Common sense says that the two groups should work in tandem to promote a discussion, which would represent the first-ever pan-Southeast Asian conversation on common and shared challenges.

Apparently, however, ASEAN leaders live in an alternative reality like other politicians recently elected in Washington DC. The Southeast Asian leaders do not see the need to engage the citizens, especially the youths, in a serious debate.

This is why it is frankly disappointing to see Malaysia, the current chair of ASEAN, rushing to launch the so-called ASEAN Community Vision 2045 in May, as recently stated by Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan at the Dewan Rakyat, the lower house of the Parliament.

How is it possible that a visionary leader like Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim does not understand the urgency of involving the people of the region before finalizing Vision 2045?

Let’s ask ourselves a simple question.

As it is now, considering what’s happening around the world, taking into account the sensitive and extremely complex times we are living in, does the current draft of Vision 2045 offer the best chance for the people of the region to thrive in the next decades?

The truth is that there has been no meaningful conversation about Vision 2045.

ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute might have missed something in designing its “Youth and Civic Engagement: A Survey of Six Southeast Asian Countries” launched at the end of January.

From one point of view, it is good that it focused on issues related to the political systems of the region. The positive news is that most young people in the region agree that democracy is the best political system of governance.

In Malaysia, 65 percent of respondents agree that “democracy is the best system of governance available”, followed closely by 52 percent of Singaporean youth and 50 percent of Thai youth, the survey found.

Sure, there are some caveats. In countries like Singapore and Thailand, the respondents “are also inclined to accept the conditional acceptance of non-democratic governance”.

Moreover, a significant number of Indonesian and Filipino youth are skeptical of democracy, however, this should not be read as a condemnation of democratic principles and values, but rather the opposite. We are seeing the #IndonesiaGelap (Dark Indonesia) movement in Indonesia whereby the youth are showing their indignation at the approach being taken by President Prabowo Subianto. Young people do not want less democracy, rather, they want more.

It is just that frustration with the overall system is now boiling, and youths, like many other members of society, are starting to be fed up with the way the democracy is working.

But the survey missed an opportunity. Why not ask participants in this exercise more "pan-ASEAN" questions directly related to better understand what youth think about the regional bloc? Then, why not make a real effort at the ASEAN level to listen to and engage with young people?

Lest we forget, Vision 2045, like ASEAN itself, is supposed to meet and serve the needs of Southeast Asian citizens.

The disappointment is not only with PM Anwar, but also with the Secretariat of ASEAN. No one, unfortunately, would expect ASEAN Secretary-General Kao Kim Hourn to raise the alarm about the rampant human rights abuses in his own country, Cambodia, where activists and journalists are silenced.

Yet, he could have at least tried to “spice up” the process of preparation of this strategic document with a more bottom-up and democratic attitude.

How many universities, for example, were involved and facilitated discussions about Vision 2045?

I wish I could roam around shopping malls and streets of Southeast Asia’s major cities and ask youths what the phrase “Vision 2045” brings to their minds.

How would they respond? How many of them would show knowledge about the upcoming strategy? It seems to be due to a lack of information and transparency to track what’s going on in ASEAN that Feb. 7 was the last major meeting about Vision 2045. Manila hosted the discussions of the High-Level Task Force on the ASEAN Community Vision 2045 (HLTF-ACV 2045).

The meeting also highlighted the need to create a communication plan to socialize the ASEAN Community Vision 2045 to the peoples of ASEAN.

Previously, the regional meeting on Vision 2045 occurred in Vietnam in November last year, but it was neither interactive nor inclusive, let alone participatory.

The daunting challenges facing ASEAN and the whole world require much bigger interactions between policymakers and citizens. The citizens should be involved in such a way that they can become, through reasoned deliberation, policymakers themselves or at least contribute significantly to the policymaking process.

So far, PM Anwar has not shown much vision for ASEAN. He and his senior advisor, former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, should prioritize solving the Myanmar crisis. They should also talk about trade and find a way to arrange another ASEAN-United States summit.

If they want to be remembered as truly visionary leaders, they should be more serious in talking about the future of ASEAN.

Will ASEAN in 2045 have a real parliament? Will the bloc have a secretariat that acts like a real executive center of delegated power? Will ASEAN in 2045 have a real regional court? Anwar and Thaksin should have answers to these tough questions.

Here is another set of questions, which are easier to settle. First, will Vision 2045 explain why the youths of the region should care about ASEAN? Second, why should youths believe in this regional organization? Lastly, why should they work hard to secure a shared and common future for themselves and the next generations?

The only good thing PM Anwar can do is to postpone the release of the Vision 2045 strategy. Instead, he can help young people of the region understand what they would lose if they give up their hopes in the regional bloc.

***

The writer is a freelance columnist focusing on human rights, regional integration and youth in Asia.