|
NIKKEI ASIAN REVIEW
Southeast Asians will regret giving up
political rights for affluence
Young people offer best hope of
challenging region's Faustian bargain Miguel Syjuco The Association of Southeast Asian Nations sees
itself as a model of diversity, with coexisting cultures, religions and
systems of government. It certainly offers abundant economic opportunity.
But the space is narrowing for those who seek political pluralism in
Southeast Asia. Amid political backsliding in various countries, it
seems time to ask whether the region is trapped in a Faustian bargain,
in which citizen enfranchisement and human rights have been traded for
growing affluence. ASEAN was established in 1967 as a bulwark against
authoritarianism in the form of communism. The organization never proved
a bastion of democracy, although it briefly exemplified popular demand
for it. Strongmen leaders such as Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines
and Suharto in Indonesia were ousted relatively peacefully, while
neighboring countries held elections that suggested stability, and at
least paid lip service toward representation and equal rights. Nowadays, the 10-member organization seems the face
of what the American political scientist Larry Diamond has called a
"democratic recession" sweeping the world. Seven ASEAN countries are
ruled by dictators, military juntas, monarchs, communist regimes or
dominant single parties that for decades have manipulated democratic
processes. In Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines democracy
survives, but precariously. Under President Joko Widodo, Indonesia has
politicized religion and curbed freedom of assembly. The Philippines, my
home country, has for generations been ruled by a dictatorship of
dynasties -- a network of families that control most government
positions. Malaysia is currently the best example of pluralism,
following an unlikely election victory over Prime Minister Najib Razak's
autocratic government. But the winning coalition succeeded only by
uniting behind Mahathir Mohamad, a 93-year-old former strongman once
known for nationalism, muzzling the media and jailing opponents. Malaysia seems to prove the adage that democracy is
the worst form of government except for all the others -- its unique
advantage is its ability to remove abusive or incompetent rulers
peacefully. Perhaps it is that threat that has led ASEAN
leaders to attack systems of accountability, such as independent courts,
which protect individuals against abuses of power. Such safeguards are
cast as Western imperialism and inconvenient hindrances, and are "always
the antithesis to government," as Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte
has put it. This spirit was evident at the World Economic Forum
meeting on ASEAN in Hanoi in September, when regional leaders took turns
in touting their countries' economic successes and celebrating the new
world order. Cambodian strongman Hun Sen invoked ASEAN's founding
principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of member
countries, defending the communist and military regimes of Cambodia,
Myanmar, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. "The countries that do not know our
countries," he said, "please leave us to solve our problems for
ourselves." It is odd, though, how an insistence on
independence and sovereignty is often justified by a shared narrative
that highlights the successes of a few effective, benevolent autocrats
while ignoring many incompetent and corrupt failures. Singapore, for example, is often touted by Filipino
politicians as an inspiration, offering apparent support for the myth
that good governance requires strongman control of independent
institutions. But the success of Lee Kuan Yew, independent Singapore's
much-lauded first prime minister, was founded on making good policy
choices not on authoritarianism. The economic success of the tiny country --
population just under 6 million -- allows rulers of neighboring
countries with populations up to 40 times larger to justify
authoritarian government, even though such comparisons are
apples-to-oranges or perhaps lychees-to-durians. But the city-state's
narrative is seductive. Filipino friends in Singapore, part of its vast
foundation of migrant labor, shrug gratefully. "It just works," they
say, as if that is sufficient. Nowadays, performance seem to prove legitimacy. And
ASEAN is performing legitimately well, with economic growth expected to
average 5.2% a year from 2018 to 2022, according to a 2018 report on
Southeast Asia, China and India published by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development. As prosperity grows, acceptance of authoritarian
populism is deepening among the rising middle class. This is
understandable given the middle tier's long exclusion from state
institutions and its sense of insecurity. When everyday life seems
better than ever, it appears rational to forgive the state, especially
for sins committed against other people. But history -- including in ASEAN -- warns that
autocratic rule ultimately proves clumsy. Performance always floats on
the economic tides. When the sea gets choppy, strongmen veer toward
unsustainable policies, leading to unrest and ousters -- sometimes
violent -- by opportunistic new leaders. Already, we are seeing power centralized in the
hands of the few. Minorities suffer exclusion by incumbent majorities.
Opposition is cast as destabilizing. Ethnic groups meet violence in the
name of security. Women and sexual minorities are oppressed. Citizens
are condemned without due process or killed without trial. Media is
censored or shuttered. Dissent is suppressed -- online by trolls, and
offline by force. And we should remember that economic development is
not the monopoly of Singapore. In the last few decades the Philippines,
Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia all grew rapidly under flawed but
legitimate democracies. Surrendering present political rights for
promises of prosperity may prove a bribe that people will regret
accepting. We should support and emulate the diverse groups of
young individuals and organized communities that are challenging, in
their own ways, the authoritarian vision of our elderly autocrats. The
Indonesian Solidarity Party, or the Filipino students protesting against
historical revisionism by the Marcos family, are good examples. The
progress of such groups will be the bellwether of long-term stability. ASEAN's motto is: "One vision, one identity, one
community." Have these words been hijacked by those who rule? Can
individuals take back the initiative and speak out for political
pluralism? The answers to such hard questions often sit, mute,
between the lines. At the WEF forum in Vietnam, my panel on pluralism
featured diverse participants, suggesting that the ideal is alive and
well. However, the host government had barred entry to two invited human
rights experts. One was to have joined our panel. His absence spoke
louder than our words. Miguel
Syjuco is an assistant professor at New York University Abu Dhabi and
the author of the novel "Ilustrado." |