[ Panels by World Area Main Menu ]
[ View the Timetable of Panels ]
The State of Democracy in Southeast Asia
Organizer and Chair: Erik M. Kuhonta, McGill University
Discussant: David Timberman, Independent Consultant
Since the mid-1980s, Southeast Asian polities have gradually transitioned towards democratic governance. Yet, although electoral democracies are now prevalent in Southeast Asia, they are severely hobbled by institutional deficiencies, elite collusion, and subtle forms of societal repression. The papers in this panel examine recent trends in the state of democracy focusing particularly on the concentration of power under electoral regimes and the nature of party development. Through a comparative analysis of four major countries in the region, this panel will thus engage empirical and theoretical issues in contemporary Southeast Asian democracy. In the first paper, Kuhonta and Mutebi trace the process by which democracy in Thailand has gradually been eroded. Although the constitutional reforms of 1997 appeared to strengthen democratic institutions, the election of Thaksin Shinawatra four years later has undermined the new constitution and led to an unprecedented concentration of power. Hamayotsu, in the second paper, addresses the resilience of authoritarianism in Malaysia. She argues that the state’s effort to incorporate and coopt Islamic fundamentalism presents an important paradox: while it weakens extremism it also denies democratic opposition to the state. In the third paper, Bevis seeks to explain how programmatic parties can emerge in the Philippines – a country notorious for weak patronage-driven parties. She argues that a combination of institutional crises and agency can propel programmatic party formation. Finally, Choi analyzes the effect of Indonesia’s first-ever local elections on democratization. Questioning whether local elections strengthen democracy, Choi concludes that they may lead to the weakening of political parties’ stranglehold on power.
Slip Slidin' Away: The Erosion of Democracy in Thailand
Erik M. Kuhonta, McGill University
The passage of the 1997 people’s constitution ushered a real sense of hope among the middle-class that democracy in Thailand would become more consolidated in terms of accountability, more robust checks and balances, and policy stability. New institutions, ranging from the Constitutional Court to the Anti-Corruption Commission were established, the Senate was transformed into an elected body meant to serve as a check on political parties, and a party-list system was created. All of these reforms were heralded as a means of dispersing power while at the same time strengthening institutions. Almost ten years later, the hopes of democratic reform appear to have been quashed. The rise of Thaksin Shinawatra in the 2001 parliamentary elections has led to a gradual erosion of democratic rights. Instead of the dispersal of power through independent institutions, what one is now witnessing in Thailand is an increasing concentration of power in the executive. The Constitutional Court and the Anti-Corruption Commission have seen their independent capacities emasculated, the Senate has become tightly linked to Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai Party, while the party system has evolved into a hegemonic system. This paper will thus trace the process by which Thai democracy has slipped away from its reform drive to become yet another "illiberal democracy" in Southeast Asia.
Democratic Aspiration, Regime Resilience and Islam in Southeast Asia: Authoritarianism and State Power Reconsidered
Kikue Hamayotsu, Columbia University
Resilience of authoritarian regimes in Muslim nations is conventionally understood either in instrumental or cultural terms. The former approach focuses on ruling elites’ exclusive control over the state apparatus such as security forces and judiciary, while the latter blames Islam for authoritarian tendencies. But, are these instrumental and cultural attributes sufficient for Muslim rulers to stay in power? This paper seeks to explore the question of authoritarianism in general and resilience of authoritarian regimes in Muslim nations in particular. It does so by investigating resilience of the semi-authoritarian regime in Malaysia, one of the Muslim-dominant nations in Southeast Asia. My principal claim is that the mode of state incorporation of religious authorities correlates closely with the state’s capacities to regulate religious mobilization and organization at the societal level. Yet, religious mobilization and organization in society serve as key civil society agents for democratic aspiration and transition in Muslim communities. Thus, the state’s capacity to moderate religious extremism can also have the effect of suppressing civil society and hindering forces that might otherwise push for more democratic forms of government. The paper emphasizes that to account for both the mobilizational capacities of autonomous/oppositional Islamic forces and for the capacity of authoritarian Muslim regimes to stay in power, we must pay more attention not only to what extent Islamic authority structures are institutionalized within (or outside) the state but also to how institutionalization takes place—that is, to the political rationale for institutionalization. By focusing on the function of religious institutions for societal aspiration for democracy as well as on state’s search for power, the paper seeks to complement the abovementioned conventional approaches about authoritarianism in Muslim nations.
Long-Term Imperatives, Short-Term Realities: The Dynamics of Programmatic Party Formation in the Philippines
Gwendolyn Bevis, University of Wisconsin
Programmatic parties, in theory and practice, have been central to the representation and aggregation of interests and the ability of voters to hold governments accountable. Scholarship has examined the emergence of programmatic parties in Western Europe and North America, but we know little of why and how they might emerge in countries where most parties are patronage-oriented. The Philippines presents an excellent setting in which to investigate these questions. Mainstream political parties there have long been characterized as indistinguishable on policy grounds. Their lack of concern with competition over substantive issues, along with constant party-switching, has contributed to a policy-making process that benefits elites at the expense of the general population and engendered widespread criticism of the quality of Philippine democracy. Since 1986, however, the Philippines has experienced a flurry of attempts to form programmatic parties. This paper examines two of the most serious and sustained of these endeavors – the formation of Akbayan and attempted reform of the Liberal Party. What factors explain programmatic party formation? Structural changes play a role but are subject to the interpretations of political agents; incremental institutional reforms may influence programmatic parties, but do so primarily after their formation. Most important, this research suggests, are two factors: institutional crises and agency. First, a dramatic closing and opening of the political system provides strong encouragement to the formation of programmatic parties. Second, party-building activists respond to the transformed political environment based on their perceptions and beliefs. The bar proves to be high for sustainable programmatic parties, and recent events indicate that the space for effective, constructive action by programmatic parties is easily contracted by patronage-oriented politicians, in part through the latter’s capture of institutional reform efforts.
Have Direct Local Elections Consolidated the Oligarchy of Parties in Indonesia?
Nankyung Choi, Nanyang Technological UniversityThis paper examines the patterns of party politics in Indonesia’s first-ever direct local elections. Since June 2005, Indonesia has been holding direct elections of local government heads – i.e., provincial governors, district regents, and municipal mayors. Observers have debated whether direct local elections have contributed to local democratization, like what advocates argued for, or only consolidated the oligarchy of parties, as only political parties can nominate candidates for local government heads. Original research in six localities suggests a more complex, and in some regards, surprising calculus. In particular, the author’s research suggests local elections have weakened political parties in local politics, despite their monopoly over the electoral process, including the nomination of candidates. These results are discussed in light of ongoing theoretical debates on democracy and decentralization in Southeast Asia.