Authoritarian Durability: Public Opinion towards Democracy in Southeast Asia

Abstract

This article explores the extent of authoritarian durability and public opinion towards democracy in Southeast Asia drawing on findings from the Asian Barometer. While Freedom House indicators rank many countries in the region as not free or partially free, a high proportion of citizens within the same countries report that they live in a democracy. Conversely, countries ranked as electoral or liberal democracies have high proportions of citizens who report that they do not live in a democracy. These findings reveal quasi-thermostatic concerns that, when satisfied, open the way for the expression of other concerns. Views about democratic experience reveal differing expectations about democracy among the general public. In general, the results suggest that a high proportion of citizens in Southeast Asia have a rather instrumental view of democracy that is underpinned by perceptions of good governance rather than democratic ideals. Still, while economic growth is considered to be very important, when looking at what matters for a functioning democracy, other measures of good governance such as freedom and equality, trust in government, accountability and responsiveness are considered more important.The widespread protest activity across Indonesia in 1998, which led to the abrupt fall of President Suharto and his corrupt New Order regime, revealed the fragile nature of authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia. Across the border in Malaysia, calls for free and fair elections by the Pakatan Rakyat are symptomatic of a region with growing demands for democracy. But are protests across Southeast Asia representative of broader societal interests there? It is still unclear whether democracy will eventually flourish in a region largely dominated by electoral and competitive authoritarian political systems, which rely on patronage, strong state institutions, control of the media, weak party identification and electoral manipulation.Since the turn of the century, there has been a renewed interest in perceptions of democracy and the durability of authoritarianism (see Brownlee, 2007;Diamond,

Public Support for Democracy in Transitional Regimes

“…By extension, these citizens often describe their own countries as democratic despite limited electoral contestation and civil liberties. For instance, using data from the Asian Barometer Survey, Pietsch (2015) finds that more than 90% of respondents in Singapore and Vietnam consider their own political systems to be democratic. This is puzzling given that Vietnam does not even allow multiparty competition, but less so if we take into account the distinct interpretation of democracy adopted by the Vietnamese.…”

“…Just as is the case with the political systems themselves, it is often more accurate to describe attitudes as favouring a mix of democratic and authoritarian governance practices, rather than half for democracy and half for authoritarianism. With this in mind, several contributions to this issue focus specifically on attitudes towards democracy where a significant proportion of the population have mixed democratic and authoritarian orientations (see Gill, 2015;Pietsch, 2015;Shin, 2015).…”

Status Quo or Pluralism? Dominant Party Rule and People's Preferences in Singapore

“…Perceptions about "democracy" have always been intertwined with other elements besides political pluralism. For example, using the Asian Barometer dataset, Pietsch (2015) points out that the word "democracy" is more attached to economic development and governance in Southeast Asia. 14 Instead, the questions on the IPS surveys deal with the issues of pluralism directly, which avoids the influence of economic performance and governance issues.…”

Waiting for the real dragon

“…This can be taken to mean, as some assert (Chang et al, 2013; Shin and Kim, forthcoming), that Southeast Asians have “ill-informed” or “superficial” understandings of democracy. Others contend that Southeast Asian views are more “instrumental,” linked to conceptions of “good governance” and performance (Park, forthcoming; Pietsch, 2014). Does this make Southeast Asians exceptional?…”