SUVANNABHUMI (수완나부미)

Korea Institute for ASEAN Studies (부산외대 아세안연구원)
권호 표지

A Multidisciplinary Frame for Studying Democratic Shifts in Southeast Asia: Mixing Politics, Sociology And Psychology Across Historical Time

  • Received : 2015.03.03
  • Accepted : 2015.12.01
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Southeast Asia has been a showcase for democratic transitions in the past 30 years. This paper proposes a conceptual lens for studying political shifts in the Southeast Asian region. The argumentative storyline follows two fundamental propositions about democratic transitions. My first proposition is that during democratic transitions, human phenomena arise on nested analytical layers namely the global arena, the state, prodemocracy movements, and individuals. Each layer is conventionally studied by international relations, political science, sociology, and psychology respectively. I propose a multidisciplinary lens that transverses all these analytical layers. A second proposition is that during political shifts, social conditions are historically-situated. Historicity is anchored on stages of democratization, namely the authoritarian regime, toppling the regime, power shift, state building, and nation building. This paper describes a 4 × 5 matrix (analytical layer × historical stage) that may guide a regional agenda on the empirical study of democratic transitions in the Southeast Asian region. It likewise gives examples of research findings in Philippine-based studies that have already begun to provide empirical data about segments of this research matrix.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdulbaki, L. 2008. Democratisation in Indonesia: From transition to consolidation. Asian Journal of Political Science, 16(2): 151-172.
  2. BBC. 2015. Cambodia profile.
  3. BBC. 2015. East Timor profile.
  4. Burr, W. and M. L. Evans. 2001. East Timor revisited, 2001. The National Security Archive http://www.gwu.edu/-nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  5. Dahl, R. A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  6. Deats, R. 2001. The global spread of active nonviolence. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/timor.htm. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  7. Diamond, L. J. 1994. Toward democratic consolidation. Journal of democracy, 5(3): 4-17.
  8. Dirdala, L. D. 2009. Robert Dahl and the Road to Polyarchy. Buletinul Stiintific al Universitatii Mihail Kogalniceanu, (18): 170-182.
  9. Farrelly, N. 2013. Why democracy struggles: Thailand's elite coup culture. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(3): 281-296.
  10. Giddens, A. 1994. Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  11. Khemacaro, Y. H. 1998. Steering the middle path: Buddhism, non-violence and political change in Cambodia. Accord. An international review of peace initiatives. http://www.cr.org/accord/index.htm?cam/accord5/index.htm. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  12. Lee, D. 2011. Images of the youth: On the iconography of history and protest in Indonesia. History and Anthropology, 22(3): 307-336.
  13. Lee, D. (2011a). Styling the revolution: Masculinitites, youth, and street politics in Jakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Urban History, 37(6): 933-951.
  14. Linz, J. J. and A. C. Stepan. 1996. Toward Consolidated Democracies. Journal of Democracy, 7(2): 14-33.
  15. Lizee, P. 1996. Cambodia in 1995: From hope to despair. Asian Survey, 36(1): 83-88.
  16. Meitzer, M. 2014. Successful and failed democratic transitions from military rule in majority Muslim societies: The cases of Indonesia and Egypt. Contemporary Politics, 20(4): 435-452.
  17. Migdal, J., Kohli, A., Shue, V. 1994. State power and social forces: Domination and transformation in the Third World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Montiel, C. 1995. Bargaining for peaceful termination of unsuccessful coup attempts in the Philippines. The Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 3: 215-227.
  19. Montiel, C. 2000. Political trauma and recovery in a protracted conflict: Understanding contextual effects. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 6: 93-111.
  20. Montiel, C. 2010. Democratization and peace within states. Oxford international encyclopedia of peace. N. Young (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press.
  21. Montiel, C. 2010. Social representations of democratic transition: Was the Philippine People Power One a Nonviolent Power-shift or a Military Coup? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13: 173-184.
  22. Montiel, C. 2015. Multilayered trauma during democratic transition: A woman's first-person narrative. Online first. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000075. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  23. Montiel, C. and J. de Guzman. 2011. Intergroup Positioning in the Political Sphere: Contesting the Social Meaning of a Peace Agreement. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 41: 92-116.
  24. Ockey, J. 2007. Thailand in 2006: Retreat to military rule. Asian Survey, 47(1): 133-140.
  25. Oxfam Community Aid Abroad. 1994. Grassroots activism to rebuild communities. http://www.caa.org.au/AWARE/1994/september-1994.html. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  26. Santiago, A. S. and L. K. Tirol. 1995. 1986: Chronology of a revolution. Manila: Foundation for Worldwide People Power.
  27. Shah, A. 2000. What happened in East Timor? http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/EastTimor/Intro.asp. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  28. Sison, G., P. A. Pasion, and G. Tapang. 2013. Detected communities in the relationship networks of PDAF releases from 2007-2009. http://visser.ph/pdaf/. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  29. Un, K. 2011. Cambodia: Moving away from democracy? International Political Science Review, 32(5): 546-562.
  30. United Nations Peacemaker. 1991. Framework for a comprehensive political settlement of the conflict. http://peacemaker.un.org/cambodiaparisagreement91. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  31. United Nations, Department of Public Information. 1991. Agreements on a Comprehensive Political Settlement of the Cambodia Conflict: Paris, 23 October 1991, January 1992, 1-6. http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/file/resources/collections/peace_agreements/final_act_10231991.pdf. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  32. United Nations, General Assembly. 1991. Final Act of the Paris Conference on Cambodia, A/63/608. http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/KH_911023_FrameworkComprehensivePoliticalSettlementCambodia.pdf. (Accessed March 23, 2003).
  33. United Nations, Security Council resolution 1410. 2002. Adopted by the Security Council at its 4534th Meeting, on 17 May 2002, S/RES/1410. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/387/02/PDF/N0238702.pdf?OpenElement. (Accessed March 23, 2003).