Opinion - News Analysis   

Some signs of new politics in South-East Asia

Vibrant polls in two South-East Asian states, a constant refrain about the primacy of the people and Parliament in two other countries of the region, and the Myanmar military’s old but newly nuanced resistance to democracy — these are all pointers of new politics. Possibilities of new thinking on issues of governance-politics are emerging in the region, which has often fought shy of the normal democratic discourse as wasteful political excess. A number of South -East Asian countries, however, follow the practice of just holding regular elections to choose the rulers.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who suffered a setback of a qualitative kind in the March 8 snap general election that he himself called to seek a fresh mandate, has now reconstituted his old Ministry, displaying some new thinking. On March 18, he inducted an ethnic Indian as Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, raising the prospect of translating into reality his own pre-poll idea of forming a departmental panel to safeguard the interests of the minorities.

With a core Malay-Muslim majority, Malaysia is also home to ethnic Chinese of different faiths. It has “free-thinkers” as the largest minority, and also the mainly Hindu people of Indian origin as the smaller community. Significant among the campaign themes that dominated the election were demands for a fair treatment of these minorities, especially the “poor underclass” among the ethnic Indians.

At a subtle qualitative level, opposition leaders like Anwar Ibrahim forcefully articulated the issue of moving Malaysia away from its current “race-based politics” or power-sharing bargains among the community leaders. The novel paradigm projected as a goal to work for, in this specific context, was that of Malaysia as a newly minted organic state, whose different ethnic groups would be its integral parts. Primarily, the current ground reality is that Malaysia is seen by its leaders and people as a dispensation that is a political patchwork, which consists of various ethnic groups with no great connectivity among themselves.

Unrelated to this qualitative “dream” project, Mr. Abdullah on March 19 faced a revolt in his camp, when a Minister, overlooked for the Home portfolio, quit the government and gave up his high party position too.

Mr. Anwar told The Hindu that the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), if it were to “change” some of its narrowly-defined demands, could move along on the same political wavelength as the mainstream opposition parties. Hindraf was a player on the inter-ethnic margins before and during the poll. And, Mr. Anwar said the group could be co-opted by the mainstream opposition parties to campaign for the primacy of “the rule of law,” to fight “corruption,” and to uphold the independence of the judiciary.

Two other significant trends deserve to be watched. The Democratic Action Party (DAP), an ethnic-Chinese-linked multiracial opposition outfit, has called for steps to be taken in Penang State to rescind or reform the existing pan-Malaysia policy of “affirmative action” favouring Malays in all spheres. The DAP, made famous during the campaign by leaders like Lim Kit Siang with passionate calls for politics cutting across ethnic lines, now heads the Penang government. In a pre-poll proclamation at another level, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), a Malay-centred radical outfit, had given up its long-term agenda of transforming Malaysia into an Islamic state. A cluster of coordinating national-level opposition parties, including the PAS, is now in power in five of the 13 States.

In this new political landscape, Mr. Abdullah has considered it wise to appoint an ethnic Indian member of the Senate, which is a fully nominated federal chamber, as a Deputy Minister at the national level. This new Minister belongs to Gerakan, an ethnic Chinese-linked party in the ruling coalition, and not to any outfit of Indian-origin people. Is it, then, a signal that governance-politics, cutting across racial lines instead of feeding on the ethnic identities, can become the order of the future?

In Thailand, the military establishment, which staged a coup in September 2006 and appointed a pliable “civilian government,” has now vacated the national centre-stage after the “democracy-restoring” general election of December 2007. The post-poll government, led by Samak Sundaravej, is being allowed to function freely, at least as of now. In these circumstances, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was overthrown as Prime Minister in the 2006 military coup, has returned to Thailand after ending his self-imposed exile that began as he, at the United Nations then, watched his own ouster in Bangkok on the television screen.

Mr. Thaksin’s return as a “prodigal” leader became an easy ride, if only because his one-time protégé, as Mr. Samak is known to be, assumed office as Prime Minister on the results of the “democracy-restoring” poll. Nonetheless, Mr. Samak has taken care not to withdraw the cases of alleged corruption and cronyism that the coup-masters had moved against Mr. Thaksin. His banishment from politics, also the result of the junta’s sleight of hand, stays too. Mr. Thaksin, of course, is still able to evoke popular adulation, especially among the poor. But first he needs to “clear” his name.

In this unusual ambience of openness lies the possibility of restoring the primacy of the rule of law, which the Thai coup-masters had tampered with at will by dictating their own laws and initiating legal proceedings at will.

Right there in Thailand’s neighbourhood, Myanmar, long a bastion of military rule, is still determined to prove how “sustainably” immune it is to democracy. U.N. Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari, who made little or no progress during his latest visit to Myanmar, was, in effect, told just as much. Myanmar’s junta has not taken any strategic steps away from its ostensibly innovative plans of engineering a “yes” vote in a referendum on a flawed constitutional draft and holding a follow-up poll that will keep at bay democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Philippines prides itself on its democracy that was wrested from the dictator Ferdinand Marcos in a “people power” movement. However, the current national political discourse, centred on doubts about the “legitimacy” of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s rule, is often laced with a steady flow of rumours about coup plots against her. On balance, this fluidity of politics has not quite been ruinous.

The gradual emergence of Muslim-majority Indonesia as the world’s third most-populous democracy is increasingly being recognised. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has not faced any significant challenge to his position at the helm — a fact that has allowed him to try his hand at setting Indonesia’s post-Suharto democratic house in order. However, Jakarta’s South-East Asian neighbours are still waiting for a proactive, but not unduly assertive, Indonesia on the regional stage.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

End of a farce
No time to lose
Why the West loved Yeltsin and hates Putin
President’s Rule and the Legislative Council: more clarity required
Some signs of new politics in South-East Asia
Corrections and clarifications
A clarification
Respite for Sarabjit
Diversionary tactics?
Meaning of news
Focus on forced marriages among Asian communities in the U.K.

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu