Pinoy Kasi -- Southeast Asia's Strongmen (1) (November 4, 2003)

Previous Articles

04 November 2003

Southeast Asia's Strongmen

Lee, Sukarno, Suharto, Mahathir and Ferdinand Marcos all criticized "Western" democracy as being inappropriate for Asians. Each proposed his own alternative to Western systems, but all were authoritarian.

The founding members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations were Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei and Thailand. These countries were described as being part of the "Free World," choosing to be pro-Western and capitalist. "Pro-Western" has been equated with "democratic," but the reality is that the Southeast Asian countries were in fact ruled, at one time or another, by strongmen. I will explain, shortly, why I've collapsed the two words into one.

Brunei is a bit out of the ASEAN mold, with a sultanate that has never had pretensions about democratic rule. The other countries all claim to be electoral multi-party democracies but each has had its share of dictators and authoritarian leaders, complete with predictable elections where the ruling party would garner all the votes.

Thailand had several despotic generals but none stayed in power beyond 10 years. I will write more about the more durable of these strongmen, the last of whom was Mahathir Mohamad, who retired last Saturday after 22 years as prime minister of Malaysia. That's a long time, but really about the average for the region's authoritarian leaders.

The shortest authoritarian experiment was that of our own Ferdinand Marcos, who was president for 21 years, from 1965 to 1986. Sukarno, founder of Indonesia, was Indonesia's head of state from the declaration of independence in 1945 to 1968, or 23 years. The last two years of Sukarno's presidency were really more symbolic, the power having passed on to Suharto, who had been appointed "temporary" president in 1966. That temporary presidency stretched on till 1998, for a total of 32 years.

Suharto was in power only slightly longer than Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore's prime minister from 1959 (he was only 35 years old then) till 1990, for a total of 31 years. Lee Kuan Yew continues to sit in Singapore's cabinet as senior minister and to speak out on many national issues. Mahathir will, no doubt, take on a similar role in Malaysian politics.

These strongmen's terms spanned an entire generation, yet many Asians, including Filipinos, will argue that you need these strongmen in power for that long a period to be able to bring about changes. Strongman politics has in fact been the norm in the region for the longest time, a characteristic of tribal and feudal societies. Even before Western colonizers came into the region, we had datus, sultans and kings, ruling with absolute power and often using the full coercive force of warriors and soldiers.

In the post-colonial context, some of these strongmen had to rule over large countries, often artificially stitched together by the Western colonizing powers. If you think the Philippines is geographically and ethnically fragmented, you should look at Indonesia, the world's fourth largest country in terms of population, with some 300 ethnic groups spread out over 12,000 islands. Malaysia and Singapore had much smaller populations but faced additional problems of multi-racial tensions. Singapore, with a predominantly ethnic Chinese population, was in fact the product of secession from Malaysia.

Lee, Sukarno, Suharto, Mahathir and Ferdinand Marcos all criticized "Western" democracy as being inappropriate for Asians. Each proposed his own alternative to Western systems, but all were authoritarian. Sukarno had his "guided democracy," Suharto had his "New Order" and Marcos had his "revolution from the center," claiming to offer a middle way between "rightists" (the traditional oligarchy) and the "leftists" (the communists).

All these leaders convinced citizens to accept dictatorial rule by arguing that modernization and development were not possible without sacrificing civil liberties. National security was invoked, usually by pointing to the threat of communist insurgencies, to impose draconian laws, ranging from media censorship to internal security laws that allowed arrests and prolonged detention without formal charges.

Singapore went even further, launching experiments in social engineering, passing laws, rules and regulations that regulated every facet of its citizens' lives. There were all kinds of do and don't laws -- banning chewing gum, for example (now rescinded, I hear), as well as requiring the flushing of toilets. This Big Brother state legacy remains, with the government still playing an important role in everyday life, all the way up to launching campaigns urging Singaporeans to smile more.

Southeast Asians joke about Singapore as antiseptic and dour. My favorite joke is the one about Singapore's dogs running across the border into Malaysia just to be able to bark. But many also ask why other countries couldn't have imitated Lee Kuan Yew to develop. In the Philippines, a variation on this wistful thinking is that Marcos could have been as successful as Lee Kuan Yew in nation-building if it had not been for his greedy wife.

Such speculation only underscores the need to look more closely into the different experiences we've had with authoritarianism in the region and figure out just how much strongman rule actually contributed to development. That's what I'll tackle on Thursday.