Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:41:49.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding ‘Source’ and ‘Purpose’ in Processes of Democratic Change: Insights from the Philippines and Thailand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2013

Paul D. Hutchcroft
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous decades' celebrations of the triumph of democracy were frequently based on mainstream analyses that displayed two major theoretical problems. First, conceptualisations of democracy based on ‘minimal pre-conditions’ commonly conflated the formal establishment of democratic structures with the far more complex and historically challenging creation of substantive democracy. Second, a deductive and generally ahistorical model asserting fixed stages of ‘democratic transition’ diverted attention from deeper and more substantive examination of struggles for power among social forces within specific historical contexts. By adhering to minimalist conceptions of democracy and simplistic models of democratic change, mainstream analysts quite often chose to overlook many underlying limitations and shortcomings of the democratic structures they were so keen to celebrate. Given more recent concerns over ‘authoritarian undertow’, those with the normative goal of deepening democracy must begin by deepening scholarly conceptualisations of the complex nature of democratic change. This analysis urges attention to the ‘source’ and ‘purpose’ of democracy. What were the goals of those who established democratic structures, and to what extent did these goals correspond to the ideals of democracy? In many cases throughout the world, ‘democracy’ has been used as a convenient and very effective means for both cloaking and legitimising a broad set of political, social, and economic inequalities. The need for deeper analysis is highlighted through attention to the historical character of democratic structures in the Philippines and Thailand, with particular attention to the sources and purposes of ‘democracy’ amid on-going struggles for power among social forces. In both countries, albeit coming forth from very different historical circumstances, democratic structures have been continually undermined by those with little commitment to the democratic ideal: oligarchic dominance in the Philippines, and military/bureaucratic/monarchic dominance in Thailand. Each country possesses its own set of challenges and opportunities for genuine democratic change, as those who seek to undermine elite hegemony and promote popular accountability operate in very different socio-economic and institutional contexts. Efforts to promote substantive democracy in each setting, therefore, must begin with careful historical analysis of the particular challenges that need to be addressed.

Keywords

democratisationdemocratic recessiondemocratic qualityelite hegemonypopular accountabilitypower
Type
Articles
Information
TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia , Volume 1 , Special Issue 2: Redefining and Recontextualising Politics in Southeast Asia , July 2013 , pp. 145 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Institute of East Asian Studies, Sogang University 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Benedict. 1977. Withdrawal symptoms: social and cultural aspects of the October 6 Coup. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 9(3), 13–30.Google Scholar
Anderson, Benedict. 1988. Cacique democracy and the Philippines: origins and dreams. New Left Review 169, 3–33.Google Scholar
Anderson, Benedict. 1990. Murder and progress in modern Siam. New Left Review 181, 33–48.Google Scholar
Anderson, Perry. 1976. The antinomies of Antonio Gramsci. New Left Review 100, 5–78.Google Scholar
Baker, Chris, and Phongpaichit, Pasuk. 2005. A History of Thailand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Balisacan, Arsenio M. 2001. Did the Estrada Administration benefit the poor? In Doronila, Amando (ed.), Between Fires: Fifteen Perspectives on the Estrada Crisis, pp. 98–112. Manila: Anvil.Google Scholar
Bautista, Cynthia Banzon. 2001. People Power 2: ‘the revenge of the elite on the masses’? In Doronila, Amando (ed.), Between Fires: Fifteen Perspectives on the Estrada Crisis, pp. 1–42. Manila: Anvil.Google Scholar
Beech, Hannah. 2008. What do Thailand's protesters want?” Time Magazine, 3 September. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1838244,00.html#ixzz1b0fxlvU3 (accessed on 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Carothers, Thomas. 2002. The end of the transition paradigm. Journal of Democracy 13(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
Case, William. 2007. Democracy's quality and breakdown: new lessons from Thailand. Democratization 14(4), 622–642.Google Scholar
Collier, David and Levitsky, Steven. 1997. Democracy with adjectives: conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics 49(3), 430–451.Google Scholar
Connors, Michael Kelly. 2002. Framing the ‘People's Constitution. In Duncan, McCargo (ed.), Reforming Thai Politics, pp. 37–55. Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Coronel, Sheila S. 2007. The Philippines in 2006: democracy and its discontents. Asian Survey 47(1), 175–182.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 2008a. The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry. 2008b. The democratic rollback: the resurgence of the predatory state. Foreign Affairs 87(2), 36–48.Google Scholar
Diamond, Larry, Linz, Juan J., and Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1995. Introduction: what makes for democracy? In Diamond, Larry, Linz, Juan and Lipset, Martin (eds.), Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy, pp. 1–66. Boulder: Lynne Reinner Publishers.Google Scholar
Farrelly, Nicholas. 2011a. Thailand's calm before the storm? Inside Story, 3 May. Available at: http://inside.org.au/thailand-calm-before-the-storm/ (accessed on 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Farrelly, Nicholas. 2011b. Red hot challenges for Thailand. Inside Story, 7 July. Available at: http://inside.org.au/red-hot-challenges-for-thailand/ (accessed 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Friedman, Edward. 2002. The art of democratic crafting and its limits. In McMahon, Edward and Sinclair, Thomas (eds.), Democratic Institution Performance, pp. 217–234. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. The end of history? The National Interest, Summer 1989.Google Scholar
Haberkorn, Tyrell. 2010. Thailand's political transformation. Open Democracy, 14 April. Available at: http://www.opendemocracy.net/tyrell-haberkorn-thailand-1/thailand%E2%80%99s-political-transformation (accessed on 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Hedman, Eva-Lotta E. 2006. In the Name of Civil Society: From Free Election Movements to People Power in the Philippines. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2007. The 2007 Thai constitution: a return to politics past. Crossroads 19(1), 128–159.Google Scholar
Holmes, Ronald. Forthcoming 2013. Moving forward but for how long? Assessing the first two and one-half years of the Benigno S. Aquino administration. In Hutchcroft, Paul D. (ed.), Mindanao: The Pursuit of Peace and the Challenges Ahead. Manila: Anvil Press.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul D. 1998. Booty Capitalism: The Politics of Banking in the Philippines. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul D. 2008. The Arroyo Imbroglio in the Philippines. Journal of Democracy 19(1), 141–155.Google Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul D. 2009. The hazards of Jeffersonianism: challenges of state building in the U.S. and its empire. In McCoy, Alfred W. and Scarano, Francisco (eds.), Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of a Modern American State, pp. 375–390. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul D. 2010. The Philippines votes for change. Inside Story, 21 May. Available at: http://inside.org.au/the-philippines-votes-for-change/ (accessed on 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul D. 2011. The limits of good intentions: Noynoy Aquino one year on. Inside Story, 30 June. Available at: http://inside.org.au/the-limits-of-good-intentions-noynoy-aquino-one-year-on/ (accessed on 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul D. and Rocamora, Joel. 2003. Strong demands and weak institutions: the origins and evolution of the democratic deficit in the Philippines. Journal of East Asian Studies 3(2), 259–292.Google Scholar
Hutchcroft, Paul D. and Rocamora, Joel. 2012. Patronage-based parties and the democratic deficit in the Philippines: origins, evolution, and the imperatives of reform. In Robison, Richard (ed.), Handbook of Southeast Asian Politics, pp. 97–119. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jayasuriya, Kanishka and Rodan, Garry. 2007. Beyond hybrid regimes: more participation, less contestation in Southeast Asia. Democratization 14(5), 773–794.Google Scholar
Kengkij, Kitirianglarp and Kevin, Hewison. 2009. Social movements and political opposition in contemporary Thailand. The Pacific Review 22(4), 451–477.Google Scholar
Prajak, Kongkirati. 2013. Bosses, Bullets, and Ballots: Electoral Violence and Democracy in Thailand, 1975–2011. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Australian National University.Google Scholar
Kramer, Paul A. 2006. The Blood of Government: Race, Empire, the United States, and the Philippines. Chapel Hill and Quezon City: University of North Carolina Press and Ateneo de Manila Press.Google Scholar
Kuhonta, Erik Martinez. 2008. The paradox of Thailand's 1997 ‘People's Constitution’: be careful what you wish for. Asian Survey 48(3), 373–392.Google Scholar
Kuhonta, Erik Martinez. 2011. The Institutional Imperative: The Politics of Equitable Development in Southeast Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kurlantzick, Joshua. 2008. Asia's democracy backlash. Current History 107(712), 375–380.Google Scholar
Meisburger, Tim. 2011. Is Thailand's political turmoil a sign of positive societal transformation? In Asia, 13 July. Available at: http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2011/07/13/is-thailands-political-turmoil-a-sign-of-positive-societal-transformation/ (accessed on 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Naruemon, Thabchumpon and Duncan, McCargo. 2011. Urbanized villagers in the 2010 Thai Redshirt protests: not just poor farmers? Asian Survey 51(6), 993–1018.Google Scholar
Ockey, James. 2003. Change and continuity in the Thai political party system. Asian Survey 43(4), 663–680.Google Scholar
Quimpo, Nathan Gilbert. 2009. The Philippines: predatory regime, growing authoritarian features. Pacific Review 22(3), 335–353.Google Scholar
Riggs, Fred W. 1966. Thailand: The Modernization of the Bureaucratic Polity. Honolulu: East-West Center Press.Google Scholar
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Stephens, Evelyne Huber, and Stephens, John D.. 1992. Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Shefter, Martin. 1994. Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Maisrikrod, Surin. 1992. Thailand's Two General Elections in 1992: Democracy Sustained. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Maisrikrod, Surin and Duncan, McCargo. 1997. Electoral politics: commercialisation and exclusion. In Hewison, Kevin (ed.), Political Change in Thailand: Democracy and Participation, pp. 132–148. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
Pongsudhirak, Thitinan. 2008. Thailand since the coup. Journal of Democracy 19(4), 140–153.Google Scholar
Pongsudhirak, Thitinan. 2013. Thailand's stalemate and uneasy accommodation. Bangkok Post, 15 February.Google Scholar
Thompson, Mark R. 1995. The Anti-Marcos Struggle: Personalistic Rule and Democratic Transition in the Philippines. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Winichakul, Thongchai. 2006. A Royalist Coup with Ulterior Motives. (Unpublished report): Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Winichakul, Thongchai. 2008. Anti-Democracy in Thailand. New Mandala, 10 November. Available at: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2008/11/10/anti-democracy-in-thailand/ (accessed on 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Walker, Andrew and Farrelly, Nicholas. 2009. Thailand's royal sub-plot. Inside Story, 14 April. Available at: http://inside.org.au/thailands-royal-sub-plot/ (accessed on 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Zakaria, Fareed. 1997. The Rise of Illiberal Democracy. Foreign Affairs 76(6), 22–43.Google Scholar