[Kabar-indonesia] AT: Understanding Asian Democracy [+Myanmar Lashes Out at US; Thailand]

[JoyoNews at aol.com]

also: Myanmar lashes out at US as charter talks resume;
and No end to Thailand's martial law just yet

Asia Times
Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Understanding Asian-Style Democracy 

By Michael Vatikiotis 

SINGAPORE - Thailand's September 19 military coup has revived a long-dormant 
debate about the suitability of Western-style liberal democracy in Asia. The 
coup, subsequent imposition of martial law and the suspension of civil 
liberties in Thailand has prompted many Western officials and commentators to decry an 
apparent reversal in political development toward a full-blown liberal 
democracy. Washington has described the coup as a "U-turn". 

More conservative political actors in Southeast Asia meanwhile  rushed to 
describe liberal democracy as a cumbersome obstacle to reliable government and 
social stability, even as they lamented the coup. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee 
Hsien Loong said: "Western-style democracy has not always delivered stable, 
legitimate and effective government." Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla 
told a Washington audience at the end of September that democracy was bad for 
stability. 

Even respected Western-educated intellectuals such as Indonesian Defense 
Minister Juwono Sudharsono drew salutary lessons from the Thai coup. In an 
interview with the local media, he stressed the apparent popular support for the Thai 
military's intervention. "Maybe this is a lesson for our politicians here," 
he said. "Stop bickering, squabbling, money politics, otherwise sooner or later 
our military might intervene on behalf of the people who are yearning for 
some degree of decisiveness and consistency." 

Indeed, if you join the dots on Asia's contemporary political map, the 
emerging pattern is one of rising popular concern about corruption and honesty and 
people willing to short-circuit legal process - even at the risk of their 
freedom - to remove bad or divisive leaders. The reason the majority of urban Thais 
welcomed the military's suspension of democracy is that the government of 
prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was considered corrupt and intolerant of 
dissent. The same concern for probity explains why crowds as large as 300,000 people 
have sat in the rain outside the office of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian 
in a bid to oust him from office over corruption charges. 

Popular impatience

What then does this popular impatience with due process say about freedom and 
democracy in Asia ? 

First of all, it suggests that legitimacy is not about ballots and numbers 
but about moral authority. In the absence of strong and fair courts of law, 
people judge their leaders according to their moral standing; you lose that and 
you lose your mandate. You will be challenged in the street because you cannot 
be challenged fairly in court or removed by your peers. People mistrust 
institutions such as courts and parliament because there is the perception that those 
with power and money can subvert them. Freedom is not yet perceived to be 
guaranteed by institutions of law. 

The people of Bangkok welcomed the tanks with roses, even though in the 
process of removing the government the army abrogated the most liberal constitution 
the Thais have ever had. That's because the constitution, liberal as it was, 
had not been implemented properly. Few of the mechanisms built into the 
charter to check the abuse of power worked. 

Fear and insecurity were other major reasons people supported this coup. 
Thaksin was defiant in the face of popular protests. He hid behind alleged plots 
to assassinate him and veiled threats of violence. A growing number of Thais 
feared the possibility of a society torn apart and divided, leading to violence. 
The army was seen as protecting freedom. 

All this leads us to consider whether freedom has its limits in an Asian 
context: Are people content with leadership that can be trusted - and by the same 
token, discontented when it cannot? Although it was fashionable in the 1990s 
for some Asian intellectuals and politicians to argue that people were willing 
to trade individual freedom for economic prosperity under enlightened 
leadership, events at the end of the decade, most notably in Indonesia, suggested that 
individuals value their freedom and understand the value of their vote. 

There was no question that Indonesians with little or no education living in 
remote villages at the back end of Java knew what they were voting for two 
years ago when they voted for the first time in direct presidential elections. It 
is wrong to suggest that ordinary citizens will put primordial ties of 
religion and ethnicity before anything else when they vote for leadership if their 
sense of national identity is strong enough. The lesson: don't question the 
understanding and desire for freedom even at the lowest levels of traditional 
society. 

However, the reality today, reinforced by efforts in two emerging 
democracies, Thailand and Taiwan, to overthrow legitimately elected governments is that 
freedom is still viewed subjectively - meaning that it is not a zero-sum game. 
People will tolerate the suspension of freedoms to gain in other areas such as 
security, clearing up corruption, and national unity. Notably, the majority 
of the millions who voted in Indonesia's 2004 presidential elections were 
under-educated and living in rural areas; those who supported the Thai coup and who 
want to oust a democratically elected leader in Taiwan are urban and 
educated. 

The lesson from all this is to accept that democracy is imperfect but 
necessary. Democracy's institutional weaknesses in the Asian context leave the door 
open to its subversion in the interests of equally basic elements of governance 
such as honesty, transparency and security. Confusing oscillation between 
demands for democracy and equally strident demands for honesty and stability 
doesn't mean that Asians want less freedom; it just shows that they won't be 
fooled. 

Michael Vatikiotis is senior visiting research fellow at the Institute of 
Southeast Asian Studies and former editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review. 

----------------------------------------

AFP, October 10, 2006

Myanmar lashes out at US as charter talks resume

Myanmar's military rulers have lashed out at the United States as they opened 
a new round of constitutional talks, blaming Washington for hauling their 
nation before the UN Security Council.

The junta's number four man, Lieutenant General Thein Sein, opened the talks 
saying the US argument for UN action on Myanmar was based "on fabrications of 
anti-government destructive elements".

He accused the United States of manipulating other Council members through 
political and economic pressure so that they would agree to take up the case of 
Myanmar, which Washington accuses of gross human rights abuses that threaten 
regional stability.

"The misuse of the world's esteemed UN organization ... by applying 
inappropriate influence upon UNSC member countries is indeed a blatant breach of the UN 
charter," Thein Sein said.

The talks, which the generals have held intermittently for 13 years but have 
never seen fit to complete, opened less than two weeks after the UN Security 
Council held discussions on Myanmar, with Washington pushing for a resolution 
to force the generals to reform.

But instead of bowing to the pressure, the junta has cracked down on 
pro-democracy activists, arresting six of them in the last two weeks.

Thein Sein accused anti-government groups of having "the evil intention of 
grabbing power through the downfall of the ruling government" by attempting "to 
incite mass protests".

Unlike past crackdowns, the latest arrests have sparked a rare show of public 
discontent as activists launched a petition campaign to urge the release of 
all political prisoners, including detained Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

Organizers say 120,000 people have already signed the petition, which they 
plan to continue pushing for another two weeks. The signature campaign is 
believed to be largest show of protest in a decade, since the government crushed 
small student protests in 1996.

Myanmar analyst Aung Naing Oo said the petition has taken off in part because 
the activists felt the UN was watching them.

"They see they are not alone, and the world's highest body is watching, the 
UN Security Council is watching," he said.

But some fear North Korea's nuclear test Monday may have cut the junta a 
break by abruptly shifting the UN's attention away from Myanmar.

UN deputy secretary general Ibrahim Gambari is due to visit Myanmar next 
month, his second trip this year, to again press for democratic reforms and for 
Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom.

Thailand-based Myanmar analyst Win Min worried that if North Korea's nuclear 
program still dominates the world's attention when Gambari returns, Myanmar's 
troubles could be overshadowed.

"We have to worry that it won't be resolved soon and that the UN will be 
busy," Win Min said.

"In that case, in the region Burma will not be the priority," he said, 
referring to the country by its previous name.

So far, the junta has shown no signs of changing course because of the UN 
pressure.

They say the National Convention is the first of seven steps on a "road map" 
to democracy, and that during the next three months, the 1,075 handpicked 
delegates will hold closed-door talks on key issues such as the role of political 
parties and eventual elections.

Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) is boycotting the 
talks in protest at her continued house arrest, leading western countries to 
condemn the talks as a farce.

Few expect that any real discussion will take place at the convention, which 
is held far from the public eye at a remote, resort-like military compound 
replete with a cinema and driving range.

The military, which has ruled Myanmar since 1962, is believed to already have 
the outlines of how a new constitution would look.

Almost no one believes a new charter would allow Aung San Suu Kyi to contest 
any election organized by the military, which has never recognized her party's 
landslide victory in 1990 polls.

-----------------------------------------

AFP, October 10, 2006

No end to Thailand's martial law just yet

Thailand's military-installed premier Surayud Chulanont has said that his 
cabinet wanted to lift martial law as soon as possible but that the new ruling 
junta had to be consulted first.

Surayud did not indicate Tuesday when his fledgling government would meet 
with the Council for National Security, the junta headed by General Sonthi 
Boonyaratglin that seized power in a bloodless coup last month.

"Although the government is fully concerned over people's rights and 
freedoms, it would take some time for the situation to ease up," Surayud said after 
chairing the first meeting of the new cabinet sworn in on Monday.

"However, we will consider the lifting of martial law as soon as possible," 
he said.

Sonthi said that the military would not oppose the lifting of martial law if 
the security situation was stable, but warned there could be consequences if 
that happened before the country was ready.

"Martial law so far has not had any adverse affect on people's daily life," 
he said, adding that he had assigned security agencies to investigate the 
current situation and would discuss the matter with Surayud.

The junta, which has promised elections for October 2007, declared martial 
law a day after ousting prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra on September 19. It 
also banned public rallies and slapped restrictions on the media.

The moves prompted international pressure, particularly from the United 
States, for the new government to lift martial law and restore full civil liberties 
as soon as possible.

Thirapat Sereerangsan, newly appointed as minister attached to the Prime 
Minister's Office, said the government would prepare a white paper to explain the 
political situation.

"Martial law will be one of the topics in the book," he said.

Thirapat confirmed that many "concerned parties" were calling on the 
government to abolish martial law, but said the security situation was still unstable.

"The prime minister clarified with his cabinet that even though we have to 
respond to the demand of lifting martial law, we have to also consider national 
security," he said.

James Klein, the Asia Foundation's country representative in Thailand, told 
AFP that he did not envisage martial law being lifted any time soon.

"I would imagine they will give this cabinet a month to settle down and then 
if the situation seems to be OK they probably will," he said.

"But with the proviso, of course, that they have the power to immediately 
reapply it at any time."

A new constitution, unveiled by the junta earlier this month, gives the 
military broad powers over the government, including the right to sack the new 
premier.

------------------------------------------ 
Joyo Indonesia News Service
------------------------------------------ 


------------------------------------------ 
Joyo Indonesia News Service
------------------------------------------