Authoritarianism in Southeast Asia
Modern Southeast Asian countries have struggled to balance the necessity of military strength with democratic civilian leadership. In many instances Military dictatorship has prevailed and at least in the case of Burma, continues to prevail up to the present time. At some point, all Southeast Asian countries have experienced some type of authoritarian regime; however, most have evolved into more democratically liberal governments than traditionally enjoyed. The road to democratic liberalization has not been an easy one, and in the cases of Thailand and Indonesia, prolonged military dictatorships became the pre-cursors for the current democratic governments. The Philippines, while still having the authoritarian experience, was able to avoid a prolonged military regime by having more constant and direct involvement from the United States. In Thailand and Indonesia, the military was able to obtain control of its own funding which allowed the two militaries to act independent of the bureaucratic systems. In the Philippines, however, the United States became the supplier of capital, which allowed the bureaucratic system to maintain control over the military.
Thailand's geographic location had both advantages and disadvantages as it placed them directly in between two aggressive imperialist powers, France and Brittan. The advantage that Thailand had over both Vietnam and Burma was time. The Thai monarchy was able to witness the colonization of its neighbors and have an accurate amount of time to adapt enough western philosophy to remain independent. The disadvantages of this are not initially evident when looking at the Thai monarchy, but become apparent when examining the peasantry. With westernization came education. Education immensely benefited the Thai elite class with ties to the royal family because they were able to attain government positions; however the peasantry suffered as they gradually became educated and experienced a "glass ceiling" phenomenon. The result was civil unrest which lead to a military coup and the overthrow of the monarchy. As the military overthrew the monarchy they also took possession of certain key industries, which allowed them to become self-sustained. Gradually people became dissatisfied with the leadership of Phibun and Sarit was able to bring back the monarchy and use it to legitimize his military regime.
Education and class stratification also lead to the military dictatorships of Indonesia. The indigenous peoples who originally collaborated with the Dutch, the Ambonese, originally were able to fill bureaucratic positions throughout the entire colony, which greatly increased their economic opportunity. The collaborators formed a new educated elite class that with the removal of the Dutch no longer maintained legitimacy. A power vacuum ensued and the Javanese were able to take over militarily. The military seized control of all corporations previously owned by the Dutch and was able to sustain themselves financially. The availability to financial resources allowed the military in Indonesia to maintain legitimacy throughout the Suharto regime.
The Philippines is different because it had more constant and direct involvement from the United States. No one disputes the fact that Marcos was a dictator; however his regime was established more bureaucratically than militarily. The Philippines, being a former colony of the United States, allowed them to tap into the funds given from the U.S. intended to help build up their infrastructure and economy. Because the bureaucratic aspect controlled the funds that sustained the military, the bureaucracy-namely Marcos-stayed in control. Ultimately, the Marcos regime ended only when the United States asked him to step down, delegitimizing Marcos' rule, long after public support for the Filipino dictator had collapsed.
While authoritarian states in Southeast Asia are common, the Philippines are a peculiar case because they were not subjected to a lasting military dictatorship. In nearly all instances were military authoritarianism prevails, the military is a money making entity. In Thailand and Indonesia, the military owned corporations and was able to sustain itself financially and independent from the bureaucracy, eventually overthrowing the civilian governments. In Thailand the military is able to gain legitimacy from the monarchy and in Indonesia from driving out the Dutch. The Philippines is a different story because the civilian government receives legitimacy and funding from the United States. The direct involvement of the U.S. saved the Philippines from a military dictatorship, but it did not spare them from authoritarianism.
More by this Author
Picking up the book Eddie Would Go at Border's in Windward mall and looking at the cover, I assumed that the book would be all about a famous surfer and how accomplished he became and all the glitz and glamour that goes...
Throughout history and in all parts of the world there have been several times governments were overthrown. Whether the government was oppressive to its citizens economically, politically or culturally, revolutions,...