East and Southeast Asia Political System Analysis - Thesis Example

Why are some countries in the East and Southeast Asia persistently itarian while so few are democratic? Compare and contrast two or more cases Name: Course: Tutor: Introduction East and south East Asia countries have defied the move towards global democratization. Since 1974 onset of the democratization, over eighty countries have progressed towards democratization.1 As such, most countries exercise democracy by conducting free and fair elections and expand political freedom. However, most of the countries in this region are still governed by authoritarian and semi- democratic political systems. Most of the regions non democratic governments seem to be well organized to carry this on for a life time. Thesis statement- strong economic growth and maintenance of nationalism by the government in the East and South East Asia has led to persistence authoritarian rule than exercise of democracy. This paper will focus on China’s political system which is authoritarian, Indonesia and Thailand. Democracy vs. Authoritarian If a government is to be considered democratic, it has to meet certain standards. A democracy respects freedom of speech, the media and religion. Governments do not allow absolute freedom but in the case of democracies, there is minimal censorship and the public is allowed to express its opinions. A democracy allows majority to rule and exercise rights for the minority. People accept decisions that are made by the majority for example in the elections. The minority are also given a platform to have their voices heard. Democracies also present different types of leaders from different backgrounds. Potential leaders are not from the same social classes or elite families. A democracy allows free and fair elections. It is the voters who decide who runs for public office without governments interference. Such governments follow the rule of the law. No one is above the law in a democratic country. An example of a democracy in this region is Thailand. Citizens are allowed to participate in politics.2 The government satisfies the needs of the citizens who voted them in. The extent to which the government meets the above criteria is the extent to which it can be considered democratic or not. On the other hand, an authoritarian regime consists of one ruler or a small group of elites holding real power. The citizens may participate in elections but have no voice as to how they will be ruled. They are not given a free choice rather they make decisions as to what the citizens will have and what they will not have. Citizens are not allowed to participate in governments decisions but are expected to obey the decisions the government makes. The types of leaders found in this type of government are the kings, emperors, military rulers, dictators, aristocrats or presidents. An authoritarian government does not allow freedom of speech, religion or media. The majority rights and the minority are not considered as it solely operates on the decisions made by the person or persons in power. Examples of such regimes are China and Myanmar. Thailand’s conservative democracy Thailand has had a good transition to democracy since the overthrow of its monarchy in 1932. The transition to democracy has been successful than any other country in the East and South East Asian region.3 By the end of the twentieth century, a new constitution was put in place and the military was weakened. During this time, a consolidation process towards democratization was deep and it was unlikely that the process was likely to revert. Around the time the constitution was promulgated in 1997, Thailand had failed in all aspects that describe a democracy. The country had had seven prime ministers from 1997 to 2008, a coup instigated by the military in 2006, and a constitution that was developed under the military in 2007, numerous street protests meant to overturn the results of the election and a ban on politicians and other party executives. The strong economic growth of the 1980’s and 1990’s led to rapid growth in business opportunities, employment and poverty alleviation and also social and political change. Military political domination that was experienced after the 1991 coup led to street protests in 1992 which in turn contributed to the resignation of the government following the shooting of demonstrators. It is as a result of these events that a new constitution was developed, referred to as the “people’s constitution” in 19974. The constitution provided a basis for the country to further democratize, it ensured checks and balances, encouraged political participation and clearly stipulated the rule of law therefore established a government that was stable. The 1997 constitution was as a result of political compromise. The liberals may have introduced division of power, liberties and limited powers to the document, but they made an agreement with the conservatives the monarchy and the military were not to be touched even with high hopes of the liberals to modernize. The aim of the conservatives was to develop a regime that was seen as democratic while at the same time letting the ruling class maintain control over the people and the state. The outcome of this compromise by the liberal-conservative amounted to a serious economic down turn. Politics contributed largely to the economic crisis in Thailand.5 The people experienced bankruptcies, unemployment and poverty levels shot up gradually. Fear started growing among the elites about potential social chaos. This led to a serious campaign against the government that was started by the King, business men, intellectuals, the opposition, Non Governmental organization heads and other workers. They accused the government of ruining the economy, giving up sovereignty over economic policies and selling off assets to outsiders. Thai Rak Thai (TRT) emerged as the savior of the business elite. The looming social conflict allowed the conservative to rally behind TRT. This constitution was thrown out by the coup in 2006. Some scholars posit that the making of the constitution is a source of political conflict. The making of the constitution in Thailand was a preserve of the dominating parties and the elites in the military who put their interests first. Through the leadership of Thaksin, who was the leader of the TRT, the elites and liberal conservatives opposed the government and agreed that the constitution needed to be changed. As such, they offered support to the 2006 coup as a means of achieving their objectives. The end result was a regressive constitution that weakened the executive. Power making decisions were transferred to the bureaucracy and un elected bodies such as the un-fully appointed senate and the judiciary. It also strengthened the military’s role and the budget. Thaksin’s regime after the coup, Peoples Power party’s success was seen as a rebuke of the groups that supported the coup. The party developed a comfortable majority in parliament with a coalition of other smaller parties. This left the democrats as the opposition. The judiciary’s remarkable interventions in the political struggles in Thailand were boosted when the King asked the courts to solve problems created in the 2006 elections. The PAD had hopes that the King would throw out Thaskin and appoint his own government and a new prime minister. The king rejected this as he deemed it undemocratic. However, he declared the period following the coup as a political crisis and announced they had to come up with ways to resolve the situation. The journey of Thailand to democratization has been met with several challenges. The political uprising in 1992 led to diminution of military domination in the political system. One of the main outcomes of this uprising was the constitution in 1997 which resulted to a liberal-conservative alliance.6 This compromise formed during a political and economic crisis led to the formation of a government that was quite popular led by Thaskin Shinawatra. Later the political compromise and the constitution were rejected. The objective was re-establishing a regime that had elections and recognized political parties but where the conservatives’ interests dominated where the military maintains political order and the monarchy as the main symbol of loyalty. Indonesia Indonesia initially looked like an unlikely country to democratize. The country faced a few challenges from different spoilers. The first group was the strong military that played a crucial role in the politics of the country. The strong military was born during the reign of President Suharto from 1967-1998.7 The military was seen as Suharto’s successor. The second group that acted as a hindrance was the local actors who fuelled ethnicity, separatists and religious violence which promoted a serious crisis in the nation. The third group was the Islamists who became more aggressive. Some of them campaigned to turn the country in to an Islamic nation or amend the constitution to allow Islamic law to be obeyed by all. Years later, the transition to democracy began. The country has acquired ways to deal with the above mentioned challenges in an effort to become a democracy. The military has withdrawn from having control over the political system, community conflicts have significantly reduced and the separatist groups have been awarded peace deals. Most of the Islamist forces have been assimilated into mainstream politics with only a very small percentage remaining. The solving of these crises has led to more pronounced civic liberties, establishment of a pluralistic and thriving media.8 The country also holds free and fair multi-party elections. Indonesia democratic success in just one decade serves as a lesson for those other countries that are transitioning from authoritarian regimes to become democracies. Unlike in Thailand where the opposers have somewhat been left out of the picture, Indonesia has absorbed its opposers in to the main stream politics. As such, Indonesia has produced a trade-off between the success and the quality of the democracy. This has served as a great tool to the success of the democracy. It can be argued that Suharto’s Authoritarian regime also contributed to the first steps of democratic transition since he only ruled partly through coercion. He also allowed political and social forces as long as they did not challenge the government directly. There was also a system of patronage distribution by the leaders who held sizable social constituencies such as religious leaders who had a significant number of followers. This resulted to rampant semi-opposition. This background played a role in the road to democracy. Most of the politicians and leaders who participated in the transition to democracy were either participants or members of the semi-opposition during Suharto’s reign. Indonesia was privileged to have a president who values his reputation and the public as a democrat few years later after the overthrowing of Suharto. Therefore he did not attempt to undermine the achievements of the country as a democracy. 9The country also enjoyed stable economic growth after the end of authoritarianism which aided greatly in its stabilization. Suharto’s regime was overthrown due to corruption charges, nepotism and collusion. These patterns of behavior are still present in the existing government. These could have long term negative consequences for the democracy as poor governance is the key to reverting to authoritarian systems. As such, until the government plays a better role in ending such challenges, Indonesia is still not out of the woods yet. The Chinese Authoritarian government Mao Zedong was a powerful man who left behind a legacy in the Peoples Republic of china. He led a movement that brought strong central authority in a country that had been undergoing social and political crisis for many decades. He proved what he asserted that the people of China stand up in the international arena.10 Today, the communist’s main agenda is to remain in power and avoid liberalization as much as possible. Protest against pre-democracy began in 1989 in Beijing where the citizens complained about graft and the special privileges directed towards the party’s elites. They protested against forced socialism when the elite linked to the party were seen to practice capitalism freely. Today the Chinese Communist Party (CPP) has developed popularity in that it has delivered a staggering economic growth as well as nationalism among its people. The material success and foreign currency holdings as seen in the cities is enough proof that the government is concerned with the economic growth of the country. However, the gradual economic growth has not led to the government to change its stand towards maintaining authoritarianism. One party rule still persists in China. China has acquired a modern approach to the authoritarian rule through a fashionable adaptation of the system which includes leveraging of its market to maintain political control. CPP has continually used a sophisticated method to maintain control of the population. Despite the party’s contribution to the growth of the economy, majority of the wealth is still controlled by the wealthy class of business leaders whom have embraced authoritarian rule in order to remain wealthy in exchange. This type of group joins the rulers in suppressing the rights of the ordinary citizens rather than forming a middle class that is likely to challenge the government. The party also has a strategy of stocking and shaping Chinese nationalism. As such, the Chinese feel proud of the government’s model of authoritarian rule especially as modern liberal capitalism staggers due to global financial crisis. The CPP continues its popularity through “thought work technique” dating back to Mao’s era. This technique focuses on political issues that are crucial to the party’s rule. The activities involved include outright censorship, the government tries to instill its views that it favors through the media, business leaders and opinionated people in the society. This technique is crucial for the continued survival of the authoritarian government. However, many still have complaints about how the government handles the economy, environment and the political system. This is evident in the rural areas. The government counters this by letting the citizens know that the central government remains clean, that all the challenges encountered are as a result of the uninformed or corruptible local authorities. The central government absolves itself from blame. The other way is that the government brings in distractions to the citizens who are demanding for their rights by offering propaganda such as the success in sporting activities or other countries achievements. The CCPP’s strategy of disrupting and distraction has aided the party greatly in maintaining rapid control especially in seasons of rapid change.11 The government has also translated its success at home in to a nationwide achievement by the Chinas authoritarian method slowly gaining popularity from governments such as Syria and Vietnam. The Chinese regime continuously seeks methods of maintaining power while at the same time growing the economy. Average citizens are prone to this propaganda in which the Chinese offers aid and investments without any strings attached. Conclusion Research shows that the longer the country practices democracy, the less likely it is to go back to authoritarianism. However, fully fledged democracies take a long time to mature while the young democracies are vulnerable in their first years towards the transition. They can go back to authoritarianism easily or result to chaos. Many of the world’s oldest democracies have remained stagnant in matters economy while some of the authoritarian governments such as China have continued to deliver impressive results to the people without necessarily resulting to elections.12 Many of the already established democracies are setting a bad precedent for the young developing democracies. The economic crisis has continued to polarize democracies especially in the west. Many are unable to effectively manage their budgets and leaders are unable to come together in an effort to safeguard their future. While this happens, Asian authoritarianism has continuously gained traction among those who are examining alternatives. As much as these governments are riddled with corruption allegations, few can deny the success of Chinas socialism. A large percentage of the Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty by the socialist system. Singapore is also a great example of a successful authoritarian regime. It portrays that a developing country can do better by choosing one strong man to lead rather than submitting to the whims of those democratically elected. There is substantial evidence in East and south Asia that authoritarianism in deed works. The first steps of Japan towards success were achieved through a totalitarian regime before it became a democracy. Taiwan and Korea experienced growth through authoritarian regimes before transitioning in to democracies. Singapore has also gained tremendous economic growth without embracing democracy. There are many reasons that can be argued against autocratic regimes. It is however important to consider the positive reasons such governments have to remain in power especially the continuous economic crisis. Democracies are faced with the challenge of showing what will emerge through transitioning from an authoritarian political system to a democracy improves the living standards of the people, raising income and alleviating poverty. Bibliography Hewison, Kevin. Political change in Thailand: democracy and participation. London: Routledge. 1997. Pp 123-137. Mc Cargo, Duncan. The Pacific Review, Vol. 18 No. 4 December 2005: 499–519. Mc Vey, Ruth. Nationalism, Revolution, And organization in Indonesian communism. Making Indonesia.1996. Pp 96-117. Edward Aspinall. The irony of success. Journal of Democracy. Volume 21, Number 2 April 2010.Pp 20-30. Dreyer. T, June. The communist road to power in modernization and tradition. 3rd edition. Pp 63-80. Courtois, Stéphane, and Mark Kramer. The black book of communism: crimes, terror, repression. Cambridge, Mass; London, England: Harvard University Press, 2004. Pp 457-463. Links http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/blackbookcommunism.pdf The journal of democracy is in your files that you provided in the drop box. The irony of success- Edward Aspinall. (Sorry I had not cited it properly). Kindly ignore the citations on the first draft as this is the reviewed document with the correct citations, the ones you provided in the drop box account. Thank you. You are welcome to contact me in case of any clarifications. Read More