The Limits of Civil Society in Democratizing the State - Essay Example

The Limits of Civil Society in Democratizing the State Introduction States in the Southeast Asia are an interesting reading, given that they have undergone a laborious process of democratisation. Nevertheless, the Southeast Asian countries do not only form an interesting read on the course of democratisation, but also on the accruals that have come with this democratisation, at the socioeconomic level. Many countries in the Southeast Asia have emerged from despotic regimes that had attenuated the space for political participation. Absence of the civil society, the muzzling of the freedom of speech and conscience and the willful failure to grant parliament (national assembly) and the judiciary their independence are the very symptoms that characterise totalitarian regimes, even in the Southeast Asian countries. In Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia and Singapore, the process of democratisation has been studied through the muddled waters the civil society has waded to participate in national socioeconomic development, as shall be seen in the discourse that ensues forthwith. Thesis statement There is a clear and distinct relationship between the presence and vibrancy of the civil society and socioeconomic stability in any state, as can be seen in the ASEAN countries. Phongpaichit and Baker contend that many have come to falsely believe that socioeconomic growth and stability can be realised through the attainment of strong authoritarian systems, due to the strong state apparatuses that these authoritarian systems possess. Countries such as Singapore and Malaysia are cited to underscore and validate this notion. However, a critical look at the development in the ASEAN countries indicates that authoritarian regimes inherently do not co-occur with socioeconomic development. Indeed, there are instances where totalitarian regimes appear to have a rising (Gross Domestic Produce) GDP, but all the time, such development is seldom sustainable or wholesome (Phongpaichit and Baker, 140-41) In fact, the citation of Singapore and Malaysia as examples of ASEAN countries that have been developing because of strong authoritarian apparatuses does not suffice. This is because, there are stronger and more democratically stable states such as South Korea and Taiwan which emerged prior to Malaysia and Singapore’s descent into authoritarianism, in the 1960s. The proximity of South Korea and Taiwan to Malaysia and Singapore could in fact have helped inject democratic elements such as political pluralism in Malaysia and Singapore. Chief among these democratic elements include the accommodation and acknowledgement of the civil society in politics. The very autocratic environment in which political plurality is absent is on the contrary, the very drawback that staves off stable democratic transitions and allows dictators to frustrate the actualisation of reforms and democratisation (Farouk, 98). Defined as the realm of activities and institutions that exist outside the government's direct control of the government, the civil society has mobilized the society on matters that are directly related to socioeconomic development such as corruption, governance and transparency, in ASEAN countries (Hewison, 137). The standpoint above about the civil society is well exemplified by the manner in which the civil society in Malaysia has concerted its effort to fight politically instigated economic corruption. On 20 March 2013, a group of civil society organisations asked the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to expedite investigations on a dossier that had exposed Tan Sri A. T. Mahmud, the Sarawak Chief Minister and his family as participants in an unlawful and corrupt land deal. Apart from the fact that the land deal was bound to cost the government its source of revenue; thousands of the indigenous people living on that land were to be displaced. Similarly, beside the call by firebrand civil society Aliran to have full investigations carried out over the matter, frantic calls were also successfully made by Haris Ibrahim and his colleges in the ABU movement, to have Abdul Taib resign from his post, so that investigations could be carried out independently and without interference. The ABU movement is a political movement that was engineered to pressurise Umno from politics. That the civil society adopts a comprehensive approach in the war on corruption is a matter that is underscored by it addressing the issue of the role of the media in the war on corruption. Particularly, Transparency International, Malaysia (TI-M)'s Secretary-General, Jose Fernandez called for measures to have the media held responsible, following concerns that the media through its conspiracy of silence, abetted corporate corruption. It is against this backdrop that Fernandez called for a boycott of some media houses which snubbed matters of corporate corruption. Tenaganita, the Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI), TI-M, the ABU movement and the aforementioned RCI graced this occasion with their presence and efforts (Thomson, 75 and Wain, 280). The matter is not any different in Thailand. Transparency International, Thailand (TI-T) also briefs Thais (and the world) on the state of Bangkok Administration, in relation to corruption. Through the report it releases on annually, IT-T has conscientised citizens of Thailand on the need to be vigilant on corruption, participate in administrative matters of the country and to build and enhance systems by which public operations can be made accountable and transparent. On 6th December 2012, TI-T released its Corruptions Perceptions Index report that ranked Thailand number 88 out of 176 (Phongpaichit and Baker, 166). According to Thompson, the effort above by the IT-T is seen to be instrumental in dispensing socioeconomic justice in the running of Bangkok Administration. The veracity of this observation is based on the fact that ever since TI-T began releasing its Corruptions Perceptions Index on Thailand, the country has made significant improvements in the war on corruption. Fore instance, in 2001, Thailand occupied position 61 in 2001, and 64 in 2002. In 2004, it was number 64 out of 145 and in 2005 and 2006, 59 out of 159 and 63 out of 163, respectively (Thompson, 254). The developments above in Thailand and Malaysia cannot be bypassed as engagements into the abstracts of life. There cannot be any meaningful development that can take place in the absence of runaway corruption. Conversely, even developed sectors are easily ravaged by unfettered corruption into bankruptcy. Similarly, corruption is usually endemic in dictatorial systems which have only extrinsic strength but lack independence from the influence of the executives. Another way in which the civil society fosters socioeconomic development is by fostering public participation in the running of the government. In Malaysia, this has been seen by the civil society bodies' call for higher ideals in governance that are based on themes such as greater transparency, accountability, justice and less corruption. Agents of the civil society such as OHMSI, TI-M, the ABU movement and RCI have made clarion calls to the citizenry to elect political parties and candidates who favour these ideals into power. It is against this backdrop that after the 1999 elections, the Barisan Nasional committed itself to the delivery of material wellbeing of the Malays, and later called upon the Malays to vote it back in power, as a way of responding with gratitude. Particularly, it is after the Barisan Nasional came to power that ideals that the civil society envisions began to be taken seriously by the government and the public. For the first time, serious matters such as regional balance, inclusive governance and participation and meritocracy began to be followed in public and private sector recruitment drives (Thompson, 250 and Gillogy, 129, 130). The situation is not any different in Thailand whose civil society activism sprang from the 1960s and grew in the 1970s. Interestingly, with the rise of the civil society, numerous nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) such as the Thai Rural Reconstruction Movement and other volunteer movements came into existence. The Thai Rural Reconstruction Movement has played key role in ensuring that social services or public goods such as education, healthcare and proper nutrition are accessible to members of Thailand's rural areas, so that the same members can be prepared to participate in nation-building. KEPA has similarly come up with KEPA Mekong to brook successful partnerships with actors in the civil society as a way of assisting them influence development policy processes not only in Thailand, but also in the Mekong region states (Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam). This is because KEPA in Thailand is interested in ensuring development cooperation, climate justice and global economic policies Conclusion In regard to the foregoing, it is clear that the roles that the civil society plays in the ASEAN countries, particularly Thailand and Malaysia are indispensible. Although the civil society therein mostly discharges duties that are political in nature, yet the accruals therefrom are of political and socioeconomic values. The same fact underscores the reality of the terconnectedness between politics and socioeconomic development. While the absence of the civil society is usually indicative of the absence of political pluralism and stability, there can be no meaningful or sustainable socioeconomic advancement in a system where a regime is its own prefect, law giver and judge (judiciary). Works Cited Farouk, Azeem. "The Limits of Civil Society in Democratising the State." The Malaysian Case. Kajian Malaysia, 29.1 (2011); 91-109. Print Gillogy, Kathleen. "Developing the Hill Tribes of Northern Thailand," From, Christopher Duncan (Ed.) Civilising the Margins: Southeast Asian Government Policies for Development of Minorities. New York: Cornell University Press, 116-149. Print Hewison, Kevin. "Thailand Conservative Democratisation," From: Daniel Yin-wah Chu and Siu- lun, Wong (Eds.), East Asia's New Democracies, New York: Routledge, 2010, 122-140. Print Phongpaichit, Pasuk and Baker, Chris. "Managing Society" Thaksin: The Business of Politics in Thailand. Silkworm Books, 2005, 134-171. Print Thompson, Mark. "Populism and the Revival of Reform." Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 32.1 (2010); 254-260. Print Wain, Barry. Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad Turbulent Times. New York: Palgrave/ Macmillan, 2009, 279-282. Print Read More