Recent Praise for Hard Choices

Unarmed mass uprisings, celebrated as "people power" revolutions, have ended authoritarian regimes in various countries. But have these movements ushered in polities that fulfilled democratic expectations? The record is disappointing, and especially so in the Philippines after the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos. Why? Much of the answer lies in the ability of elites to ride, hijack, and redirect the trajectories of "people power" movements. Such elites take advantage of the tension between the regular politics of stable institutions and the irregular politics of extraordinary moments. The large mobilizations associated with "people power" cannot be sustained for long periods. The masses will soon delegate power to, and rely on, their leaders, who will represent them as the polity settles down to the business of normal--institutional--politics. The very minute the new regime is inaugurated, it ceases to be revolutionary and starts to be conservative. It has a country to run, and state power to defend and consolidate, for its enemies are not likely to have given up. The institutional technology of popular rule has yet to be developed beyond grand first principles and banal motherhood statements. The supposedly revolutionary leaders of the new regime lapse into using the already well known methods of minority or elite rule. But recourse to such stratagems may in time trigger the formation of new "people power" movements against these self-entrenched incumbents--prolonging the cycle and preventing the conversion of contingent power into legitimate authority.

Amado Mendoza's current research is on the political economy of organized crime and anti-state violence in the Philippines. His many writings on that country include a book-in-progress on tax reform and two edited volumes, Debts of Dishonor (1992) and From Crisis to Crisis: A History of BOP [Balance of Payments] Crises in the Philippines (1987). He has been a visiting scholar at Tufts University, the Jean Monnet Institute, the University of Turku (Finland), and the Amsterdam Insti¬tute for International Relations. In addition to pursuing his academic career, he has worked as a business journalist, a merchant banker, a stockbroker, and on development issues for an NGO.

Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand are plagued by corruption. Why? What have their governments done to curb the phenomenon? How effective or ineffective have their efforts been, and why? In the course of addressing these questions, Professor Quah will argue for anti-corruption measures that are comprehensive in nature and backed by political will. He will also conclude that Thailand appears to have had greater success in stemming corruption than either the Philippines or Indonesia. In explaining that difference, he will highlight, among other factors, the reform constitution that Thailand adopted in 1997.

Jon Quah is co-editor of the Asian Journal of Political Science and presently a visiting scholar at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. In 1992-98 he chaired the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore. He has held visiting positions at Stanford University and Harvard University, among other institutions. Relevant publications include Curbing Corruption in Asia: A Comparative Study of Six Countries (2003); "Causes and Consequences of Corruption in Southeast Asia," Asian Journal of Public Administration (2003); and "Democratization and Political Corruption in the Philippines and South Korea," Crime, Law and Social Change(2004). His advisory positions have included being lead consultant for a UN Anti-Corruption Mission to Mongolia.

While Asia and Europe's bilateral links with the United States are deep, ties between Europe and Asia need to be strengthened. In the aftermath of the Asian economic crisis and Europe's focus on issues closer to home (European single currency and the enlargement process), is the building of a new Asia-Europe partnership a priority for the European Union? Can the Asian economic crisis serve as a window of opportunity for closer and lasting economic cooperation between Asia and Europe? How can Europe assist in the implementation of economic reform programs and the process of market liberalization? What is the future of enhanced EU-Asia political cooperation in the areas of the environment, crime and drugs, terrorism, and human rights? How can Europe and Asia best pursue their common interests in arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation? Professor Rinsche has had a distinguished career in German and European politics spanning more than three decades: as a member of the German Parliament (1965-1972) and a member of the European Parliament for twenty years (1979-1999). He was president of the EP-Delegation for ASEAN, South-East Asia, and South Korea (1979-1999), and chairman of the CDU/CSU-Group from 1989-1999. He is currently president of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, a German political foundation promoting civic education in Germany and democracy and development abroad. Professor Rinsche will have just returned from an extended trip to South-East Asia and China and will share his recent insights in the current situation in that region.