Ups and Downs on East Asia's Democratic Journey
International Herald Tribune
January 3, 2001
Philip Bowring

It has been three years since a wave of political change hit East Asia after the region's economic crisis. What, if any, common lessons about democracy, good government and constitutional development have been learned since Indonesia's President Suharto was peacefully overthrown, South Korea elected the veteran oppositionist Kim Dae Jung as president, Thailand acquired a new constitution and government, and the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim sent Malaysian politics into uncharted territory?

The most difficult questions revolve around separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial) and decentralization of authority in democratic systems. Are they a benefit or a recipe for anarchy?

In theory, separation of powers should mean reducing the prospect of abuse of power, and decentralization should improve accountability and curb centrifugal tendencies by accommodating regional interests. Reality is different.

In Indonesia, the president has immense power in theory, but in practice his executive authority has been undermined by pro-Suharto elements within the military and the bureaucracy. That is a product of circumstance. However, separation of powers could be blamed for President Abdurrahman Wahid's difficulty in pushing badly needed legislation through a fragmented legislature, and for his inability to reform the judiciary and central bank.

Decentralization has just begun, but Indonesia is ill-prepared. It has a mixed record in other large countries such as Brazil and India. Indonesians wonder why Western countries plead the need for local control of natural resources when they do not practice it at home.

Without decentralization, Indonesia may be in danger either of falling apart or of being returned to the Suharto system of authoritarian control. But decentralization may make local corruption worse, increase environmental damage and exacerbate communal tensions.

Thailand has few ethnic and religious or regional problems. Its parties are as fragmented as Indonesia's but the coalition-building necessary in a multiparty parliamentary system has proved reasonably effective. The weakness of the executive is partly offset by a moderately competent bureaucracy. But Thailand has yet to show that either democracy or bureaucracy has reasserted itself over business interests keen to see their debts acquired by the state.

In Malaysia the parliamentary system has been scant brake on the autocratic instincts of Mahathir bin Mohamad and on the cronyism embedded in a political structure so long dominated by his party. Malayia's federal system, with the opposition in power in some states, has helped keep pluralism alive, even though the price in terms of illiberal state laws and rape of the forests has been high.

Malaysia's courts and civil servants still have a better reputation than most in Southeast Asia. They would respond to a change of leadership.

South Korea has shown how a strong, elected executive presidency backed by a strong (Japanese-model) bureaucracy can make change happen. Separation of powers has not been a major hindrance to President Kim, although his party has never had a majority in the legislature.

However, it is possible that in future there will be conflict in Seoul between the directly elected president and the legislature, as now exists in Taiwan and the Philippines, highlighted by the impeachment processes. In all three countries, because there is no runoff between the top two candidates presidents have been elected on minority votes, which weakens their moral authority.

South Korea has been toying with moving to a parliamentary system to reduce the tendency of executive presidents to abuse power. The Philippines considered this, too, after Ferdinand Marcos. But there seems little public pressure for it. Most citizens find it easier to identify with personalities, not parties. Other than the monarchies (Japan, Thailand, Malaysia) the only country in East Asia witha nonexecutive head of state is ex-British Singapore.

The U.S.-style systems in the Philippines and South Korea have roots in local political culture. In the U.S. tradition, popular participation in government at the lowest levels was the norm, government authority was suspect and the legal system enjoyed immense prestige. Asian antecedents are feudalism, colonialism and authoritarian Confucian bureaucracy.

It is not surprising that Asia is finding it hard to produce elected governments that are effective, representative of often racially divided societies and moderated by legal systems which are respected. But overall there is progress.

Copyright © 2006 the International Herald Tribune