Evaluation of Consol Flashcards
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Thailand successful before 1980s
Relatively stable compared to previous democratic rule
- Pridi’s government was unstable
- 1947 Military and loyalist staged a joint coup to stabilise the country again
- Military governance lasted from 1948-1973 although under different military leaders
- average annual GDP growth was 8.2% from Sarit to Thanom
- US investment and aid quadrupled from 20M to 250M in early 1970s
Ability to pre-empt political challenges
- kept changing the constitution; Phibun abolised the 1949 constitution, Sarit had his own constitution to allow 170/220 of the constitution writers to be from the military
- Sarit Revolutionary order to give unlimited power of detention to investigating officers of communist suspects
- 1968 Thanom constitution had 128/164 nominated military men in the senate
- friendly with the monarchy by reinstalling many traditional ceremonies and used Bhumibol’s expertise well in leading the country to placate them
- placated the Sangha by defending Buddhism as a key pillar of national identity
Military suppression
- 1957 election mass demonstrations due to fraud
- 1979 CPT posed a major security crisis with over 10k active insurgents
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Indonesia successful before 1980s
Relative stability to earlier period of governance
- Suharto was able to rule for 30 years with no regime change
- economic stability as Suharto ended Konfrontasi and Irian Jaya dispute reduced strain on budget, increased foreign aid + oil bonanza of 1973 led to GDP increasing from 13% to 41%
- increased employment opportunities by generating 1M more jobs by the end of his rule
Pre-empt political challenges
- 1969 new election law where the govt appoints 22% DPR and 33% MPR that can block constitutional amendments
- 1971 Opposition parties had to either be in PDI or PPP
- 1993 Suharto intervened in selection of PDI head where the Suryadi was removed and a caretaker council installed
- Entrenched military dependence on Suharto (giving Ibnu Sutowo Pertamina )
Military suppression of demonstration
- 1968 took out PKI remnant in East Java
-1974 Malari riots
-1984 Tanjong Priok
- 1987 Keterbukaan
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Thailand unsuccessful post 1980s?
Recurring demonstrations and coups meant that stability was surface level
- within the Military rule each faction started to fight to overthrow the other
- Sarit threatened Phibun which forced him to lift the ban on political parties and ease press censorship in 1955
- 1957 Sarit coup and 1958 Martial Law
- Thanom saw an increase in opps and hence abolished the 1971 constitution to return to the ban on political parties
- 1979 CPT crisis
Authoritarians under popular pressure
- Monarchy was not very happy with the excesses of the military government
- factional infighting within the military in a constant state of flux trying to find new allies
- 1970s strong business groups allied with radical intellectuals and student activist (money politics)
- affluent middle class was annoyed at Thanom’s dissolution of govt and banning of political participation
- 1997 AFC and IMF caused major issues for the govt when it came to support from the peoples
Further instability due to erosion of processes
- 1973-1976 Kukrit and Seni Pramoj alternated but could not implement reforms
- 1976-1992 Managed democracy showed that there was still a need for strongman leadership in order to achieve some stability
- 1992-2000 Full democracy still proved to be unstable as premiership changed hands 3times during this period despite the re-drawing of political conventions
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Indonesia unsuccessful post 1980s
Recurring demonstrations meant that stability was only on the surface
-1974 Malari riots
- 1980 Petition of 50 showed even the military was against his abuses of dwifungsi
-1984 Tanjong Priok
- 1987 Keterbukaan
- 1998 Trisakti University protests eventually gathered the masses and the military against Suharto
Popular pressure due to excesses
- 1977 Cendana family estimated net worth to be about $40B with corruption taking 30% of overseas aid
- 1984 Tanjong Priok against the economic inequality from the Cukongs
- 1998 Trisakti University against nepotism when banks owned by Suharto supporters reopened after IMF policies implemented after AFC
Further instability with the erosion of institutions after authoritarianism
- Bj Habibie, Gus Dur, Megawati took over from 1998 to 2001 (3 presidents in 3 years) which shows the erosion of the democratic institution after the impacts of Suharto’s authoritarianism
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Philippines successful before 1980s
Relatively stable compared to previous democratic rule
- Marcos: 20 years compared to 3-4 years with the presidents before him
- US support for Marcos led to the 1951 Military Bases Treaty leading to large income for the country
- patronage patterns in vote-buying and intimidation were particularly stabilising
Pre-empting political challenges
- 1966 replaced 1/3 of provincial commanders of the constabulary
- Imprisoned Aquino Jr till 1980
- rewrote constitution and imposed martial law from 1972-1981,
- 1978 rebranded New Society Movement used a political vehicle
- Cronyism by awarding monopolies to allies like Conjuango who controlled the largest export industry in San Miguel Corporation
Military suppression
- Took a junior partner role to managing the state as they replaced ineffective civillian administrations and countered insurgents, controlled media and public utilities
- 1978 Laban opps after the rigged elections
Use structures dealt with opps
- 1972-1978 ruled by referendums on choice of policy
- 1978 New Society Movement to compete in elections and win all the seats
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Philippines unsuccessful after 1980s
Recurring demonstrations meant that stability was only on the surface
- Allies alienated through patronage and support from the US and the church waned → People Power protest
- Frequent persecution of political opps created more enemies + Aquino assassination = elites withdrew support and catholic church was against him
- RAM split due to graft = Enrile wanted to overthrow Marcos
Popular pressure from the 1980s
- 1986 EDSA; Snap elections rigged and the Catholic Church, Aquino and the masses + Enrile and Ramos to join in a military mutiny that forced Marcos out of the government
Futher instability after Marcos due to erosion of instutitions
- Marcos loyalist and Renegade RAM members launched repeated coup attempts against Aquino (1986-1989)
- New People’s Amry formented unrest
- Corazon Aquino had to unfortunately continue patron-client networks and halt land reforms to maintain some sort of support from the elites
- Fidel Ramos restored the privileges of Marcos’ cronies to gain support of elites
- used pork-barrelling to pass important bills → 40% of state funds to infrastructural projects ended up with Congressmen, political dynasties persisted
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Burma successful before 1980s
Relative stability to earlier period of government
- Ne Win took over from U Nu who failed astronomically, his government was more stable and had more historical legitimacy in Burmese affairs in WW2
Pre-empt political challenges/ institutionally dealing with em as well
- Union Revolutionary Council gave senior military leaders full executive, legislative and judicial powers
- 1964 nationalised bulk of economy, political opp illegal and the BSPP directly manages most education and cultural orgs
- 1974 constitution affirmed the BSPP as a one party leadership with rigged elections
- candidates running for PA from 1974 onwards had to be approved by the BSPP
Military suppression
- 1948 minority rebellions and insurgencies
- 1962 student demonstrations against Revolutionary Council Policy of shutting down student unions –> blew up union building in U Rangoon
- 1974-75 demonstrations by workers, students and monks to protest lack of opps and low wages –> martial law with military suppression
-1980s ethnic and communist groups like the KNLA and BCP rebellions
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Burma unsuccessful post 1980s
Recurring demonstrations showed that stability was surface level
- 1948 minority rebellions and insurgencies
- 1962 student demonstrations against Revolutionary Council Policy of shutting down student unions –> blew up union building in U Rangoon
- 1974-75 demonstrations by workers, students and monks to protest lack of opps and low wages –> martial law with military suppression
-1980s ethnic and communist groups like the KNLA and BCP rebellions
- 1988 Uprising which finally toppled the military government
Authoritarians came under popular pressure from the populace
- Policy of banning political participation drew popular pressure from the students as they felt like they were limited which led to growing tensions between govt and civil society
- the issue of the disunited minorities still plagued Burma since independence which led to them rebelling
- failure of the command economy led to uproar in Burma as everyone faced the aftermath of the worsening standard of living
- 1977 Burman foreign trade was only 13% of GDP, external debt service was as high as 91% of its exports
- US suspension of all aid
- UNHCR, Amnesty International, Asia Watch persistent negative reports on human rights and the progress of democracy
Further instability after authoritarianism
- SLORC and SPDC did not even obey the results of the 1990 elections and the NLD could not assume government due to the blatant ignorance of democratic processes
- Maung Maung only ruled for a month democratically
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Vietnam successful before 1980s
Stability
- VCP provided stable governance because previously under colonial rule Vietnam was never ruled as a single entity so when the VCP took over as a one-party state it was more stable
Pre-empt political challenges
- mass mobilisation through planting core cadres in key positions in all state agencies and mass organisations
- 1976 elections for unicameral national assembly to be the supreme organ of power to write the constitution (92% VCP)
- 1980 constitution: ensured VCP control of state institutions and decisions. Decision-making power was held by the troika of old guard
- Military is subordinate to the party which is a civilian organisation, cannot exercise significant political power within the state
Military suppression
- anyone who did not believe in the North’s rule were considered ideological opponents (Thieu govt sympathisers) → subject to surveillance at all levels (from workplace to clusters) and sent to re-education camps to be indoctrinated
- govt crackdowns on private trade and farming resulted in exodus of thousands of southerners who are mostly chinese
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Vietnam successful even after 1980s
Regime durability
- VCP virtually controlled politics and all aspects of Vietnamese life
- 1992 Constitution: Political renovation, legislative power of the National Assembly augmented, office of president revived, non-party candidates allowed to stand for elections in 1992 taking 8% of the vote
- VCP continued to dominate the military,
Absence of internal changes
- Doi Moi introduced to give greater scope to the private sector, reduce the budget deficit and boost output production of agricultural and consumer goods to raise market supplies and export quantity
- 1976: pace at which unification was to take place had been a point of contention between ideological hardliners and pragmatic members of the VCP → won by the hardliners who turned VN into a socialist state
Institutionalisation of processes
- 1992 Constitution: Political renovation, legislative power of the National Assembly augmented, office of president revived, non-party candidates allowed to stand for elections in 1992 taking 8% of the vote
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Malaysia successful before the 1980s
Pre-empt political challenges
- The Social Contract: UMNO senior partner in alliance, top political posts in the country reserved for malays, finance ministers held by chinese politicians from the MCA till 1974
- creation of Rukun Negara to strengthen national identity among various groups → belief in god, loyalty to king and good behaviour and morality
- National Language Act 1967: recognised Malay as the sole national language, main medium of instruction in all schools which some provisions to use english and other languages
- created BN that co-opted all opposition elites
Suppression of demonstrations
- NGO activist, opposition politicians, students and intellectuals arrested in Operation Lalang 1987 as they were critical of special position of malays within the country
Democratically dealt with challenges
- 1988 Mahathir vs Musa Hiitam (clashes between internal elections led to creation of Semangat 46 which challenged UMNO Baru, but wasn’t much of a challenge and Musa Hitam joined back later on
- 1998 Mahathir vs Anwar Ibrahim (Anwar’s economic reforms and anti-cronyistic measures upset the system that Mahathir had introduced with his small class of wealthy elites –> charged him with sodomy
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Malaysia successful even after the 1980s
Regime durability
- UMNO rule from 1957-2018
- federal elections every 4 years from 1974 were heavily weighted against opposition, short period for campaigning, opposition parties not allowed to hold open air rallies // BN leaders who could do so under the guise of delivering official addresses
- gerrymandering: electorates favouring the government are smaller and greater in number and resided in malay areas + incumbent can call elections anytime within the 4 years such as during times when the economy is doing well
Absence of internal challenges
-any challenges to constitution, particularly malay rights was seditious
- BN and the NEP: economic growth and equitable distribution of wealth, malay stake in economy increased from 1.5% to 20.3% in 1990
- Utusan Melayu owned by UMNO leaders too
- 1975 Amendment to the Universities and Colleges Act prevented students from participating in political activities and Amendments to the Societies Act prevented student participation in politics and curbed freedom of association
Institutionalisation of processes
- federal elections every 4 years from 1974
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Singapore successful before the 1980s
Relative to earlier period of governance
- authoritarian in nature to ensure political stability and control for economic development and survival of the country
- Malayan merger period was fraught with ethnic tensions
Pre-empt political challenges
- Article 89; special positions of the Malays
- 1970 PCMR to ensure bills and laws passed dont discriminate against any racial and religious community
- HDB EIP to socialise citizens into one common Singaporean identity
- 1990 MRHA forbids religious groups to interfere with politics
- Sedition Act; govt can impose restriction on an individual’s FOS in the interest of public order
- Internal Security Act: authorities can suppress all activities within Singapore that are contrary to national security
Democratically dealing with challenges
- 1988 Francis Seow, solicitor- general and President of Law Society joined the WP and opp politics → detained under ISA and fled into exile
- 1997 Tang Liang Hong sued for defamation when he had alleged that LKY, GCT, LHL and Tony Tan had made financial dealings in the elections
- Electoral scares: if you vote opp, you wont have access to PA, CC and CCC
Suppression
- 1974 Newspapers and Printing Presses Act states that no one can publish newspaper in SIngapore without a permit granted by MCI, with exception of TODAY which is from mediacorp are printed through SPH which has relations with PAP
- 1987 Marxist conspiracy; Roman catholic underground activity put down using the Internal Security Act
Why were the efforts to consolidate power in Singapore successful even after the 1980s
Regime durability
- PAP has never lost an election
- lost only 2 seats max during 1990s from the opposition ploy
Absence of internal challenges
- NTUC and NWC formed part of the tripartite alliance to advocate workers needs and co opt them into the government by placing ministers in charge of them and remove their negotiating power
- OB Markers imposed on certain topics within the press
- private sector expertise in policy-making through government review → Committee on Singapore’s Competitiveness 1997 and Financial Sector Review Committee 1998
Institutionalisation of processes
- 1990 NMP more MPs elected by Select Committee chaired my Speaker of Parl to provide alternative views in parliament
- 1992 elected presidency to add another layer of checks and balances against a rogue government
1997 Singapore 21 committee to articulate a common vision for Singapore
