Editorial: ASEAN regimes

Thu, 07/17/2008 10:10 AM | Opinion

"If you pursue stability first before democracy," United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice once remarked, "you end up losing both."

Rice may not be the most celebrated in the long list of distinguished U.S. diplomats, but she was right on this point.

As Indonesian history shows, authoritarian regimes may generate a facade of institutional stability, but this comes at the cost of growing social unrest which festers into eventual turmoil.

For the better part of 40 years, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was a caucus of dictators. Under the guise of acting for the greater good, leaders governed the region according to personal visions of righteousness.

Many succeeded in attaining lofty heights of economic development, hence providing a pretext for the end justifying the means. And even if that end fell outside certain boundaries, once it was achieved the means could still be justified.

Competitive authoritarian regimes continue to prevail in southeast Asia. And some would argue it is better to have such regimes than complete autocracy.

Perhaps this was true in the past.

Certainly it is not the future Indonesia or even, I believe, the majority of southeast Asians seeks.

We should be increasingly irritated with the amiable poses struck at regional meetings, given the necessity to work with regimes which do not trust their own people.

It is more than just about having a legitimate accountable government. It is the difference between a free society versus a society of fear.

Times change but southeast Asia remains home to unstable democracies and insulated rulers who constantly change the political parameters of what is acceptable.

Indonesia is not one to intrude in the domestic affairs and sovereignty of others, and certainly it is no benchmark of good governance.

But developments in neighboring ASEAN states shows how tenuous it is to sustain a strict adherence to the principle of complete non-interference when it begins to impact regional arrangements.

The political crisis in Thailand and the ongoing unease in Malaysia are examples of how past undemocratic practices have given rise to present-day predicaments, which in turn have a bearing on regional issues.

Government critics on Monday claimed the Malaysian parliament was under siege as entry points to the building were guarded by hundreds of security personnel as opposition parties tried to introduce a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Thailand, which will take over the rotating chairmanship of ASEAN on Thursday, is fast heading toward a domestic impasse.

Following the resignation of Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama last week, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said as a result of the political situation it would be difficult for his government to consider ASEAN agreements in the near future.

This particular development is especially disconcerting since the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting and Regional Forum will begin next week.

Issues of democratization, accountability and human rights are rising on ASEAN's agenda.

These are not political items forwarded under the graces of political leaders. On the contrary, they are the exigency of an ASEAN community.

ASEAN remains, and should be in the foreseeable future, a cornerstone of Indonesian foreign policy.

The prosperity, growth and stability of the region owes much to the work of ASEAN. But we can no longer be satisfied with the bare minimum of the absence of war.

These are some of the reasons many Indonesians are becoming increasingly impatient with ASEAN. Not because of what it has accomplished, but for it has refused thus far to do.

ASEAN states have shown an amazing capacity to resolve differences and cooperate with each other.

Sadly, they have seemingly been less willing to do so with their own people.

Comments (0) | Post comment

A | A | A |