Prospects for a Regional Human Rights Court in Southeast Asia
Carolyn A. Mercado is a senior program officer with The Asia Foundation in the Philippines. In this position she manages the Law and Human Rights program. She assists in the development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of other selected activities within the Foundation's Law and Governance program and handles mediation and conflict management, and other forms of dispute resolution processes. She has also served as a temporary consultant to the Asian Development Bank on the Strengthening the Independence and Accountability of the Philippine Judiciary project and the Legal Literacy for Supporting Governance project.
Prior to joining the Foundation, Ms. Mercado was an intern with the Center of International Environmental Law in Washington. Previously, she served consultancies in Manila for the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the International Maritime Organization, NOVIB, and the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources. She has served as lecturer on environmental law at Ateneo de Manila University, San Sebastian College of Law, and the Development Academy of the Philippines. She also previously served as executive director of the Developmental Legal Assistance Center, corporate secretary of the Alternative Law Groups, and as a legal aide to a member of the Philippine Senate.
Education: B.A. in political science from the University of the Philippines; LL.B. from the University of the Philippines College of Law. She was also a Hubert Humphrey Fellow in international environmental law, University of Washington and a European Union Scholar in environmental resource management, Maastricht School of Business in the Netherlands.
CO-SPONSORED BY SEAF
Encina Ground Floor Conference Room
Contexts of terror in Indonesia
Jim Castle is a friend of mine. I have known him since we were graduate students in Indonesia in the late 1960s. While I labored in academe he went on to found and grow CastleAsia into what is arguably the most highly regarded private-sector consultancy for informing and interfacing expatriate and domestic investors and managers in Indonesia. Friday mornings he hosts a breakfast gathering of business executives at his favorite hotel, the JW Marriott in the Kuningan district of Jakarta.
Or he did, until the morning of July 17, 2009. On that Friday, shortly before
8am, a man pulling a suitcase on wheels strolled into the Marriott's Lobby
Lounge, where Jim and his colleagues were meeting, and detonated the contents
of his luggage. We know that the bomber was at least outwardly calm from the surveillance videotape of his relaxed walk across the lobby to the restaurant.
He wore a business suit, presumably to deflect attention before he blew himself
up. Almost simultaneously, in the Airlangga restaurant at the Ritz Carlton
hotel across the street, a confederate destroyed himself, killing or wounding a
second set of victims. As of this writing, the toll stands at nine dead
(including the killers) and more than 50 injured.
On learning that Jim had been at the meeting in the Marriott, I became frantic
to find out if he were still alive. A mere 16 hours later, to my immense
relief, he answered my e-mail. He was out of hospital, having sustained what he
called "trivial injuries", including a temporary loss of hearing. Of the nearly
20 people at the roundtable meeting, however, four died and others were badly
hurt. Jim's number two at CastleAsia lost part of a leg.
The same Marriott had been bombed before, in 2003. That explosion killed 12
people. Eight of them were Indonesian citizens, who also made up the great
majority of the roughly 150 people wounded in that attack - and most of these
Indonesian victims were Muslims. This distribution undercut the claim of the
country's small jihadi fringe to be defending Islam's local adherents against
foreign infidels.
But if last Friday's killers hoped to gain the sympathy of Indonesians this
time around by attacking Jim and his expatriate colleagues and thereby lowering
the proportion of domestic casualties, they failed. Of the 37 victims whose
names and nationalities were known as of Monday, 60% were Indonesians, and that
figure was almost certain to rise as more bodies were identified. The selective
public acceptance of slaughter to which the targeting of infidel foreigners
might have catered is, of course, grotesquely inhumane.
Since Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was first elected president in 2004, Indonesia's
real gross domestic product has averaged around 6% annual growth. In 2008 only
four of East Asia's 19 economies achieved rates higher than Indonesia's 6.1%
(Vietnam, Mongolia, China and Macau). In the first quarter of 2009, measured
year-on-year, while the recession-hit economies of Malaysia, Singapore and
Thailand all shrank, Indonesia's grew 4.4%. In the first half of 2009, the
Jakarta Stock Exchange soared.
The economy is hardly all roses. Poverty and corruption remain pervasive.
Unemployment and underemployment persist. The country's infrastructure badly
needs repair. And the economy's performance in attracting foreign direct
investment (FDI) has been sub-par: The US$2 billion in FDI that went to
Indonesia in 2008 was less than a third of the $7 billion inflow enjoyed by
Thailand's far smaller economy, notwithstanding Indonesia's far more stable
politics.
Nevertheless, all things considered, the macro-economy in Yudhoyono's first
term did reasonably well. We may never know whether the killer at the Marriott
aimed to maximize economic harm. According to another expat consultant in
Jakarta, Kevin O'Rourke, the day's victims included 10 of the top 50 business
leaders in the city. "It could have been a coincidence," he said, or the
bombers could have "known just what they were doing".
Imputing rationality to savagery is tricky business. But the attackers probably
did hope to damage the Indonesian economy, notably foreign tourism and
investment. In that context, the American provenance and patronage of the two
hotels would have heightened their appeal as targets. Although the terrorists
may not have known these details, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company is an
independently operated division of Marriott International, Inc, which owns the
JW Marriott brand, and both firms are headquartered on the outskirts of
Washington DC.
Second-round revenge against the Marriott may also have played a role -
assaulting a place that had rebuilt and recovered so quickly after being
attacked in 2003. Spiteful retribution may have influenced the decision to
re-attack the Kuta tourist area in Bali in 2005 after that neighborhood's
recovery from the bomb carnage of 2002. Arguable, too, is the notion that 9/11
in 2001 was meant to finish the job started with the first bombing of the Twin
Towers in 1993. And in all of these instances, the economy - Indonesian or
American - suffered the consequences.
Panic buttons are not being pushed, however. Indonesian stock analyst Haryajid
Ramelan's expectation seems plausible: that confidence in the economy will
return if those who plotted the blasts are soon found and punished, and if
investors can be convinced that these were "purely terrorist attacks" unrelated
to domestic politics.
Sympathy for terrorism in Indonesia is far too sparse for Friday's explosions
to destabilize the country. But they occurred merely nine days after
Yudhoyono's landslide re-election as president on July 8, with three months
still to go before the anticipated inauguration of his new administration on
October 20. That timing ensured that some would speculate that the killers
wanted to deprive the president of his second five-year term.
The president himself fed this speculation at his press conference on July 18,
the day after the attacks. He brandished photographs of unnamed shooters with
handguns using his picture for target practice. He reported the discovery of a
plan to seize the headquarters of the election commission and thereby prevent
his democratic victory from being announced. "There was a statement that there
would be a revolution if SBY wins," he said, referring to himself by his
initials.
"This is an intelligence report," he continued, "not rumors, nor gossip. Other
statements said they wished to turn Indonesia into [a country like] Iran. And
the last statement said that no matter what, SBY should not and would not be
inaugurated." Barring information to the contrary, one may assume that these
reports of threats were real, whether or not the threats themselves were. But
why share them with the public?
Perhaps the president was defending his decision not to inspect the bomb damage
in person - a gesture that would have shown sympathy for the victims while
reassuring the population. He had wanted to go, he said, "But the chief of
police and others suggested I should wait, since the area was not yet secure.
And danger could come at any time, especially with all of the threats I have
shown you. Physical threats."
Had Yudhoyono lost the election, or had he won it by only a thin and hotly
contested margin, his remarks might have been read as an effort to garner
sympathy and deflect attention from his unpopularity. The presidential
candidates who lost to his landslide, Megawati Sukarnoputri and Jusuf Kalla,
have indeed criticized how the July 8 polling was handled. And there were
shortcomings. But even without them, Yudhoyono would still have won. In this
context, speaking as he did from a position of personal popularity and
political strength, the net effect of his comments was probably to encourage
public support for stopping terrorism.
One may also note the calculated vagueness of his references to those - "they”
- who wished him and the country harm. Not once in his speech did he refer to
Jemaah Islamiyah, the network that is the culprit of choice for most analysts
of the twin hotel attacks. Had he directly fingered that violently jihadi
group, ambitious Islamist politicians such as Din Syamsuddin - head of
Muhammadiyah, the country's second-largest Muslim organization - would have
charged him with defaming Islam because Jemaah Islamiyah literally means "the
Islamic group" or "the Islamic community".
One may hope that Din's ability to turn his Islamist supporters against jihadi
terrorism and in favor of religious freedom and liberal democracy will someday
catch up to his energy in policing language. Yet Yudhoyono was right not to
mention Jemaah Islamiyah. Doing so would have complicated unnecessarily the
president's relations with Muslim politicians whose support he may need when it
comes to getting the legislature to turn his proposals into laws. Nor is it
even clear that Jemaah Islamiyah is still an entity coherent enough to have, in
fact, masterminded last Friday's attacks.
Peering into the future, one may reasonably conclude that the bombings'
repercussions will neither annul Yudhoyono's landslide victory nor derail the
inauguration of his next administration. Nor will they do more than temporary
damage to the Indonesian economy. As for the personal aspect of what happened
Friday, while mourning the dead, I am grateful that Jim and others, foreign and
Indonesian, are still alive.
Donald K Emmerson heads the Southeast Asia Forum at Stanford University.
He is a co-author of Islamism: Contested Perspectives on Political
Islam (Stanford University Press, November 2009) and Hard Choices:
Security, Democracy, and Regionalism in Southeast Asia (Stanford/ISEAS, 2008).
Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.
Where Are They Now? Ony Jamhari
Ony Avrianto Jamhari taught the Indonesian language at Stanford in 2005-06 as a
Foreign Language Teaching Assistant (FLTA) under Fulbright sponsorship. He was
active on campus in other ways as well, including organizing an Indonesian film festival.
SEAF Director Don Emmerson enjoyed working with him on research projects in
Indonesia. In 2009 Ony began teaching Indonesian language and culture at Woosong
University, Daejeon, South Korea. He can be reached at ony_jamhari@yahoo.com.
In July 2009 he looked back on his time at Stanford and brought SEAF up to date on his
activities and interests since then:
“My time as an FLTA at Stanford was a blessing, an honor, and an incredible experience
for me. Not only did I gain academic experience; my time at Stanford opened doors to
my future career. In addition to teaching Indonesian, I was able to learn about the
American system of higher education. This knowledge encouraged me to strive toward
the ultimate goal of my life: to become an agent for change in the educational world.
“In 2006 I left Stanford to return to Indonesia. I continued teaching Indonesian (bahasa
Indonesia) in Jakarta. Thanks to contacts with colleagues and friends, I was able to teach
the Indonesian language to many foreigners working and living in the capital city of
Indonesia. Sudirman Street (Jalan Sudirman)—Jakarta’s main thoroughfare and business
area, became in effect my office, as I moved from one building to another from early
morning to late evening teaching Indonesian. I was also often asked by the Fulbright
committee in Jakarta to serve as a resource person helping to orient and train their new
grantees—Indonesians preparing to go to the US as FLTAs and Americans who had
come to teach English to Indonesia.
“My desire to focus and develop my personal skills in education also motivated me to
work at the Indonesian International Education Foundation (IIEF) as a program officer
for an International Fellowships Program (IFP) sponsored by the Ford Foundation. This
program provided opportunities for advanced study to individuals who would go on to
use their education to become leaders in their respective fields. My experience with IFP
broadened my knowledge and my network of colleagues and contacts, as I worked with
twenty-two international partners of the program in cities around the world.
“In February 2009 I moved to South Korea to my present position teaching bahasa
Indonesia at Woosong University in Daejeon here in South Korea. So far not many
students have signed up to take Indonesian. Many Korean students prefer to take either
Japanese or Chinese, in addition to English, which is required. It is a big challenge for
me to promote the study of Indonesian. Fortunately, some professors and staff have been
very helpful in disseminating information about the availability of Indonesian classes. I
expect there will be more students interested in learning the language next semester.
“Besides teaching, I am also working for Prof. Lee Sung Joon, the Director of the Asia
Research Center at Woosong, to conduct research on Indonesian education. On 6-10 July
2009 I attended two conferences in Vietnam. Prof Lee and I presented a paper entitled
‘Higher Education as a Trade Service in Indonesia’ at one conference organized by the
Korea Research Academy of Distribution and Management and the Korea Logistics
Research Associations, Inc. At the other event, hosted by the Korean Education
Development Institute, I was a discussant of ‘Mid to Long Term Education Cooperation
Development in Indonesia,' a research paper presented by Prof. Lee Sung Joon.
“I am hoping and expecting that my contribution in education will be useful for others, as
well as for my beloved country, Indonesia.
“Looking forward, there are two things that I want to do in the near future: to work
toward a Ph.D in the field of education, and to write my first novel, entitled ‘International
Jomblo,’ about an individual who looks for better things in his life.”
What's Up with Southeast Asian Studies at Stanford? Recap, Prospect, Controversy
The 2008-09 academic year was a busy time for the Southeast Asia Forum (SEAF). A dozen on-campus lectures by Southeast Asianists from Australia, Germany, Malaysia, Thailand, and the United States ranged from country-specific topics such as labor resistance in Vietnam, political opposition in Malaysia, and the 2009 elections in Indonesia, to broader-brush treatments of Southeast Asian identities and modernities, regional repercussions of the global economic slowdown, and the wellsprings of “late democratization” across East Asia.
The lecture on “late democratization” was delivered to a capacity audience by the 2008-09 National University of Singapore-Stanford University Lee Kong Chian (LKC) Distinguished Fellow, Mark Thompson. Mark is a political science professor in Germany at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. He and another 08-09 SEAF speaker, Australian National University Prof. Ed Aspinall, jointly with State University of New York-Albany Prof. Meredith Weiss, will lead a 28-30 August 2009 workshop in Singapore under the auspices of the NUS-Stanford Initiative (NSI). The workshop will review and analyze the record and prospects of student movements in Asia. Attendees will include authors of chapters of a book-in-progress stemming from the research and writing on democratization done by Thompson during his fellowship at Stanford.
A second NSI awardee this past academic year was the 2008 NUS-Stanford LKC Distinguished Lecturer Joel Kahn, professor of anthropology emeritus at La Trobe University, Melbourne, who gave three talks at SEAF this year:
- Science and Secularity: Rethinking Religous Reform
- Dynamics of Identity: Empires, States & Groups
- Comparing Modernities: Is Southeast Asia Unique?
His insightful interpretations of identity and modernity in Southeast Asia may be heard via the relevant audio icons at the links above.
Off-campus lectures involving SEAF included three panel discussions convened to launch Hard Choices: Security, Democracy, and Regionalism in Southeast Asia (introductory chapter and information on ordering the title are available), published by Stanford’s Shorenstein APARC and the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore, in 2008-09. The book was edited by SEAF Director Donald K. Emmerson.
Hosting these launches in their respective cities were ISEAS in Singapore, the Asia Society in New York, and Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. Panelists at these events included Ellen Frost (Peterson Institute for International Economics), Mike Green (Georgetown University School of Foreign Service), Alan Chong Chia Siong (NUS), and Joern Dosch (Leeds University).
Another panelist was John Ciorciari, a Shorenstein Fellow at Shorenstein APARC in 2007-08 and a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution in 2008-09. In 2009, despite the U.S. recession and a correspondingly competitive academic marketplace, he published several Southeast Asia-related pieces, completed and submitted to a university press the manuscript he had worked on at APARC, and won a tenure-track assistant professorship at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Policy starting in September 2009. Congratulations, John!
Apart from speaking at the launches of Hard Choices, Don Emmerson gave papers on Indonesian foreign policies and Asia Pacific regionalism in Jakarta and Manila, and discussed these and other topics at events in Chicago and Los Angeles among other venues. At two conferences in Washington,D.C. on a proposed U.S.-Indonesian “comprehensive partnership,” he addressed what such a relationship could and should entail. In Spring 2009 at Stanford, he served as faculty sponsor and lecturer in a student-initiated course on Thailand. His interviewers during the year included the BBC, Radio Australia, The New York Times, and various Indonesian media.
SEAF organized its final on-campus event of the 2008-09 academic year in June 2009 — an invitation-only roundtable co-sponsored with the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council. Nine scholars met with three current American ambassadors to Southeast Asian countries for off-the-record conversations on seven topics of mutual interest regarding the region and its relations with the United States.
None of the above could have happened without the talent, friendliness, and all-round indispensability of SEAF’s administrative associate, Lisa Lee. Thank you, Lisa!
Prospect: 2009-2010
As of June 2009, SEAF anticipated hosting, directly or indirectly, these scholars of Southeast Asia during academic year 2008-09:
- Sudarno Sumarto is the director of the SMERU Research Institute, Jakarta. He will be at Stanford for the full academic year as the 2009-10 Shorenstein APARC-Asia Foundation Visiting Fellow. While on campus, Sudarno will do research and write on the political economy of development in Indonesia. He is likely to focus within that field on the economic consequences of violent conflict, policy lessons to be drawn from the record of cash-transfer welfare programs, and whether and how such aid has affected its recipients’ voting behavior.
- James Hoesterey will spend academic year 2009-10 at APARC as the year’s Shorenstein Fellow. He will revise for publication his University of Wisconsin-Madison doctoral dissertation in anthropology on “Sufis and Self-help Gurus: Postcolonial Psychology, Religious Authority, and Muslim Subjectivity in Indonesia.” Jim researched this topic in Indonesia over two years of fieldwork focused on the outlook and activities of a popular, charismatic, media-savvy Muslim preacher, Abdullah Gymnastiar. Jim’s aim is to understand and interpret how a new generation of Muslim preachers and trainers in Indonesia has found a marketable niche and acquired personal and religious authority by combining piety with practical advice.
- Thitinan Pongsudhirak is an associate professor in international relations at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, where he also heads the Institute of Security and International Studies. He will be at Stanford in Spring 2010, one of four visiting experts from overseas in a new joint effort by the Stanford Humanities Center and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies to bring “high-profile international scholars into the intellectual life of Stanford.”
Together with SEAF, the Center for East Asian Studies and the Center for Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law will co-host Thitinan during his stay. While at Stanford he will lecture and write on Thai politics and foreign policy, among other possible topics. His op ed in the 18 April 2009 New York Times, “Why Thais Are Angry,” may be accessed at the New York Times.
Christian von Luebke, a 2008-09 Shorenstein Fellow, will remain at Stanford in 2009-2010 as a visiting scholar on a German Science Foundation fellowship.
He will enlarge, for publication, the focus of his doctoral dissertation, on the political economy of subnational policy reform in Indonesia, to encompass the Philippines and China as well. To that end, he did preparatory fieldwork in Manila in Summer 2009.
SEAF is happy to congratulate all four of these 2009-2010 scholars for winning these intensely competitive awards!
In addition to sponsoring the lectures these scholars are expected to give, SEAF will host a full roster of occasional speakers from the United States and other countries in AY 2009-2010. These speakers will analyze and assess, for example, the (in)efficacy of ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s welfare programs in Thailand, the role of intra-military tensions in propelling Asian transitions from authoritarian to democratic rule, and aspects of Japan’s occupation of Southeast Asia during World War II that need reconsideration.
As for the 2009-10 iteration of the NUS-Stanford Initiative and its fellowship and lectureship awards, as of June 2009 this prospect was on hold pending clarification of NSI’s financial base, which has been affected by the global economic downturn. Whatever the status of NSI in 2009-10, SEAF’s speakers, whether resident on campus or invited for one-time talks, should make up in quality for the modest shortfall in quantity—not filling one slot for a visitor—that the possible absence of an NSI-funded scholar would imply.
Controversy: “Islamism” and Its Discontents
SEAF expects to learn in 2009-10 of the publication of one or more books written wholly or partly at Stanford under its auspices. One of these titles is Islamism: Contested Perspectives on Political Islam. It is set to appear by November 2009 and can be ordered now from Stanford University Press at http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=11926.
In this volume, SEAF’s director debates a friend and colleague, Middle Eastern and Islamic studies expert and Hofstra University anthropologist Dan Varisco. They disagree over the meaning of the term “Islamism” and the (un)desirability of its use in discourse about Muslims and their faith. Of particular sensitivity in this context is the (mis)use of “Islamism” to describe or interpret instances of violence that have been or may be committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. A dozen other experts on Islam, mostly Muslims, contribute shorter comments on “Islamism” and on the positions taken by Emmerson and Varisco. If one early reviewer turns out to be right, “this lively work will be a great help for anyone concerned with current debates between Islamic nations and the West.”
At Stanford in February 2009, Don Emmerson conveyed his and Dan Varisco’s views to a standing-room-only lecture and discussion hosted by the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies entitled “Debating Islamism: Pro, Semi-pro, Con, and Why Bother?” (audio recording available). One listener later commented anonymously on the talk. Also relevant, in the context of larger questions regarding how best to convey Muslims’ lives and religion to non-Muslims, is Jonathan Gelbart's article "Who Speaks For Islam? Not John Esposito".
Don does not know the authors of these posts; ran across their comments by chance while cyber-surfing; and does not necessarily endorse their views, let alone views to be found in the sources to which these comments may be electronically linked. But the blog and the article do contribute to a debate whose importance was illustrated at the very end of Stanford’s 2008-09 academic year by Barack Obama’s own treatment of Islam and Muslims in the unprecedented speech that he gave at Cairo University on 4 June 2009. After he spoke, in conversation with an Indonesian journalist, Obama promised to visit—actually, to revisit—Jakarta on his next trip to Asia. That stop is most likely to take place before or after he attends the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in nearby Singapore in November 2009. Viewers interested in a commentary can also read Don's Obama's Trifecta: So Far, So Good.
Thailand's Universal Coverage System and Preliminary Evaluation of its Success
Thailand introduced a universal coverage program in 2001. This program is commonly known as a "30 Baht Health Reform," adding coverage for nearly 14 million more people. This presentation will give an overview of the 30 Baht Health Reform including its main features and evolution, as well as a preliminary evaluation of its success. The talk will mostly be based on a paper entitled "Early Results from Thailand's 30 Baht Universal Health Reform - Something to Smile About," published in Health Affairs.
Kannika Damrongplasit is currently the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of California at Los Angeles and RAND Corporation. She received her Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Southern California. Her fields of interest are in program evaluation, applied econometrics, health economics and applied microeconomics. She has published in Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Health Affairs, and Singapore Economic Review. In January 2010, she will assume an assistant professor position at the Department of Economics, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.
Philippines Conference Room
Crisis, Crackdown, and Credibility in Malaysia
In 2009, buffeted by the global economic slowdown, Malaysia’s economy is predicted to shrink. Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak is expected to replace unpopular Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi as Malaysia’s top leader early in April. On 23 March the government banned the two main opposition newspapers, Suara Keadilan and Harakah. Earlier in March an opposition lawmaker was forced out of the national parliament after demanding that Najib answer allegations of involvement in the gruesome murder of a Mongolian model, Altantuya Shaaribuu, in 2006. The killing has been linked to a 110-million-euro “commission” paid to a close confidante of Najib by a French firm for the sale of submarines to Malaysia. In February Najib used local parliamentary defections to take over Perak, one of the five states won in March 2008 by the opposition in elections whose results embarrassed the government. An independent poll shows that Najib is even less popular than Badawi. Prof. Chin will address the implications of these and other aspects of current political turbulence in Malaysia.
James Chin has written widely on Malaysian politics and the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia, among other topics. Minority rights, ethnic politics, and good governance are among his current interests. Before his Monash appointment he headed a business school. Before that he worked as a financial journalist. He has a doctorate from Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.
Philippines Conference Room
A Stake in the Heart of Lipset's Law? Indonesia versus Modernization Theory
Seymour Martin Lipset famously claimed that the more well-to-do a nation is, the greater the chance that it will sustain democracy. This "law" fits the experience of several countries in Northeast and Southeast Asia. Formerly authoritarian South Korea and Taiwan grew rich and became stable democracies with active civil societies, as Lipset would have expected. His "law" fits the Philippines and Thailand as well- -poor countries with tenuous holds on democracy where uncivil societies have mobilized to defend elite hegemony against mass-based electoral challenges.
The case of Indonesia, in contrast, limits Lipset's Law. Poor yet stably democratic, Indonesia is free of regime-threatening social conflicts. Arguably, despite its poverty, its democracy is already consolidated. India's record of sustaining democracy is another case in point. These poor yet successfully democratic polities amount to large stakes in the heart of modernization theory.
Prof. Thompson will contend that Indonesia's democracy is neither middle-class-based nor dominated by big business, but is instead still characterized by traditional cross-cutting ethno-religious cleavages that limit the impact of money politics, reduce the risk of populism, foster elite consensus, and thereby encourage democratic stability. He will link his argument not only to Lipset's Law but to the intellectual legacies of Alexis de Tocqueville, Antonio Gramsci, and Barrington Moore among other students of democracy and modernity.
Mark R. Thompson is a professor of political science at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany. A Chicago native, he took his first degree in religious studies at Brown University followed by postgraduate work at Cambridge University and the University of the Philippines. Fascinated by Philippine people power, he wrote his dissertation at Yale University on the anti-Marcos struggle (Yale University Press, 1996). After moving to Germany, he witnessed popular uprisings in East Germany and Eastern Europe, inspiring him to conceptualize democratic revolutions in essays later published as a book (Routledge, 2004). He is in residence at Stanford from February through April 2009.
Philippines Conference Room
Mark Thompson
Shorenstein APARC
Stanford University
Encina Hall E301
Stanford, CA 94305-6055
Professor Thompson builds on Barrington Moore's insight that there are different "paths to the modern" world. Thompson's manuscript explores alternatives to the familiar South Korean-and Taiwan-based model of "late democratization." According to that model, political pluralism follows a formative period of economic growth during which labor is demobilized and big business, religious leaders, and professionals depend upon and are co-opted by the state.
Thompson argues that even when these preconditions are in place, democratization need not follow. Singapore is an illuminating case in point. The autocratic growth model pays insufficient attention to politics, including the sometimes crucial role of student activists in challenging developmental authoritarianism and triggering a democratic transition, as in Indonesia. As political actors, students (rather than a progressive bourgeoisie) may fill the oppositional vacuum created by the preconditions that characterized predemocratic South Korean and Taiwan.
In his critique of Northeast Asian-style, post-authoritarian "late democratization" and its emphasis on economic growth as the driver of political change, Professor Thompson uses evidence drawn from paired comparisons of Vietnam with China, Hong Kong with Singapore, and between South Korea and Taiwan on the one hand and other major Southeast Asian cases on the other.
Mark R. Thompson is a professor of political science at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany. A Chicago native, he took his first degree in religious studies at Brown University followed by postgraduate work at Cambridge University and the University of the Philippines. Fascinated by Philippine people power, he wrote his dissertation at Yale University on the anti-Marcos struggle (Yale University Press, 1996). After moving to Germany, he witnessed popular uprisings in East Germany and Eastern Europe, inspiring him to conceptualize democratic revolutions in essays later published as a book (Routledge, 2004). He is in residence at Stanford as Lee Kong Chian Distinguished Fellow in Southeast Asian Studies from February through April 2009.