Three new leaders have
risen to power in Southeast Asia since 2014: Thailand’s Prayut Chan-o-cha,
Indonesia’s Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, and Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi.
In some ways, the three could not be more different.
Prayut
was the army chief who led a coup and established
a new government in Thailand. Jokowi was an ordinary entrepreneur who became
mayor of Solo, governor of Jakarta, and president of Indonesia despite having
no ties with either the military or Suharto. Suu Kyi is a democracy icon who
led her party to victory in the 2015
election.
The three
of them emerged victorious by campaigning for genuine reform in their
respective countries. Suu Kyi fought long and hard in order to defeat the
military-backed party in Myanmar; Jokowi mobilized a young constituency to
displace the old order in Indonesia; and Prayut invoked the violent conflict
between Thailand’s major political parties to justify the imposition of martial
law in the country.
Jokowi’s
quick ascension to the presidency boosted Indonesian
democracy, while Suu Kyi’s electoral victory assured Myanmar’s transition to
modern democracy would continue. Meanwhile, though Prayut’s usurpation of
civilian power was condemned by many, some also acknowledged that his new
government successfully ended the vicious street clashes in Bangkok and other
urban centers in Thailand.
Jokowi
and Suu Kyi captured the aspirations of their people to strengthen
representative democracy, while Prayut symbolized the lingering influence of
authoritarianism in the region. If asked to choose, pro-democracy forces would
certainly prefer to replicate the strategies of Jokowi and Suu Kyi in order to
end one-party dominance in Cambodia, Vietnam, Singapore, and Malaysia. Indeed,
opposition parties in the region briefly appeared to be headed toward clinching
political victory in 2014 and 2015 but the rebellion in the ballots didn’t
happen as expected. Perhaps it will take more time before a strong democracy
movement can emerge and gain power in these countries.
In the
meantime, the Prayut way of politics continues to hold sway in Thailand. Here
is a self-proclaimed ‘non-politician’ politician who held on to power by
ignoring the democratic process. He presents himself as a reformer who rejects
the detested methods of bureaucratic politics. He offers quick (albeit
extra-legal) solutions to fix what is wrong in society. Being mocked by the
Western media for his politically-incorrect antics has only provoked him to
make more offensive remarks in public.
Jokowi’s
style is also unusual, though not nearly as crude. Suu Kyi is also
non-traditional but not controversial. It is no surprise that unlike Jokowi and
Suu Kyi, Prayut is widely condemned outside Thailand.
However,
some of Prayut’s methods and manners are surprisingly gaining traction in the
region. In the Philippines, a leading presidential candidate is called “Dirty Harry” because
of his threat to wipe out criminals by executing them. Like Prayut, he is
described as a non-politician who is ready to overhaul society even if his
means are questionable or even unconstitutional. In Malaysia, the beleaguered
ruling party has enforced draconian
measures to silence critics and the opposition. In Cambodia, opposition leaders
are harassed by no less
than the prime minister.
It is not
like Prayut has suddenly become the model of effective leadership. Rather, his
methods are becoming less aberrant as more leaders in the region, both elected
and unelected, downplay their public adherence to ethics, dialogue, democratic
principles, and rule of law. This is a dangerous trend because it misleads
people to think that human rights can be abused and democratic traditions can
be ignored to allow the leader or the state to build a better nation more
effectively. While many in the region wanted their leaders to be like Jokowi
and Suu Kyi, the specter of Prayut is too strong to ignore.
Prayut
took control when traditional politicians in Thailand failed miserably to
uphold civility. The lesson here is that non-politicians like Prayut will always
find the mandate to lead when there is a visible breakdown of political order
and a subsequent yearning for substantial social change. Sometimes, the
situation will produce a Jokowi or a Suu Kyi heroic icon. But there’s always
the unfortunate chance that a Prayut figure will rise to grab power.
Jokowi,
Suu Kyi, and Prayut are three Southeast Asian leaders that have captured our
attention since 2014. Of the three, I fear it is Prayut who will have a greater
(though quieter) influence in the region. Though Prayut himself may eventually
be discredited, his methods will remain relevant, especially in a region
desperately seeking stability.
The
challenge is to aggressively promote democratic practices and support
progressive movements so that we can prevent the emergence of little and big
despots. When there’s real or imagined disintegration of societies, we need to
prove that there’s an alternative to governments enforcing blind conformity and
discipline. The alternative is what leaders like Prayut aim to subvert:
democracy. By Mong Palatino
No comments:
Post a Comment