Democratic government is not suited to SEA.

Discuss with reference to the

newly-independent states of SEA.
Democratic government refers to a western concept of democratic political
system which may be the British style parliamentary liberal democratic
system or the US-style presidential system.
Due to the unfamiliarity and inability of most Southeast Asian government in
modifying the democratic system that was suitable for the region,
democratic government was not compatible for the Southeast Asian
countries, making it not a preferable system for the prominent leaders of the
immediate post-independence time to adopt. While, western democratic
government is essentially not matching with the deep-seated traditional
culture and traits of the Southeast Asian countries, this essay seeks to argue
that given enough time, it may have been able to gradually take root in
Southeast Asia.
Due to the long establishment of an authoritarian leadership and
government in the Southeast Asian, most leaders of the post-independence
Southeast Asian countries were unaccustomed to the western-style
democratic system, making it unsuitable for the Southeast Asia countries.
For e.g, in Siam, despite the creation of constitutional government, Siam was
essentially a one-party state led by the Peoples Party since 1932. Due to the
overwhelming majority of uneducated peasants which formed the Thai
population, Peoples Party had no interest in introducing truly representative
institutions. People would not attend rallies and demonstrations unless
ordered to do so by their traditional patrons, while electoral participation was
extremely low at fewer than 10% in the first parliamentary elections held in
Nov 1933. Likewise in Indonesia, the establishment of parliamentary
democracy after the achievement of independence in 1945 was an uphill
task because what the Indonesians inherited from the Dutch and the
Japanese were traditions, assumptions and legal structures of a police state.
Meanwhile, vast majority of the population were too poor and uneducated
such that there was an absence of pressure for the politicians in Jakarta to
account their performance publicly. Hence, the predisposition of Southeast
Asian countries towards authoritarian renders western democracy an
incompatible system to the region.
The prominence of the military as an independent political actor also madeit
hard for a system that requires a domesticated military under the charge of
civilian leadership to take root in Southeast Asia, making Western-style
democratic government incompatible with Southeast Asia countries. For e.g
in Indonesia, seeing itself as a guardian of Indonesian independence, the
military had scant regard for the corrupt and incompetent civilian
government. As such, when the civilian government tried to control military
affairs, it provoked the response of the military central command under
Nasution and Simatupang to push for military professionalism and the

institutionalization of clear hierarchical structures, which would lead to the

re-emergence of the military as a powerful and united political force to
challenge the civilian government by the late 1950s. Likewise in Burma, the
Burmese army enjoyed high prestige and popular support in the country due
to its prominent role in the liberation of Burma as part of the Thirty
Comrades and later the Burma National Army. Being the only political
institution that was able to place the national interests before sectional ones
and to bring about the much needed political stability, the military was able
to offer itself as an alternative to the corrupt and inept civilian government.
In October 1958 when U Nu asked General Ne Win to form a caretaker
government to restore order so that a climate of confidence could be created
for elections to be held, it became even clearer that the survival of
parliamentary democracy in Burma relied on the support of the military. As
such, the inability of the civilian government to gain control over the military
mean that democratic government was not suitable for Southeast Asia.
Ineffectiveness of civilian leadership in democratic government further
undermined the credibility of democracy, lending credence to the view that
democratic government is not suited to Southeast Asian countries.For
example in Burma, united only temporarily by the common quest for
independence, the AFPL lacked cohesion and was essentially an alliance of
various mass organizations, ethnic groups, independent individuals and at
least one political party, each with its own interests and bases of loyalties. In
1958 when AFPFL was split into two factions under U Nu and Thakin Tin in an
attempt to make AFPFL more cohesive, the parliamentary majority dropped
so much for U Nu that a civil war almost broke out. Likewise in Indonesia,
after the 1955 general election where PNI won 22% of the votes, Masuyami
won 21%, NU won 18%, PKI won 16% and the rest by 79 other political
parties, the coalition government was thrown into a political deadlock as no
party obtained a clear majority. The government was so extensively
fragmented that it was unable to create consensus in Indonesian society
itself, and created difficulty in implementing policies. Just over question of
whether Indonesias new state structure should be based on Sukarnos
Pancasila or the creation of an Islamic state, there were strong differences
among the political parties. Incessant bickering among the political parties
prevented the effective tacking of pressing problems confronting ordinary
Indonesians and hence undermined the credibility of western democracy.
However, the initial flourishing of democratic Southeast Asian government in
the early years of independenceis a sign the democracy might have been
able to take root in the region, contrary to the claim that democratic
government is not suited to Southeast Asia. For example in Indonesia, in
spite of the chaotic conditions in the aftermath of the two Dutch Police
Actionsin 1947 and 1949, Republic of the United States of Indonesia (RUSI)
was set up in 1949 with Sukarno as the President and Mohammad Hatta as
the Vice-President. In 1950 the passing of the Provision Constitution

entrenched the parliamentary system by preparing for the election of a

Constituent Assembly that would work out a permanent constitutional
structure. The fact that 91.5% of the registered voters voted at the free and
unfettered General elections in 1955 is a sign that the system was working.
Likewise in Burma, U Nu became the Burmese Prime Minister and President
of the AFPFL when independence was achieved in January 1948. When the
British gave independence to Burma, it was based on a constitution for
independent Burma which provided for a parliamentary democratic system
with the cabinet system, holding of elections and based on rule of law.
During the period from 1948 to 1960, 5 free and fair general elections were
conducted with the active participation of the electorate. As such, contrary to
claim, early developments after independence hinted at the possibility for
western democracy to take root in the region.
Western democratic system was not entirely unsuitable because
modifications of western-style democratic government to suit Southeast
Asias unique context could help make the democratic political system more
sustainable. For example in Thailand, western democracy managed to
survive longer with the intervention of the King, military and civilian
government. In March 1933 when the National Economic Plan which was
widely perceived to be communist in nature was drafted, it was through the
help of the king which held high prestige in the country that the plan was
denounced. In 1933 when Phraya Mano was advancing his power beyond the
checks of the country, it was the military who staged a coup that overthrew
the government and handed power back to the civilian government so as to
allow the democratic system to continue to last for another 5 years. Likewise
in Indonesia, by rejecting the proliferation of political parties that was
encouraged under the western style system and consolidating the parties
into 3 main parties, by consolidating the parties into 3main partiesGolkar,
Suhartos own political electoral vehicle, the non-Islamic Indonesian
Democracy Party (PPP) and the non-Islamic Indonesian Democracy Party (PPI)
and by holding free elections every 5years, western democratic system
survived longer and stability was achievevd. Hence with modifications,
democratic government is not entirely unsuitable to Southeast Asia.
In conclusion, western democratic government, which at its very core calls
for a need to at least have the existence of a prevailing majority, was
unsuitable for a region that is so diverse. Coupled with the existence of a
long-drawn authoritarian culture, soft authoritarianism was by far the closest
the countries could have gotten to adopt a democratic system. The very fact
that the time was needed and modifications had to be made proves that
western democratic system is initially unsuitable to Southeast Asia in the
early years of independence but granted enough time they may be able to
embrace it as seen in the case of Singapore and Malaysia.