South-East Asia Democratic Debate

First, it’s crucial to understand that democracy has different faces; the concept differs in its usage in different milieu, because to some regions of the world, it’s alien. The idiosyncratic behaviour and divergence of political actors represents a strong influence in the journey to democratic consolidation in South –East Asian. A comparative analysis of the experiences in South-East Asian, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore would be the main crux of this paper. The struggle of the civil society and political parties would be a source of inspiration to the explanation of the democratic deficit.The paper seeks to provide different answers to the incessant questions on South-East Asian democracy, the questions stems from the strength or weakness of democracy in South-East Asian countries? Is it a success or failure or what are the hopeful positions in the practice of democracy? A forecast into the future of South-East Asian polity.

A strive between Western ideologies and regional beliefs in Asia ensues in this debate, it goes to show the globalization of all helms and affairs of the globe. The question still remains, can the entire globe embrace the current global currency; democracy?At what pace and the efficacy in practice? The crucial element of discuss in this paper is linked to theoretical submissions and the real life experiences in Thailand and Malaysia. This paves way for the reaction of social contract theory to the management of the state. That evil existed in man ,is a construct of the cruciality of the social contract, that man is born free but every where he is in chains is a categorical explanation of alienation and the means of managing the state, if it gives liberty or constraint. (Baker&Phongpaichit 135-138 ) .In Thaskins sense of reasoning and argument, he often mentions the people, which normally should be a central point and ingredient in a democratic parlance.

The contrasts between Thaskin sense of analysing the social contract theory and the Buddhadhasa lies in their clinging to human beings as a source of social contract why in practice human beings remain passive in decision making and freedom is restricted. The pure or virile sense of the social contract therefore lies in a state that has liberty alongside the ethos of democracy. (Ibid)The use of theories and academic submissions by politicians are majorly to suit their heinous crimes and authoritarian exploits as experienced under Thaskin, in developing countries this is always the case, good theories and concepts are turned into a hoax. The case of the South –East Asian Countries is not far from the aforementioned.

The categorisation of the system of governance is a problem here, as basic status and institutions to point to democracy are either suspended or restricted. This shapes the discussion into another aspect of the argument.On the way to democratisation or the so called semi democratisation, should there be always impediments such as that of Malaysia and Thailand. The question is that can the South –East Asian region, with the further integration and globalisation of the West keep up to the needs of democratisation and Liberalism. The operationalization of the civil society into the framework of democratic sustainability is hard to define in the Malaysian case. The awareness of the civil society depicts a arousal in the need for democracy, but a repressive and restrictive.

The limitation of the press and other Non-governmental organisation points to the dark side of Asia, like the Chinese example with Tibet. Personality traits and differences, idiosyncratic behaviours are crucial in this aspect of analysis. The behavioural exhibition of Thaskin as regards foreign policy and relationship within the South –East Asian zone repels democracy, in his reaction to the UN, The United States; nationalism at the beck and call of economic competitiveness is out of the point here.Nowadays in the west, Neo-Liberalism allows for open market, so if a system is repressive then ,we have a problem of democratisation in Thailand going by the unwillingness to join and mix in the club. (Ibid) Freedom in Thailand and Asia seems to be on vacation, like we experienced during the recent case of Tibet.

The restriction of the press is a symbol of an evasive democratic tenant to cling on dictatorship. The case in Malaysia is not different from the aforementioned, democracy is still a nightmare, so the depiction of Malaysia as authoritarian and semi-democratic, is a replica of the events in Asia.Legitimacy is not borne out of the people, but out of the authoritarian cum egoistic behaviour. (Abbot 90-94) The growth of social interest groups however ,do not in a way reduce or curb the reign of authoritarian rule, the perspective of modernisation propelling forces of democratisation really seems to be out of the point in Asia, even the most developed ,prosperous in terms of trade is lagging behind in terms of democratic ethos ,i. e. China .

The argument at this point is what are the reasons behind the inability of Liberalisation to break the embers of authoritarian rule as experienced in Asia.The trend of political freedom moved from bad to worse, as freedom was restricted in organizing political rallies in 2000, arresting activist and students. (ibid) The other part that played, a real significance in the survival of freedom is the communication highways, the internet giving as many chances to the expression of the political thoughts of those restricted by the repressive regimes. In Thailand, press freedom and freedom in general was restricted, campaigns were banned, showing the dictatorial regimes in South-East Asia.The scope of freedom was however been curtailed, as the government wanted to be involved in the private life’s of its citizenry, especially the youths, through diverse policies ,the government of Thansik tried to deprive the youths of their freedom to choose the choice of their personal actions.

The pushing aside of top academia and bastardization of the academia ,was another area where ,a democratic deficit could be seen ,his declaration or utterance that the members of the academia disclose the irrelevance of that sector of the country to the polity ,and the undemocratic ideology of Thansik,as a political Icon. (Baker&Phongpaichit, 155-157).This goes to show how fragile the democratic experiment is in South-East Asia, the liberalisation of trade therefore is not a full proof of modernization in terms of government structures and institutions as witnessed in the duo comparative case, with freedom restricted, human action restricted, individuals monitored and controlled by the state in all spheres including in the internet. Much still needs to be desired in the ongoing phase of democratisation.Having, exemplified Malaysia and Thailand, a look at Singapore would suffice in this argument, but not leaving the two case studies. Malaysia seems to be the fast moving in terms of the Reformasi movement, which is widely accepted by the civil society in Malaysia.

(Weiss ,163-167). Civil society coalitions and political parties formed the basis of the democratic struggle, it should be noted that the primary force behind this was the advocacy groups and religious groups.This paves way for more active citizenry in the polity, such as GAMIS,BBMN,GMMI, ISA, without a racial configuration, this shows the weakening of the UMNO in the elections of 2008,which symbolises that more awakening and conscientization at the level of the civil society leads to the stability of the polity and democracy. The Reformasi movement gives us a picture of gender balance and activism, although a divide in the aspect of the majority Muslims and minority Christian exist, but that still undermined the powers of the UMNO.

Singapore also provides a better example of the growth of civil society in active partisan politics, the incompetence of the state to provide public goods created a virile civil society from the era of colonialism in Singapore. (Mauzy& Milne 158-159). The era of AWARENESS was hampered leading to an outburst by growing civil society groups ,such as the social-political restrictions and emigration issues, regulation of the web to mention but a few.The realization and awareness of the people makes a case for a growing democracy.

 From the following discursive analysis ,it remains vivid the path which globalization plays in the quest for freedom, liberty, it shows the elite deficiency in an authoritarian regime, it discloses the lagging behind of Thailand in the democratisation process, the rather slow movement but progressive stand of Malaysia and the growing influence of the civil society influence in Singapore.