While there is a general shift away from authoritarianism and toward more political freedoms, the Figure 10.18 map shows the wide variation in political freedoms in the region. Some people argue that authoritarianism has deep cultural roots in Southeast Asia and should be given greater respect. Others see a certain amount of authoritarianism as necessary to control corruption and political violence. Still others argue that respect for political freedoms is more likely to expose corruption and transform militant movements into peaceful political parties.

Some Southeast Asian leaders, such as Singapore’s former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, have said that Asian values are not compatible with Western ideas of democracy and political freedom. Yew asserts that Asian values are grounded in the Confucian view that individuals should be submissive to authority; therefore Asian countries should avoid the highly contentious public debate of open electoral politics. Nevertheless, when confronted with governments that abuse their power, people throughout Southeast Asia have not submitted but rebelled (see Figure 10.18A, B). Even in Singapore, the Western-educated son of Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong, who is now prime minister, has expressed more interest in the growth of political freedoms than his father did.

429

430

While authoritarianism seems to be giving way to more political freedom, this process is often complicated by corruption and violent state repression of political movements. For example, after being plagued with a long line of dictators, the Philippines has now elected governments that have resolved some significant problems. However, militants in the southern islands continue an insurgency that periodically devolves into violence (see Figure 10.18C).

Thailand, long regarded as the most stable democracy in the region, is now dealing with deep divisions between those who favor authoritarianism (including many among the economic elite and the military) and those who are part of or support the large populist political movement. In 2006, the military took over Thailand’s government after a corrupt but charismatic prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, was implicated in several scandals. Despite recent elections, the matter remains unresolved. Shinawatra is in exile in Europe and his many supporters periodically take over the streets of Bangkok. In 2011, Shinawatra’s sister, Yingluck, was elected prime minister, with overwhelming support from her brother’s supporters. In 2014, she was removed from power by Thailand’s Constitutional Court, after which the military seized control of the government.

Other countries are also struggling to find a balance between meeting demands for more political freedoms and relying on authoritarianism to create stability. Cambodia’s democracy is precarious, and violence there is common. The wealthier and usually stable countries of Malaysia and Singapore continue to use authoritarian versions of democracy that impose severe limitations on freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

When more democratically oriented governments fail to keep the peace, authoritarianism, often backed by a strong military, is seen as a justified counterforce to “too much” democracy. In virtually every country, the military has been called on to restore civil calm after periods of civil disorder. Military rank is highly regarded and many top elected officials have had military careers.

Authoritarian rule remains firmly entrenched in some countries such as Burma where numerous regional ethnic minorities and pro-democracy movements have been repressed with an iron fist for decades. Nevertheless, a gradual expansion of political freedoms is now taking place in Burma, as evidenced by the recent freeing of political prisoners, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, and a reduction in restrictions on the press.

Little political reform is occurring in Laos and Vietnam (see Figure 10.18D), where authoritarian socialist regimes have a firm grip on power, or in Brunei, which is governed by an authoritarian sultanate. For these and other reasons, authoritarianism is likely to remain a powerful force in the politics of this region for some time.

While the countries of the region are unlikely to go to war against each other, they are keeping an eye on China, given its recent interest in the South China Sea. Newly discovered oil resources there, as well as fishing resources and vital shipping routes, have resulted in competing territorial claims by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Most countries have recently invested heavily in military equipment, primarily from Europe and the United States. In the midst of this buildup, countries with no claims on the South China Sea are arming themselves. In recent years, tiny, wealthy, trade-centered Singapore has spent one quarter of its GDP on weapons. It has the largest military budget in the region and now produces armored troop carriers for use at home and for export.

All Southeast Asian countries have diverse multicultural populations that at times come into conflict with each other. Efforts to resolve differences take many forms, both peaceful and violent. Much attention is now focused on Indonesia as it works to find peaceful political solutions to ethnic conflicts.

An important but still tentative shift toward democracy took place in Indonesia in the wake of the economic crisis of the late 1990s. After three decades of semi-dictatorial rule by President Suharto, the economic crisis spurred massive demonstrations that forced Suharto to resign. Since then, democratic parliamentary and presidential elections have brought a new political era to the country.

Indonesia is the largest country in Southeast Asia and the most fragmented—physically, culturally, and politically. It is comprised of more than 17,000 islands (3000 of which are inhabited), stretching over 3000 miles (8000 kilometers) of ocean. It is also the most culturally diverse, with hundreds of ethnic groups and multiple religions. Although Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, there are also many Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and followers of various local religions and spiritual traditions. With all these potentially divisive forces, many wonder whether this multi-island country of 250 million might be headed for political disintegration.

Until the end of World War II, Indonesia was a loose assembly of distinct island cultures that Dutch colonists managed to hold together as the Dutch East Indies. When Indonesia became an independent country in 1945, its first president, Sukarno, hoped to forge a new nation out of these many parts, founded on a fairly strong communist ideology. To that end, he articulated a national philosophy known as Pancasila, which was aimed at holding the disparate nation together, primarily through nationalism and concepts of religious tolerance.

In 1965, during the height of the Cold War, Suharto, a staunchly anti-Communist general in the Indonesian army, ousted Sukarno in a coup and ruled the country for another 33 years. It is now clear that Suharto’s regime was responsible for a purge of suspected Communists, during which as many as a million people were killed.

Despite his abrupt removal from office, Sukarno’s unifying idea of Pancasila endures as a central theme of life in Indonesia (and less formally throughout the region). Pancasila embraces five precepts: belief in God, and the observance of conformity, corporatism (often defined as “organic social solidarity with the state”), consensus, and harmony. These last four precepts could be interpreted as discouraging dissent or even loyal opposition, and they seem to require a perpetual stance of boosterism. Pancasila has been criticized by some Indonesians as being too secular, while others see it as not going far enough to protect the freedom of people to believe in multiple deities, as Indonesia’s many Hindus do, or freedom to not believe in any deity at all. Some praise Pancasila’s other precepts for counteracting the extreme ethnic diversity and geographic dispersion of the country, while others say that the precepts have had a chilling effect on participatory democracy and on criticism of the government, the president, and the army.

431

The first orderly democratic change of government in Indonesia did not take place until national elections in 2004. Since then, there have been several peaceful elections, and the government is stable enough to allow citizens to publicly protest some policies. But corruption remains a threat that encourages feelings of nostalgia for the Suharto model of authoritarian government.

Separatist movements have sprouted in four distinct areas in recent years, demonstrating Indonesia’s fragility. The only rebellion to succeed was in Timor-Leste, which became an independent country in 2002. However, its case is unique in that this area was under Portuguese control until 1975, when it was forcibly integrated into Indonesia. Two other separatist movements (in the Molucca Islands and in West Papua; see Figure 10.18B) developed largely in response to Indonesia’s forced resettlement schemes. Also known as transmigration schemes, these programs have relocated approximately 20 million people from crowded islands such as Java to less densely settled islands since 1965. The policies were originally initiated under the Dutch in 1905 to relieve crowding and provide agricultural labor for plantations in thinly populated areas. After independence, Indonesia used resettlement schemes both to remove troublesome people and to bring outlying areas under closer control of the central government in Jakarta. Resettlement schemes continue today, though at a much smaller scale of roughly 60,000 people per year.

The far-western province of Aceh, in the north of Sumatra, has long been troubled by political violence. However, recent expansions of political freedoms in Aceh may have charted a course to peace. Conflicts there originally developed because most of the wealth yielded by Aceh’s resources, primarily revenues from oil extraction, was going to the central government in Jakarta. The Acehnese people protested what they saw as the expropriation of oil without compensation, and Jakarta sent the military to silence them. Many who spoke out against the military presence were accused of terrorism and arrested, jailed, forced into hiding, or killed. The conflict seemed unresolvable. Then in 2004, the earthquake and tsunami in Aceh, which killed more than 170,000 Acehnese, suddenly brought many outside disaster relief workers to Sumatra because the Indonesian government was unable to give sufficient aid to the victims. Global press coverage of the relief effort mentioned the recent political violence; this created a powerful incentive for separatists and the government to cooperate in order to receive outside aid. A resulting peace accord signed in 2005 brought many former combatants into the political process as democratically elected local leaders. Virtually all the separatists laid down their arms.

Terrorism, Politics, and Economic Issues Like authoritarianism, terrorism has been a counterforce to political freedoms in this region. Terrorist violence short-circuits the public debate that is at the heart of democratic processes and appears to reinforce the need for repressive authoritarian measures. However, it is important to recognize that terrorist movements often thrive in the context of both economic deprivation and political repression, two factors that are often interrelated. As is the case in the southern Philippines (see Figure 10.18C), terrorism seems to draw support from people who feel shut out of opportunities for economic advancement. The peaceful solution to terrorism seems to be to listen to both the political and economic desires of those who might be attracted to terrorism.

225. TERROR AND ISLAMIC STRUGGLE IN INDONESIA

232. VIOLENCE IN THAILAND’S MUSLIM SOUTH INTENSIFIES