the failure of democracy in postwar southeast asia

8/17/2019 The failure of democracy in postwar Southeast Asia

1/5

H2 HISTORY YEAR 5 TERM 1 ASSIGNMENT

Samuel Ho

Why did democracy fail in the early independence period for some Southeast Asian countries

but not others?

During the early independence period, leaders and masses would participate in the Southeast

Asian democracies that emerged out of the colonial era like never before. Yet, many of these

democracies would come to fail, such as Indonesia, Burma and hailand, while others would

remain remarkably resilient, such as !alaya and Singapore, although all share many of the

same problems. "hat differentiates the two clusters are the prevalence of democratic

behavior to address disunity, the resulting degree of alienation fringe political groups faced,

the nature of civil#military relations, as well as the prevailing economic conditions.

Democracies fail when disagreeing political groups do not possess democratic behaviours

towards resolving conflicts. "hen colonial powers failed to sufficiently prepare their sub$ects

for democratic behaviours, political groups will be inclined towards resolving their

differences outside of the democratic structure, instead resorting to radical measures that

fundamentally destabili%e democracy. In Indonesia, strict prewar Dutch suppression of native

political activity from organisations like the &'I, as well as the war waged against the

Indonesians to retain their colonies after the Second "orld "ar meant, meant that Indonesians

had little e(perience of compromise within a democratic system. "hile Sukarno would spend

much effort balancing power between ma$or rival groups such as the Army and the

)ommunists, their disagreements would ultimately erupt in the *estapu, which saw the

purging, outlawing and massacre of &+I members, and the forcible removal of Sukarno. his

showed that the right represented by the conservative Army- and the left represented by the

&+I- were only able to resolve their differences through the use of force, and simply

overlooked the democratic standard of compromise, leading Indonesia into a period of


2/5

ma(imum government under *eneral Suharto. Similarly, the Burmese were rapidly given

independence by the British under the guise of a united government under Aung San, and

were therefore provided with little preparation for democratic behaviours. "hile the national

figure of Aung San was temporarily able to broker an agreement between the dominant

Bamar and ethnic minorities at the &anglong )onference, this agreement rapidly disintegrated

into ethnic insurgencies against the civilian government, proving that ethnic divisions could

not be overcome by democratic processes since the capacity for democratic behaviours did

not e(ist in Burma. )onversely, Singapore shows an e(ample where democracy ultimately

succeeded due to a continued respect for democratic processes. nder the British, gradual

constitutional development entrenched a respect for constitutional norms and prepared party

leaders for the standards of democratic contestation. he challenge of Barisan Sosialis to the

&A& government illustrates this point well. "hile the Barisan Sosialis wielded mass political

power like the &A& did not / the Barisan controlling 012 of organi%ed labour and 32 labour

unions / this pro#communist movement which would most definitely have moved towards

ma(imum government- was careful to continually respect Singapore4s democratic standards.

his they did by trying to pit the &A& and the Assembly against 5ee +uan Yew, instead of

using unconstitutional means. herefore, political instability did not erupt and democracy did

not fail in Singapore. hese two e(amples illustrate the importance of democratic behaviours

in order to sustain a democratic structure of governance.

Democracies are also prone to fail when fringe political groups feel alienated from

mainstream politics and are able to galvani%e a significant part of the population against the

political establishment. "hen this happens, democracies are illegitimi%ed by such groups as

they refuse to take part in the mainstream democratic process, since such groups, pushed so

far to the fringe, can only imagine a %ero#sum solution to their alienation / the demolishing of

democracy and institutionali%ation of a political system favourable to their cause. hailand

provides a good e(ample for this. In the prewar period, the constitutional revolution saw

&ridi4s government sidelining royalists who lost their power. In the postwar period, &ridi4s


3/5

government likewise saw the marginali%ation of &hibun4s militarists by purging them from the

army. hese alienated groups / both with significant organi%ational strength / would

ultimately $oin forces following the confusion proceeding from the assassination of +ing

Ananda !ahidol, as the royalists laid the blame with &ridi, providing a $ustification for the

militarists to stage a coup and gain control of the government, leading to the eventual

consolidation of military rule under &hibun. he speed at which a legitimately elected civilian

government was swept away in favour of a ma(imum military government is testimony to

how alienated fringe groups if left un6uelled- play a role in bringing an end to democracies.

he alienation of political groups from the mainstream can also lead to them taking radical

action outside of mainstream politics, providing a $ustification for armed parties to re#imposed

order. he alienated ethnic and communist groups in Burma mounted a widespread

insurgency which provided a $ustification for the Burmese Army to stage a coup on a severely

weak civilian government in order to re#impose order. )omparatively, !alaya, despite facing

a considerable challenge from the !)& disrupting the !alayan economy and society, still

managed to ensure the survival of its democracy. his is due to the fact that the fringe !)&

was actively prevented from gaining a significant following within elite circles or masses by

the British and !alayan administrations. )rucially, the moderate !)A was groomed and

engaged with by both administrations, ensuring that the )hinese population in !alaya would

not be inclined to $oin the ranks of the !)&, denying the !)& of its main following. his

subse6uently allowed the communists to be regarded as a genuine national threat that the state

could bring its full weight down upon. herefore, !alayan democracy survived its biggest

e(istential threat. hese two e(amples show how crucial addressing alienated fringe groups

within a democracy is to ensuring its survival.

Another crucial factor in determining the survival of democracy is the nature of civil#military

relations. A military submissive to a constitutionally legitimate civilian government will tend

to perpetuate the democratic nature of the civilian government, while a military with more

legitimacy than a civilian government will tend to result in a drift towards ma(imum


4/5

government and the suspension of democracy. he former is illustrated by !alaya and

Singapore, in which the military did not e(ist before the civilian government. he military is

therefore de facto submissive towards the will of the civilian government. As a result, the

militaries of these countries did not ever stage a coup, which would have seen the suspension

of democracy. his stands in stark comparison to Burma. he Burmese Army saw a stretch of

activity prior to independence, having aided the 7apanese drive out the British, and in turn

aided the Allied forces in driving out the 7apanese. In comparison, the post#independence

civilian government 6uickly fell into disunity following the death of Aung San as the

compromises between the A8&85 and other ethnic minorities unraveled. he civilian

government, helpless in suppressing the ethnic rebels who controlled one#tenth of the country

by 9:;0, was swiftly deposed by a coup led by 'e "in and the military the very moment

'u resigned as party chief. he comparative legitimacy of the military provided a $ustification

for a transition towards ma(imum government in Burma, and therefore, the suspension of

democracy.

9. Similarly, in Indonesia, the

destruction of plantations, factories and transport infrastructure during the evolution, in

addition to the weakness of the indigenous business class meant that economic recovery was

sluggish. hese discontents led to regional rebellions, which provided Sukarno with an

opportunity to institute ?*uided Democracy@ in Indonesia In comparison, the !alaysian and

Singaporean tigers have seen rapid economic development and a resulting improvement of

social conditions, leading to a significant lack of mass discontent or disorder. here is


5/5

continued trust in the civilian government to efficiently facilitate economic development, and

therefore there has been no reason for ma(imum governments to be instituted, ensuring the

survival of democracies in these countries.

"hile these factors are all significant, it would be too premature to say that they are all

significant in the same way, or that one is more important that the rest. "e might view it as

such the lack of democratic behaviour leads to political instability arising from groups

alienated from mainstream politics in the civilian sphere. "hen a more legitimate military

alternative is present in the realm of politics, economic grievances provides the trigger for

mainstream politics, now seen to be ineffectual, to be suspended with the force of the military

/ thereby leading to the failure of democracy.

the failure of democracy in postwar southeast asia

Documents