This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on January 15, 2018 - January 21, 2018

The upheavals of the last decades of the 20th century in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union gave rise to the then popular terms of glasnost and perestroika. It was then that the world started to think that a wave of democracy was sweeping the earth. A spectacular example of the transition to democracy was the case of South Africa, where there were efforts to dismantle apartheid and create a non-racial democratic system.

In our region, the Philippines made the transition to democracy in 1986 upon the ouster of president Ferdinand Marcos. In those days, there was much talk of democratisation in Indonesia and Thailand, two states in which the military have had prominent roles in the political process. More recently, the Arab world went through what came to be known as the Arab Spring, a disappointing attempt to bring about freedom and a more decent political system.

What of democracy in Southeast Asia today?

Closely related to the issue of the transition to democracy is that of leadership succession. The way in which political leaders succeed each other in office is vital to the existence of a functioning democracy. In highly authoritarian regimes, political leaders seem to be irremovable from office except through violent means. What distinguish democratic from authoritarian leaders are the norms that determine how the former come to power.

As far as the future of democracy in Southeast Asia is concerned, two points must be mentioned. One is that many cases of political succession come about as a result of force or violence. Secondly, such violence typically involves military participation and takeovers. Let us consider each of these two points.

The means of political succession in Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore are well-defined and clear-cut. In Brunei, there has been only one instance of succession where the present sultan succeeded his father to the throne. In Malaysia and Singapore, constitutional provisions for elections have consistently determined the manner of succession.

Filipinos experienced 15 years of authoritarian rule under Marcos before they revolted in February 1986 and established a functioning democracy there. The fall of Suharto about a decade later in 1998 also saw the beginnings of democracy in Indonesia where a remarkable successful transition was made. Since 1999, Indonesia has had a multi-party system. But the orderly succession of leaders via elections is not the norm in the other countries of the region.

In Thailand, succession often came about as a result of coups. In 1932, Thailand became a constitutional monarchy and the state came to be dominated by senior military officers. At the end of World War II, civilian leaders gained control of the state but became targets of a military coup in 1947. Thailand experienced a brief period of democracy when a coup in 1973 toppled the military leaders.

Following numerous assassinations, strikes and demonstrations, the military regained power by staging a coup in 1976. After the general election of March 1992, the masses protested against the installation of General Suchinda Kraprayoon. This led to the massacre of demonstrators by the military. Further mass demonstrations by members of an outraged public finally led to the toppling of the Suchinda-led military regime in May 1993. But since May 2014, Thailand has been ruled by a military junta that declared martial law and curbed democratic political participation.

Although Myanmar obtained independence in 1948, it was not until 1962 that the armed forces took over the state machinery by means of a coup d’etat. In 1974, the military handed over power to civilian leaders, who were nevertheless ex-military high-ranking officers who consolidated a one-party socialist system. In September 1988, amidst an economic crisis and mass discontent, the military stepped in and resumed state power.

For most of the post-independence period, Myanmar has been bedeviled by ethnic strife, in which the Rohingyas are said to be among the worst victims of genocide. Indeed, the United Nations has reported consistent and systematic human rights violations in the country. In 2011, the military regime was dissolved and a civilian government installed. However, human rights violations continue.

In the case of Thailand, Indonesia and Myanmar, political succession must be seen in the context of the domination of the government by the military. In these states, civilians share political power with military bureaucrats.

Political power and decision-making is located in the bureaucracy that comprises the military, the police and the civil administration. There is much less of a role played by political parties and other interest groups.

Bureaucrats participate extensively in economic activities and enter into various forms of partnership with the private sector. The military, as well as individual military personnel, have shares in both state-run and private concerns and are therefore major players in the accumulation of capital. Military bureaucrats are also very prominent in administration. In Indonesia, for example, many governmental departments, provinces and districts are headed by military men.

The role of the military in political succession and their subsequent control over the machinery of government serves to counter any democratic tendencies that may be felt in such countries. The prominence of the military in government may impose limits on democratisation if the military mentality dominates government as well.

The military mind is dogmatic and emphasises group conformity, discipline and blind acceptance of authority. The discussion of issues by the public, consideration of policy alternatives, and reflection are hallmarks of democratic societies but are at odds with organisations run along military lines.

Democratisation in Southeast Asia, therefore, will be limited to the extent that the military mentality is dominant in our lives. And we can be confident that it will continue to be dominant in the region for some time to come. Political succession has often brought military regimes to power in both countries oriented to capitalism and private enterprise such as Thailand and Indonesia, as well as the socialist developing nations of the region such as Vietnam and Myanmar.

Myanmar today has what we may term a hybrid system comprising of democracy and military rule. It is what Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, calls “democracy on a leash”. This may delay the process of genuine democratisation and also mean many more years of human rights abuses.

The next general election in Malaysia, which must take place by August, can be read as a test for democracy. Many observers expect the alleged corruption scandals involving the sovereign fund, 1Malaysia Development Bhd, to deal a big blow to the credibility and political viability of Umno, the dominant member of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.

Also potentially damaging is the case of alleged embezzlement involving the Federal Land Development Authority, a state agency established to support Malay peasants. FELDA programmes are active in constituencies that are traditionally Umno strongholds. Many would think that the allegedly dubious transfer of land deeds would become an election issue. Such would be the case in a genuine democracy.

There is no clear future for democracy in Southeast Asia. Furthermore, democracy amidst kleptocracy, poverty, underdevelopment and unrest is meaningless. In some democracies, the people are not able to vote for a better life and in some authoritarian states, people have extremely high standards of living.

Democratisation should be accompanied by economic growth, an equitable distribution of income and better social services. If democracy itself is the end and the well-being of the people secondary, there will always be an excuse for the military and other authoritarian forces to have a hand in political succession and democracy will continue to be intermittent in the region.

Syed Farid Alatas is professor of sociology at the National University of Singapore

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.