The Backdrop to the Rise of Authoritarianism in Southeast Asia
OGAWA Tadashi / Professor, Atomi University
October 8, 2020
Excessive nationalism and authoritarianism are erupting everywhere in the world. Southeast Asian countries that became democratic one after another during the 80’s and 90’s are no exceptions.
In the Philippines, “War on Drugs” by President Rodrigo Duterte has led to extra-judicial killing of numerous suspects, and the public opinions is divided over human rights and legal justice. In Thailand, the social cracks among different social strata had widened, and democracy was suspended by a coup staged by their military. Although a new constitution was created and a nationwide election was organized subsequently, such a military intervention in politics marks a twisted form of democratic restoration. As for Indonesia, although the country is maintaining its system of direct presidential elections, political exploitation of religion is becoming prominent. The National credo of the separation of religion and politics, maintained since the foundation of the country, is now undermined through election campaigns that take a hostile view of religious or ethnic minorities to win the support of predominant Muslim voters.
Behind the rise of authoritarianism in Southeast Asia lies the change in the tide of globalization. Upon the dissolution of the socialist Soviet Union after the end of the Cold War, the tide of liberal democracy and free-market economy originating in the United States were believed to overwhelm the world. However, that was not the path taken. The Neocons’ attempt to push democratization worldwide by force suffered a setback in the Middle East. Moreover, the hollowing-out of the economy and deepening wealth gap became increasingly serious in the United States, tarnishing the image of U.S. liberalism as a role model for democratization. Not only the United States but also other developed countries, including Japan, lost the vibrancy they once had.
Then China emerged as a model. The country managed to maintain its economic growth in the face of the Lehman shock and appeared to have shrewdly contained the spread of the novel coronavirus, in sharp contrast to the failure of the Western countries. Such an authoritarian approach of China is attracting the attention of autocratically minded Southeast Asian leaders as a new model of governing their countries, replacing the Western countries that are fastidious about human rights and other issues. China, too, is intent on increasing their presence in those areas through quite substantial aids and investments and cultural offensives.
There are other trends of globalization as well. For example, in Indonesia and Malaysia where the revitalization of Islam is observed, constructions of mosques and Islamic schools heavily funded by Saudi Arabia are underway, and concurrently, Wahhabism, known for its austere interpretation of Islamic doctrine, is pouring in. Wahhabism may transform traditional Southeast Asian Islam that has for long remained irenic to other religious beliefs. This Wahhabic penetration serves as a backdrop to young generations joining the I S with the aim of establishing an Islamic State in the Southeast Asia.
Another cause of the emerging authoritarianism is the information revolution. In Indonesia, for example, digitalization of the society progressed in a sweep over the past 20 years. Today, almost all adults of the country possess mobile phones and 60% of the nation is getting connected with the society via the SNS. Amid the rapid digitalization of the society, populist politicians gained opportunities to politically involve unorganized voters through the SNS, and their negative campaign started to influence the election results.
In Indonesian society, there has been an increasing emphasis placed on academic background, and the university/college enrollment rate, which was 17% in 2004, almost doubled to 36% in 2018. Although higher education is generally believed to lead to wiser judgment, it is not always true. There is an investigative report which suggest that during the presidential election campaign in 2018 to 2019 those with higher education spent more time following the SNS and believed more in fake news than workers with only junior highschool education. Information Communication Technology (ICT) was once believed to serve as a strong advantage in the democratization of Southeast Asian countries. However, its negative effect has reached a point where it can no longer be overlooked.
The rise of authoritarianism in Southeast Asia today is attributable to the “chronic illness” of democracy from within, such as the fragmentation of social strata, religious sects and ethnic groups, the rampant political corruption, and the functional failure of party politics. However, it is also true that a high sense of common good has been nurtured among the public over the past 20 years of democracy. The current global pandemic may alter the dynamics of the tug-of-war between authoritarianism and democracy, but the jury is still out on which side may win.
Tadashi Ogawa is Professor at the Department of Humanities in the Faculty of Letters, Atomi University.
In the Philippines, “War on Drugs” by President Rodrigo Duterte has led to extra-judicial killing of numerous suspects, and the public opinions is divided over human rights and legal justice. In Thailand, the social cracks among different social strata had widened, and democracy was suspended by a coup staged by their military. Although a new constitution was created and a nationwide election was organized subsequently, such a military intervention in politics marks a twisted form of democratic restoration. As for Indonesia, although the country is maintaining its system of direct presidential elections, political exploitation of religion is becoming prominent. The National credo of the separation of religion and politics, maintained since the foundation of the country, is now undermined through election campaigns that take a hostile view of religious or ethnic minorities to win the support of predominant Muslim voters.
Behind the rise of authoritarianism in Southeast Asia lies the change in the tide of globalization. Upon the dissolution of the socialist Soviet Union after the end of the Cold War, the tide of liberal democracy and free-market economy originating in the United States were believed to overwhelm the world. However, that was not the path taken. The Neocons’ attempt to push democratization worldwide by force suffered a setback in the Middle East. Moreover, the hollowing-out of the economy and deepening wealth gap became increasingly serious in the United States, tarnishing the image of U.S. liberalism as a role model for democratization. Not only the United States but also other developed countries, including Japan, lost the vibrancy they once had.
Then China emerged as a model. The country managed to maintain its economic growth in the face of the Lehman shock and appeared to have shrewdly contained the spread of the novel coronavirus, in sharp contrast to the failure of the Western countries. Such an authoritarian approach of China is attracting the attention of autocratically minded Southeast Asian leaders as a new model of governing their countries, replacing the Western countries that are fastidious about human rights and other issues. China, too, is intent on increasing their presence in those areas through quite substantial aids and investments and cultural offensives.
There are other trends of globalization as well. For example, in Indonesia and Malaysia where the revitalization of Islam is observed, constructions of mosques and Islamic schools heavily funded by Saudi Arabia are underway, and concurrently, Wahhabism, known for its austere interpretation of Islamic doctrine, is pouring in. Wahhabism may transform traditional Southeast Asian Islam that has for long remained irenic to other religious beliefs. This Wahhabic penetration serves as a backdrop to young generations joining the I S with the aim of establishing an Islamic State in the Southeast Asia.
Another cause of the emerging authoritarianism is the information revolution. In Indonesia, for example, digitalization of the society progressed in a sweep over the past 20 years. Today, almost all adults of the country possess mobile phones and 60% of the nation is getting connected with the society via the SNS. Amid the rapid digitalization of the society, populist politicians gained opportunities to politically involve unorganized voters through the SNS, and their negative campaign started to influence the election results.
In Indonesian society, there has been an increasing emphasis placed on academic background, and the university/college enrollment rate, which was 17% in 2004, almost doubled to 36% in 2018. Although higher education is generally believed to lead to wiser judgment, it is not always true. There is an investigative report which suggest that during the presidential election campaign in 2018 to 2019 those with higher education spent more time following the SNS and believed more in fake news than workers with only junior highschool education. Information Communication Technology (ICT) was once believed to serve as a strong advantage in the democratization of Southeast Asian countries. However, its negative effect has reached a point where it can no longer be overlooked.
The rise of authoritarianism in Southeast Asia today is attributable to the “chronic illness” of democracy from within, such as the fragmentation of social strata, religious sects and ethnic groups, the rampant political corruption, and the functional failure of party politics. However, it is also true that a high sense of common good has been nurtured among the public over the past 20 years of democracy. The current global pandemic may alter the dynamics of the tug-of-war between authoritarianism and democracy, but the jury is still out on which side may win.
Tadashi Ogawa is Professor at the Department of Humanities in the Faculty of Letters, Atomi University.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
東南アジアにおける権威主義台頭の背景
小川 忠 / 跡見学園女子大学教授
2020年 10月 8日
過剰なナショナリズムと権威主義が世界各地で噴出している。80年代から90年代にかけて続々と民主化した東南アジア諸国も例外ではない。
フィリピンではドウテルテ大統領の「麻薬撲滅戦争」下、多数の容疑者が超法規的に殺害されており、人権、法の正義をめぐって国民の意見が割れている。タイでは社会階層間の亀裂が強まり、軍がクーデターを起こし民主主義を停止した。その後新憲法が制定され総選挙も行われたが、軍が政治に介入するいびつな民政復帰である。インドネシアは国民の直接投票による大統領選を維持しているが、選挙において宗教や民族少数派を敵視することで多数派イスラム有権者を取り込もうとする政治の宗教利用が顕著なものとなり、建国以来の政教分離の国是が揺らいでいる。
東南アジアにおける権威主義台頭の背景には、グローバリゼーション潮流の変化がある。冷戦終結後に社会主義ソ連が消滅した時、これからは米国発のリベラルな民主主義と自由市場経済が世界を覆いつくすと考えられたが、そうはならなかった。力でもって民主化を世界に押し広げようとしたネオコンの試みは中東で挫折し、国内では経済の空洞化、貧富格差が深刻化したことによって、民主化のお手本、米国リベラリズムは色褪せたものとなってしまった。米国以外の先進国も、日本含めてかつてのような元気がない。
代わって台頭してきたのが中国である。リーマンショックをものともせず経済成長を続け、また最近では欧米の失敗をしり目に新型ウィルス感染拡大を巧みに抑え込んでいるかに見える中国の権威主義国家運営は、東南アジアの強権的指導者にとって、人権問題等で口うるさい欧米諸国に代わる国造りのモデルと映る。他方中国も多額の援助や投資、文化攻勢を通じて、この地域での影響力拡大に余念ない。
別のグローバリゼーション潮流もある。イスラム再活性化現象が顕著なインドネシアやマレーシアでは、サウジアアラビアからの潤沢な資金によってモスクやイスラム学校の建設が進むとともに、厳格なイスラム教義解釈をとるワッハーブ主義思想が流れ込んでいる。ワッハーブ主義は、他宗教に融和的な信仰を長年育んできた伝統的東南アジア・イスラムを変質させるかもしれない。ISになびき、東南アジアにイスラム国家を樹立しようという若者が出てくる背景として、ワッハーブ主義の浸透がある。
権威主義台頭のさらなる要因は、情報革命であろう。例えばインドネシアでは、この20年間に社会のデジタル化が一挙に進んだ。いまやほぼ全ての成人国民が携帯電話をもち、国民の6割がSNSを通じて社会とつながっている。急速にデジタル社会化するなか、ポピュリスト政治家はSNSを通じて未組織有権者を政治動員することが可能になり、彼らの放つネガティブキャンペーンが選挙結果を左右することになった。
ところでインドネシアでは学歴社会化も進み、高等教育就学率は2004年17％が2018年36％と倍増している。学歴が高いほど賢明な有権者と考えがちだが、必ずしもそうとも言えず、2018-19年の大統領選挙において、SNSに接する時間が長い高学歴者の方が中卒労働者よりもニセ情報を信じていたという調査報告もある。ICTは一時東南アジア民主化の強い味方と考えられたが、その弊害も見過ごせないレベルに来ているのだ。
今日の東南アジアにおける権威主義台頭は、社会階層・宗派・エスニック集団の分断、腐敗汚職の蔓延、政党政治の機能不全等、民主主義内部の慢性疾患に起因するものである。他方、20年におよぶ民主時代において高い公益意識をもった市民層が育ってきているのも、もう一つの事実だ。現在進行中のパンデミックは、権威主義VS民主勢力の綱引きの力学を変えることになるかもしれない。どちらに転ぶか、現時点で判断するのは難しい。
筆者は跡見学園女子大学人文学部教授
フィリピンではドウテルテ大統領の「麻薬撲滅戦争」下、多数の容疑者が超法規的に殺害されており、人権、法の正義をめぐって国民の意見が割れている。タイでは社会階層間の亀裂が強まり、軍がクーデターを起こし民主主義を停止した。その後新憲法が制定され総選挙も行われたが、軍が政治に介入するいびつな民政復帰である。インドネシアは国民の直接投票による大統領選を維持しているが、選挙において宗教や民族少数派を敵視することで多数派イスラム有権者を取り込もうとする政治の宗教利用が顕著なものとなり、建国以来の政教分離の国是が揺らいでいる。
東南アジアにおける権威主義台頭の背景には、グローバリゼーション潮流の変化がある。冷戦終結後に社会主義ソ連が消滅した時、これからは米国発のリベラルな民主主義と自由市場経済が世界を覆いつくすと考えられたが、そうはならなかった。力でもって民主化を世界に押し広げようとしたネオコンの試みは中東で挫折し、国内では経済の空洞化、貧富格差が深刻化したことによって、民主化のお手本、米国リベラリズムは色褪せたものとなってしまった。米国以外の先進国も、日本含めてかつてのような元気がない。
代わって台頭してきたのが中国である。リーマンショックをものともせず経済成長を続け、また最近では欧米の失敗をしり目に新型ウィルス感染拡大を巧みに抑え込んでいるかに見える中国の権威主義国家運営は、東南アジアの強権的指導者にとって、人権問題等で口うるさい欧米諸国に代わる国造りのモデルと映る。他方中国も多額の援助や投資、文化攻勢を通じて、この地域での影響力拡大に余念ない。
別のグローバリゼーション潮流もある。イスラム再活性化現象が顕著なインドネシアやマレーシアでは、サウジアアラビアからの潤沢な資金によってモスクやイスラム学校の建設が進むとともに、厳格なイスラム教義解釈をとるワッハーブ主義思想が流れ込んでいる。ワッハーブ主義は、他宗教に融和的な信仰を長年育んできた伝統的東南アジア・イスラムを変質させるかもしれない。ISになびき、東南アジアにイスラム国家を樹立しようという若者が出てくる背景として、ワッハーブ主義の浸透がある。
権威主義台頭のさらなる要因は、情報革命であろう。例えばインドネシアでは、この20年間に社会のデジタル化が一挙に進んだ。いまやほぼ全ての成人国民が携帯電話をもち、国民の6割がSNSを通じて社会とつながっている。急速にデジタル社会化するなか、ポピュリスト政治家はSNSを通じて未組織有権者を政治動員することが可能になり、彼らの放つネガティブキャンペーンが選挙結果を左右することになった。
ところでインドネシアでは学歴社会化も進み、高等教育就学率は2004年17％が2018年36％と倍増している。学歴が高いほど賢明な有権者と考えがちだが、必ずしもそうとも言えず、2018-19年の大統領選挙において、SNSに接する時間が長い高学歴者の方が中卒労働者よりもニセ情報を信じていたという調査報告もある。ICTは一時東南アジア民主化の強い味方と考えられたが、その弊害も見過ごせないレベルに来ているのだ。
今日の東南アジアにおける権威主義台頭は、社会階層・宗派・エスニック集団の分断、腐敗汚職の蔓延、政党政治の機能不全等、民主主義内部の慢性疾患に起因するものである。他方、20年におよぶ民主時代において高い公益意識をもった市民層が育ってきているのも、もう一つの事実だ。現在進行中のパンデミックは、権威主義VS民主勢力の綱引きの力学を変えることになるかもしれない。どちらに転ぶか、現時点で判断するのは難しい。
筆者は跡見学園女子大学人文学部教授
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟