Democracy in South East Asia, tendency for conflicts and the application of the Democratic Peace Theory vs the principle of ASEAN Non-Interference
written by Bryant Han Mun Siew
After the fall of the Soviet bloc, there has been an increase in the democratisation of countries globally. Many countries that were once pro-soviet were democratising in order to align themselves to the global superpower — the US. Many have claimed that due to the process of democratisation, it has led to a reduction in the number of conflicts occurred. However, I believe that democratisation is not the reason why conflicts have reduced over the past few decades. I also do not believe that this claim is applicable to Southeast Asia as there are other factors governing the peace that exists there.
Firstly, we need to understand the essence of democracy. Democracy can be simply defined as a form of governance that represents the views of its citizens. Elections are to be held once every few years and they must be free and fair. Often time democracy would go hand in hand with Liberalism where freedom is the core. Human rights must be protected as well as the freedom of its people (Dalton, Shin and Jou, 2007). The third wave of democracy happened right after the fall of the soviet-bloc, post-cold war era. There was a shift in global governance and many countries were opting for democracy as it is seen to be the dominant form of governance (Huntington, 1991). One of the many reasons is also due to access to global trade with foreign countries (Huntington, 1991). It is evident that through democratisation, countries would likely benefit economically as they are able to participate in global trade.
However, the claim that “democracies tend not to go to war with other democracies” can be easily simplified to the democratic peace theory which is coined from Immanuel Kant’s work of Perpetual Peace (Pugh, 2005). Based on Kant, a democratic state can also be equated to liberal republicanism where the form of governance that practices all the principles of a democracy mentioned earlier. The democratic peace theory argues that a state being democratic will less likely engage with warfare with other states (Pugh, 2005). This is because states have an obligation to their citizens and it is very unlikely that the people would want to engage in warfare as there would likely be collateral damage. The comparative to this is that a non-democratic state which does not need the consent of its people to engage in warfare would likely do so. Based on the theory of democratic peace, it is able to justify the claim that democracies tend to not go to war with each other. This is because of the idea that democratic states would not feel threatened by other democratic states as they share a common liberal view (Pugh, 2005). There is a strong perception that a country which is able to respect and preserve the autonomy and wellbeing of its people would likely act rationally and responsibly. This perception is important in contributing to the sustainability of liberal peace as democratic countries would not participate in warfare among one another as they do not feel threatened. It is also important to note that these states would not feel threatened as a democracy are transparent in nature (Pugh, 2005). This means that any decision-making process would be transparent and could be seen easily which means that other states could spot its intentions. This is why the chances of warfare breaking out between democratic states would be very unlikely.
However, many have claimed that the reason for the lack of conflict in recent times is due to democratisation where the democratic peace theory is used to justify those claims. However, it is important to note that this theory is presented post-cold war era in a time where conflict is relatively low (Pugh, 2005). Often time democracies tend to avoid having conflict among one another in order not because they are democratic in nature but rather to fight against the Communist bloc which is seen to be a bigger threat (Pugh, 2005). This has happened in the past and also in the present where democratic states united themselves in combating the soviet bloc then and currently the CCP government.
However, I do not believe that the claim “democracies tend not to go to war with other democracies” is applicable in Southeast Asia (SEA). I believe the clearest reason for this is by first analysing the democracy index of countries in SEA. Most countries in SEA has an index ranging from 2–6 where Laos had the lowest and Indonesia had the highest as of 2016 (Kofi Annan Foundation, 2017). Countries in SEA are either flawed democracies, hybrid regimes or authoritarian in nature (Kofi Annan Foundation, 2017). This is the reason why the democratic peace theory is not applicable to Southeast Asian countries. The main requirement for this theory to be applicable is that countries need to be full-fledged democracies where it practices free and fair elections (Pugh, 2005). Countries in Southeast Asia do not practice free and fair elections despite being a democracy. Countries such as Malaysia which has one of the highest democracy indexes at 6.54 in 2016 still is not applicable to the democratic peace theory (Kofi Annan Foundation, 2017). Malaysia’s flawed electoral process which is known for gerrymandering, malapportioned voting districts and media constraint makes the democratic peace theory inapplicable to it (Freedom House, n.d.). Even countries like Cambodia where Prime Minister Hun Sen has imprisoned and exiled political oppositions in order to maintain its position of power (Stromseth and Marston, n.d.). The lack of democracy in Southeast Asia is one of the many reasons why the democratic peace theory cannot be used to justify its regional peace.
Even if we make an assumption that Southeast Asian countries are full-fledged democracies, the democratic peace theory is still is not be able to justify regional peace. It is believed that countries in SEA approaches security in a different manner as compared to Western states. The establishment of ASEAN is similar to the EU. In accordance with the ASEAN Declaration of 1967, its main goals are economic development and regional peace and stability (Askandar, Bercowtch and Oishi, 2002). Furthermore, the term “The ASEAN Way” is used by many to describe the practices done by ASEAN’s member states and it is key in the success of maintaining regional peace in SEA (Kivamäki, 2010). “The ASEAN Way” can be defined as a decision-making process where it focuses on discussion and consensus among member states. However, the principles of ASEAN are further elaborated in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) of 1976 (Kivamäki, 2010). This treaty encompasses a few principles; respect for sovereignty, restriction of external interference regarding domestic affairs, and resolution of conflicts through peaceful means (Kivamäki, 2010). Singapore’s former Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar mentioned that due to the adherence to the principle of non-interference is the reason why there has not been any military conflict in recent times (Jayakumar, 1997).
Furthermore, one of ASEAN’s many principles is that ASEAN members should have self-restraint and not take a stance in supporting rebels or interest groups of other member states (Kivamäki, 2010). This is in accordance with the non-interference principles of ASEAN. This is extremely important as the lack of support towards rebel groups would likely mean that states would be able to deal with them more manageably. Some examples would be the refusal of cross border aid from the same ethnic group or religion, refusal to criticise the actions of other member states and expressing support towards the incumbent government of foreign during the time of domestic turmoil. The lack of external involvement allowed Burma / Myanmar to deal with its domestic enemies more manageably (Kivamäki, 2010). I also believe that when member states restrict themselves from taking a stance on foreign rebel groups, this prevents the instigation of conflicts. When they do take a stance, it provides a perception as if they are opposing fellow member states by supporting their enemies. I believe that this conflict could potentially lead to war. Because ASEAN members signed the TAC and practice the ASEAN Way, it is able to mitigate the chances of war among one another.
The ASEAN way of promoting peace and stability is to not approach the problem head-on. It practices an element of a “no-war community” in which they would rather avoid war rather than resolving conflicts (Kivamäki, 2010). This is because ASEAN members would rather focus on building a foundation and unifying member states where they are more interested in preserving peace rather than engaging in war. There are many instances where conflicts that could have escalated to war never did because ASEAN members just ignored it rather than trying to resolve the problem (Kivamäki, 2010). For example, the Officer Hanging incident that took place in 1968 where an Indonesian marine was convicted of international espionage in Singapore. Singapore decided to defend its sovereignty and decided to execute the Officer which spark uproars in Indonesia. However, President Suharto did not succumb to domestic pressure and took no action as he understood Singapore’s vulnerable position in maintaining sovereignty (Askandar, Bercowtch and Oishi, 2002). The conflict eventually resolved and the action of self-restraint by President Suharto prevented conflicts from further escalating. Often time conflicts are impossible to be resolved and even if they are, it would take a lot of time and effort in doing so. Hence, ASEAN members just choose to not focus on the issue and just let it subside overtime. 14 out of 18 conflicts within ASEAN were overcome through this method which proves its effectiveness in tackling these conflicts (Kivamäki, 2010). It has proven to be effective in the prevention of prolonging series of conflicts that might transition into military escalation.
I think there is a consensus on why countries and not just democratic ones would try to refrain from participating in warfare. It is not only costly to partake in warfare but the cost of post-war reconstruction is also very high (Smith, 2013). In a Southeast Asian context, recognise that these countries are developing countries and they are already suffering from financial constraints. Hence, by participating in a war they will suffer a deeper financial constraint. The money used for war could be used to develop and build infrastructures in order to improve the wellbeing of its people. In instances where the wellbeing of a country’s citizen is not taken care of, insurgents and revolutionary groups would likely arise. In recognition as to why the Marxist revolutions happened is because of the dissatisfaction of the proletariats towards the upper-class bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels, n.d.). This would not have happened if individuals from the lowest parts of society were taken care of. A rise in insurgency groups would potentially be threatening to the position of the government. In countries where its people are not taken care of, it provides an optimal condition for insurgent groups to gain traction easily from discontent as individuals are dissatisfied with its government, they are very easily persuaded by the radical ideals pushed by the insurgent groups. In Malaysia, the Communist insurgent groups were not able to easily propagate their ideals to Malaysians as they were benefiting from the economic success of the country (Askandar, Bercowtch and Oishi, 2002). The focus on economic development would likely delegitimise insurgent groups as they are not able to capitalise on the misfortune of a country’s citizens. Having insurgent groups and revolutions does not make it easy for the incumbent government of a country. This makes it hard for them to manage and run the country efficiently and this could lead to the delegitimization of said government. Hence, I believe it is in the best interest of governments to not want to participate in a war as they could utilise those resources for better purposes which would concurrently preserve their position of power.
Furthermore, it is also important to understand the historical background of Southeast Asian countries when it comes to its sustained regional peace. Recognise that Southeast Asian countries are mostly colonies of the west and this makes them value sovereignty highly (Dunn, Nyers and Stubbs, 2010). The fact that these countries have been colonised for decades means that they understand what it is like to have external forces meddling into your affairs. This provides little to no incentive for member states of SEA countries to want to interfere with other member states. I believe that the high level of commonality between most Southeast Asian countries allows them to respect each other’s sovereignty considering that independence is something they have fought incredibly for. I strongly believe that all Southeast Asian countries do feel vulnerable as external forces might compromise their sovereignty (Dunn, Nyers and Stubbs, 2010). It is very believable that engaging in warfare between other member states could result in a defeat and this will not only affect its control but the sovereignty of its country. Even if the chances of winning the war is high, I do not think SEA countries would be willing to take those chances because there is always a slight chance of losing which might result in the loss of sovereignty. Hence, it is in the best interest of these countries to not want to participate in war as the outcome of losing could be detrimental to them especially taking into account their historical past.
It is true that there will always be conflicts between Southeast Asian countries but how those conflicts are handled is crucial in determining whether they will escalate to a full-on warfare. One of the core principles of the ASEAN Way and the non-interference is that saving face is extremely important (Dunn, Nyers and Stubbs, 2010), (Kivamäki, 2010). This happens when the winning side of any conflicts chooses to ceasefire and retreat despite being able to come out on top of the situation. Striving to defeat the enemy is no longer prioritised and as mentioned before, self-restraint is practised. It can be seen that victories in ASEAN have completely disappeared (Kivamäki, 2010). This act of saving face and prevention of losing face is extremely important especially in Southeast Asian countries where Asian values are heavily practised. Values such as integrity and saving face are strongly embedded into the Asian culture (Dunn, Nyers and Stubbs, 2010). Despite it being indirect, the act of losing face could potentially affect the integrity and the sovereignty of the losing country. This could potentially lead to warfare in the future as there will be continued tension between both countries. Hence, I believe the act of withdrawing and restraint from declaring victory would be able to help the losing party in saving face and this will mitigate the chances of potential war from breaking out.
In conclusion, I believe that the claim “democracies tend not to go to war with other democracies” which could be simplified as the democratic peace theory is true. However, I do not believe that it is applicable to Southeast Asia as the demographics and level of democracy are not in line with the principles of democratic peace theory. Despite that, I believe that the ASEAN way is an alternative to the democratic peace theory where it has helped preserve the regional security of Southeast Asia.
Bryant Han is a second year student at the University of Nottingham Malaysia, currently majoring in International Relations. His work focuses on issues that tend to be controversial in nature as these issues are not often explored. This provides counter narrative to these issues and allow the possibility for discussions. Years of competitive debating has encouraged the author to explore issues at all ends of the spectrum despite controversies.
Editor’s note: This article was submitted as an assignment to the University of Nottingham Malaysia.
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of PHIR-Nott.
