections in 1991, the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) secured 77 of the 81 seats it contested. With a 62 percent vote in its favour, the PAP, by most counts, secured a handsome victory. However, the political opposition has the most number of seats in almost three decades and the vote for the PAP is at a historic low
Do recent trends suggest Western-styled political pluralism? The answer is not easy to decipher. Whereas political parties of yesteryear were premised on ideology, those of today are issue oriented. Although issues can translate into class-based politics, there is no overwhelming evidence to support this proposition. The PAP government is clean and efficient with strong performance-related criteria in its favor.
At the structural-functional level, there is another relevant discourse to discern. This includes the corporatization of labor, the proliferation of government-related companies, the introduction of an elected presidency, the introduction of Group Representative Constituencies, and the reinvocation of ethnicity in public policies. Additionally, there has also been acrimonious debate over notions of human rights, press freedom and civic society.
Democracy on Hold: Malaysia in the 1990s
Diane K. Mauzy, University of British Columbia
The swift end of the Cold War has contributed to euphoria in the West about the victory of capitalism and a fortiori liberal democracy. This optimism was apparent in the widely cited book, The End of History, which concluded that in terms of principles there were no remaining competitors to liberal democracy. All that remained was to encourage-or perhaps coerce (through conditionality, etc.)-non-democratic (but mostly capitalist) states to convert.
The democratic trend has seemed irresistible, if incomplete and flawed, in a number of developing states. However, some states in prosperous Southeast Asia have been impervious to democratization. On the contrary, these states are depicting the democratization effort as an imperialistic crusade, and a struggle between Eastern and Western values, something akin to the "clash of civilizations" thesis.
Malaysia is one of those consumer-oriented Asian dynamos which has shown no elite inclination and little public demand for democratization. On the contrary, Malaysia was most democratic in the years following independence. After the ethnic riots in 1969, a number of restrictions were placed on political freedoms. Since 1982 under Dr. Mahathir, Malaysia has become increasingly authoritarian. It has also become increasingly prosperous and developed. The growing educated middle class has not demanded political liberalization, only the fulfillment of its economic expectations.
The challenges democratization faces are considerable. Earlier experience with democracy ended with ethnic conflagration. Authoritarianism is seen as the key to prosperity and development; the students have not (and cannot) become politically active, and the middle classes, preoccupied with being avid consumers, are not exerting the theoretically presumed pressure for liberalization.
Democracy, Human Rights, and Philippine Foreign Policy
Ross Marlay, Arkansas State University
Filipinos have shown their genuine commitment to the ideals of open democratic politics, constitutional government, and civil liberties on many occasions, and sometimes under very trying circumstances. What happens when Filipino ideals are challenged by harsh realities in Singapore, China, Indonesia, and Kuwait? This paper uses case studies of these foreign policy dilemmas to illuminate a foreign policy unusual in the Third World