https://doi.org/10.26593/jihi.v15i2.3271.147-163

Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical Comparison
M.Faishal Aminuddin1, Joko Purnomo2
1

Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia, mfaishal@ub.ac.id
2
Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Brawijaya, purnomo@ub.ac.id

ABSTRACT
There is an intriguing debate relating to the relationship of economic development to democratization.
Southeast Asia region is one of the fast-growing economic development, and it also has a long journey to
democratization. The result, however, is ambiguous regarding the internal dynamic of this region that hinders
the possibility to have consolidated democracy. However, an achievement in economic development might
facilitate political development. This paper will provide a critical note about the relationship between
development and the political regime in the SEA region. This paper also analyzes the reason why there is no
significant change regarding political regime within this region even though some countries are continuing to
have positive achievements in democratization. Also, autocracy and the authoritarian regime still survive in this
region. This paper assesses the progress of social and economic development and its impacts on domestic
politics, then, attempts to explain the process of political transformation in the SEA region to understand the
causes that hinder the spreading of democratization. Qualitative method will be used to analyze data and
provide conclusion of this study.

Keywords: democratization, development, political transformation, SEA countries
ABSTRAK
Terdapat perdebatan menarik terkait hubungan pembangunan ekonomi dengan demokratisasi.
Wilayah Asia Tenggara adalah salah satu kawasan dengan perkembangan ekonomi yang tumbuh cepat, dan juga
memiliki perjalanan panjang menuju demokratisasi. Hasilnya, menunjukkan ambiguitas dalam dinamika internal
yang berpotensi tingkat konsolidasi demokrasi. Kendatipun, pencapaian dalam pembangunan ekonomi mungkin
memfasilitasi pembangunan politik. Artikel ini akan memberikan catatan penting tentang hubungan antara
pembangunan ekonomi dan bekerjanya rezim politik di kawasan Asia Tenggara. Kami menganalisis alasan
mengapa tidak banyak perubahan yang signifikan dari rezim politik di wilayah ini meskipun beberapa negara
terus memiliki prestasi positif dalam demokratisasi. Sebaliknya, rezim otokrasi dan otoriter justru masih terlihat
bisa bertahan. Artikel ini menilai kemajuan pembangunan sosial dan ekonomi dan dampaknya terhadap politik
dalam negeri, kemudian, berupaya untuk menjelaskan proses transformasi politik untuk memahami penyebab
yang menghambat penyebaran demokratisasi. Studi ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dengan melakukan
analisa data-data kuantitatif untuk membangun konklusi hasil studi.
Kata Kunci: demokratisasi, pembangunan, transformasi politik, negara Asia Tenggara

democracy. In this region, the remaining types
of autocracy vary from a robust government
supported by the military to the full power of
the monarchy. Likewise, in their struggle to
become democratic countries, each country has
a peculiar history and internal dynamics. In a
sense, the mechanism of causality for change is

Introduction
In the late 1990s, the political regimes
of Southeast Asia in the post-Cold War were
still dominated by autocracy. It was only 27
years later that the democratic regime began to
wriggle. There are problems, however,
concerning stability and quality of the

147

148 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

more controlled by the trigger and driving
factors in itself rather than by dynamic changes
in neighboring countries within the region.
The outburst of Reformasi movement
in Indonesia in 1998 brought no direct impact
on political openness in other countries.
Myanmar, for instance, only started its first
general election in 2014 after a long decade
underwent the military junta. The democratic
stability held by the Philippines after the
falling down of Marcos in the early of the
1980s began to despair in the emergence of a
populist regime lead by Rodrigo Duterte as the
elected president. The fall of UMNO and Najib
Razak in Malaysia in 2018 returned the power
to a senior politician, i.e. Mahathir
Muhammad, to be re-elected as the prime
minister. The sagas in Myanmar and Malaysia
happened closely. Thinking of what has
occurred in Indonesia, geographic proximity
did not guarantee the emergence of a mutually
inspiring event.
Considering economic achievement,
finance, and market stability, Singapore,
Brunei, and Malaysia are more flourished but
those factors cannot give rise to democracy to
breed and uprising. The illustration is as
follow. For a long time, there has been a
growing belief that the political awareness of
citizens would largely determine democracy.
However, different from the growth of
democracy in the West, where economic
achievement and political stability thought to
have a direct impact on triggering the
establishment of democracy, countries in SEA
region tend to be more autocratic although
their economic growth might be categorized as
the Asian Miracle. The obvious break was that
the “ersatz capitalism” went to bankruptcy as
the economic foundations that supported it
were discovered fragile and weak, such an
occasion that led to the economic crisis in
1996-1997. In Indonesia, the crisis caused the
fall of the Suharto’s regime that had been in
power for around 32 years. Nonetheless, other
neighboring countries in SEA could carry out
their economic recovery program without
producing a similar political turmoil.

This article aims to provide critical
explanations of the relationship between
democracy and development. We are
elaborating the empirical facts about the
performance of socio-economic development
in SEA countries, then link them with the
interpretation of democratization. We limited
the analysis by focusing on data sequence
starting from 1990 till 2017. In so doing, we
aimed at explaining the performance of
political regime and its fluctuations. Also, we
incorporated the analysis of socioeconomic
variables to examine whether there is a
relationship or not between socio-economic
development and democratization, on purpose
to address factors that tended to be overlooked
in the assumptions and conclusions derived
from the previous studies on democratization
in this region. This study argues that economic
development does not always breed
democracy. The development of healthy
political system especially to maintain sustain
and high level political participation is a
necessary task to be done for consolidated
democracy. A significant social and economic
progress be perceived by its citizen are
important aspects for maintaining political
participation.
Literature Reviews
In the study of 147 countries in the
period 1960-2005, it categorized 63 countries
as those countries in democratic transitions. It
reveals that the process of democratization
grew in many countries that consisted of welleducated people. Economic development and
education were determinant factors for the
intensity of democratic reforms and how fast
democratization occurred1. Other important
studies, in contrast, argued that whether
development has a significant impact on
democracy or still debatable depends on how

1

Elias Papaioannou and Gregorios Siourounis.
"Democratisation and growth." The Economic
Journal 118, no. 532 (2008): 1520-1551.

149 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

to measure it 2. In the context of Southeast
Asia, scholars also found a different
conclusion. The colonial policies that treated
Chinese migrant merchants in Southeast Asia
in hostility had produced segregated and
different identities that strengthened the
capitalists
to
maintain
and
support
3
authoritarian regimes . This inheritance of
colonial policy is so-called as the Asian-style
of democracy, a view which combines the
democratic political institutions with their
unique cultural forms in each country4. Above
all, the massive pressures of modernity and
enormous
economic
changing
have
transformed various conditions in society,
especially a shifting from agrarian to industrial
and service sectors5. Similarly, although a
handful of ruling elite classes who enjoy
economic achievements, in its growth it is also
followed by the development in some degrees
of forces in civil society. The influence of
economic development on democratization
also benefits the communal elites, even with
varying degrees, to be able to get political
autonomy through a long process of political
development6.
2

Adam, R. Przeworski, Michael E. Alvarez, Jose
Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando
Limongi. Democracy and development: political
institutions and well-being in the world, 1950-1990.
Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Doorenspleet, Renske. "Democracy and
Development." In Rethinking the Value of
Democracy, pp. 201-236. Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham, 2019.
3
John T. Sidel, "Social origins of dictatorship and
democracy revisited: colonial state and Chinese
immigrant in the making of modern Southeast
Asia." Comparative Politics 40, no. 2 (2008): 127147.
4
Clark Neher, Democracy and development in
Southeast Asia: the winds of change. Routledge,
2018.
5
William Case, Politics in Southeast Asia:
democracy or less. Routledge, 2013.
6
Dan Slater, "Revolutions, crackdowns, and
quiescence: Communal elites and democratic
mobilization in Southeast Asia." American Journal
of Sociology 115, no. 1 (2009): 203-254.

Democratization studies in the SEA
region required comparative studies by
concentrating
on
deciphering
the
characteristics of the regime, i.e. the role of the
military, political parties, and state apparatuses
in supporting the non-democratic regime. Also,
it requires to provide an explanation about
existing anomalies as well as gives an adequate
assessment of the causal mechanism upon
which a new hypothesis is less widely
conveyed. For example, the paradox of
democratization which showed an increase in
political participation but was followed by the
closure of the political contestation channel. It
resulted in the paralysis of organizational
capacity in mobilizing collective actors in
various socio-economic cleavages 7. To be
captured in a specific objective of democracy
and development, there exist two main
perspectives. First, the perspective that
concludes
development
can
cause
democratization, such as the case of the
Philippines and Thailand. Second, a
perspective that considers that development
does not encourage the birth of democracy or
further democratization8. In this research, we
positioned to provide a critical explanation in
finding the connectivity between democracy
and development in the region while
identifying
the
factors
that
hinder
democratization which, ideally, have positive
correlation with development, both economic
and political.
Theory and Method
In choosing the analytical framework,
we reviewed some important theorizations
about democracy and development studies.
There two main ideas. In part, classical

7

Kanishka Jayasuriya and Garry Rodan. "Beyond
hybrid regimes: more participation, less
contestation in Southeast
Asia." Democratization 14, no. 5 (2007): 773-794.
8
Anek Laothamatas, ed. Democratization in
Southeast and East Asia. Vol. 76. Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies, 1997.

150 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

development theory tends to pay attention to
economic factors that trigger the establishment
of democracy. In another part, theories of
democracy tend to explain various changes and
system dynamics and political culture as the
main factors that sustain the success of
economic development. In both mainstream,
institutional
influences
and
electoral
competition have been considered to be
dominant and crucial factor in the development
of
democracy.
Nevertheless,
in
its
development, democracy does not concern
only about elections as its foundation although
it is considered as the key generator in carrying
out democratic agendas9. From the perspective
of Western democracy, there are strong
indications
that
high
socio-economic
development can give guarantees for a country
to be more democratic. In other words,
economic prosperity is a prerequisite for the
growth and development of democracy10.
Significant cross countries studies in
the relationship between democracy and
development show that there is little evidence
on the positive causal relationship between
them11. The relation might be subtler. In
theoretical perspective, economic development
often refers to the process of modernization in
society, such as industrialization that brings in
impact upon urbanization and the increasing
level of education from those involved in
worker associations. The impacts create a
complexity of social relations that contribute to

deterioration of authoritarianism. Study cases
in Portugal, South Korea, and Greece show
that development is successful in fighting
dictatorial regimes. In another way around, the
results of testing that validate the impact of the
political regime upon the share of investment
in GNP, the growth rate of capital stock, and
the labor market, for instance, show that
political regimes do not have a direct effect on
economic development, but only to political
stability. More intriguingly, substantial
evidence shows that economic development
causes democracy to survive12.

9

12

Joseph Schumpeter,. "Creative
destruction." Capitalism, socialism and
democracy 825 (1942): 82-85. Carothers, Thomas.
" Thomas Carothers. The end of the transition
paradigm." Journal of democracy 13, no. 1 (2002):
5-21.
10
Seymour Martin Lipset. "Political man: The
social bases of politics." (1959). Almond Gabriel,
A., and Sidney Verba. "The civic culture: Political
attitudes and democracy in five nations." Princeton:
Princeton University (1963).
11
Larry, Sirowy and Alex Inkeles. "The effects of
democracy on economic growth and inequality: A
review." Studies in Comparative International
Development 25, no. 1 (1990): 126-157.

I

Seymour Martin Lipset and Jason M. Lakin. The
democratic century. Vol. 9. University of
Oklahoma Press, 2004. Przeworski, Adam.
"Democracy and economic
development." Mansfield & R. Sisson (Eds.), The
evolution of political knowledge. democracy,
autonomy, and conflict in comparative and
international politics (2004): 300-324. Cheibub,
José A., and James R. Vreeland. "Economic
Development, Democratization and Democracy."
In 3rd International Conference on Democracy as
Idea and Practice, University of Oslo. 2012.

151 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

Table 1. Polity IV data on Southeast Asia’s political regime.

Source: POLITY IV

In this article, we analyze data which
mainly taken from Polity IV to generate the
map of political regimes in South East Asia
between the period of 1990-2017. The period
is presupposed to give a picture of the regime
fluctuation during the post-Cold War.
Countries in Southeast Asia during that period
show complicated political development where
some countries fell into autocratic regime
regardless its level of economic performances.
It differs with European countries’ experience
where positive economic performance
correlates with the establishment of
democratization.
We aim at portraying the changing
characteristics of the political regime from
authoritarianism to anocracy to democracy,
upon which the dynamics of progress and
setbacks could provide specific clues about
what is happening in each country. We can
derive the entire profile of the political regime
of countries in the region except for Brunei
Darussalam. However, in a variable of

analysis, we will include this country with the
assumption that Brunei is a part of autocracy.
We examine three hypotheses: 1)
human development influences the fluctuations
and dynamics of political regimes. 2)
economic development has a positive
relationship to democratization. 3) the higher
economic income of citizens has resulted in
more stable democratization will be. In order
to testify this hypothesis, we will analyze the
data from the UNDP report which consists of:
The Human Development Index (HDI),
Economics Index (EI), and Income Index (II).
This study is limited to describing and
analyzing quantitative data with qualitative
descriptions. We do not conduct quantitative
analysis with statistical methods to conclude
the correlation aspects of the above variables.
From the data compiled from Polity IV
(see Table 1), we can group the stability of the
political regime in Southeast Asia from 19902017 into three types: first, countries that have
political regime stability; both autocracy

152 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

(Vietnam),
anocracy
(Singapore)
and
democracy (Philippines); second, countries
that have extreme fluctuations in political
regimes change such as Thailand; third,
countries that move dynamically such as
Indonesia. In the first type, we recognized
Vietnam as the country within the scope of
static Autocracy since 1990-2017. After the
collapse of the eastern bloc in the post-cold
war, the country is still solid with the socialist
state model that adheres to a single party
system. Meanwhile, Myanmar, which since
1990-2007 entered the autocracy category,
began to build its acceleration towards
democratization. In just seven years (20082015), this country recorded significant
improvements and could be included into the
category of democracy in 2016.
Singapore has a stable closed-anocracy
regime. The stability is backboned by entirely
controlled of parliamentary government which
had effectively in limiting the political
participation and narrowing the space for
political ideology in electoral contestation
whereas the Philippines enjoys a relatively
stable democratic life for a long time.
Although, it can be called substantially
"fragile" because of extreme patronage politics
which hinders deepening democracy and the
construction of civilian social capital13.
In the second type, Thailand showed
the extremity of open-anocracy then suddenly
fell into autocracy. Even though, it did not take
a longer time to return to democracy. The
military continually held a strong domination
to the political process amidst the conditions of
a centralized and non-institutionalized political
party14. As a result, the military coup became a

dangerous scourge that caused extreme
fluctuations in their democracy. Meanwhile, in
the post-1998, Indonesia entered democracy.
The trend continues to improve, although it
still has not touched the full democracy scale.
Political competition still contains many
problems because of the remaining weaknesses
of political parties and parliaments 15.
The dynamics of the political regime
as showed by Polity IV data indicate that South
East Asia has interesting phenomena to
explore. In addition to the factors that cause
differences amongst countries in the region
such as political competition, democratic
institutionalization issues, and other aspects,
relations of civil to military are common to be
studied. Other factors, nevertheless, are rare to
explore, such as economic aspects, human
development, and political participation.

13

Garry Rodan and Kanishka Jayasuriya. "The
technocratic politics of administrative participation:
case studies of Singapore and
Vietnam." Democratization 14, no. 5 (2007): 795815. James Putzel. "Survival of an imperfect
democracy in the Philippines." Democratization 6,
no. 1 (1999): 198-223.
14
Paul Chambers and Aurel Croissant,
eds. Democracy under Stress: Civil-Military

Relations in South and Southeast Asia. Silkworm
Books, 2010.
15
Edward Aspinall and Marcus Mietzner,
eds. Problems of democratisation in Indonesia:
elections, institutions and society. Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies, 2010.

153 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

Table 2: HDI & Economic Index

Source: UNDP, 2017

Socio-Economic and Human Development:
General Trend
This region obtains a vast growth of
economic development. It is estimated that
during 1971-1989 this region overshadowed
the world’s average growth rate by 2.72 %.
Also, there has been a significant increase in
the number of free trade agreements, from 3 in

2000 to 61 in 2010 16. More open economic
policy and the deepening integration with
16

Kanta Marwah, and Akbar Tavakoli. "The effect
of foreign capital and imports on economic growth:
Further evidence from four Asian countries (1970–
1998)." Journal of Asian Economics 15, no. 2
(2004): 399-413. Antoinette Raquiza. State
Structure, Policy Formation, and Economic
Development in Southeast Asia: The Political

154 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

international trade significantly foster the
economic achievement. The success story in
economic achievement is also followed by the
significant increase in the HDI for all
countries. Economic progress facilitates an
increase in life expectancy, level of education,
and per capita income. From UNDP report
(Table 2) Singapore improved the index from
0.718 (1990) to 0.932 (2016), Brunei
Darussalam 0.782 (1990) to 0.853 (2016), and
Malaysia 0.642 (1990) to 0.802 (2016))
achieve the highest level of HDI respectively.
During 1990- 2017, these three countries were
continuing to accelerate its HDI performance
in comparison to the rest of other countries.
The superior level of these three countries was
estimated to be difficult to be defeated by other
countries.
Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand are
three countries that gained the fastest
acceleration on its HDI level’s improvement
during 1990- 2017 period. Significant
acceleration of Indonesia and Thailand on HDI
level is a fascinating trend, and it gives a
positive signal on a narrowing gap regarding
the quality level of life. Other countries such as
Vietnam,
Laos,
Cambodia,
Myanmar,
however, were still in modest progress on HDI
level during the same period.
The positive trend in economic
development provides a strong foundation for
the continuing progress on HDI level.
Economic liberalization and integration to
international trade have facilitated sustain
economic growth. Within IMF data (2016),
each country in the SEA shows significant
progress on economic performance since the
late 1990s onward. After the financial crisis in
the late 1990s, SEA has shown significant
improvement in economic growth and
economic crisis's resilience. Ten years after the
Economy of Thailand and the Philippines:
Routledge Studies in the Growth Economies of
Asia. Taylor & Francis, 2012.

1998s economic crisis, this region recovers and
maintains its growth in average at 9 %
annually until 2012. From that period, this
region always enjoys a higher level of
economic growth comparing to the world's
economic growth even at the time of economic
crisis occurs. IMF data (2016) also showed a
significant increase the countries capability to
handle economic crises, as it was shown in
2008-2009’s and 2012-2013’s economic crises.
The income level depicted also the
impressive trend in economic growth. During
the period of 1990 till 2017, most the countries
performed a significant improvement regarding
per capita income. A particular policy such as
more open to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
and also import policy has contributed to this
positive economic performance. There is,
however, an intriguing trend to narrow the gap
of per capita income’s performance between
countries. This trend indicates that two highest
per capita income’s countries in 1990, i.e.
Brunei Darussalam and Singapore, present the
lowest pace of acceleration during 1990-2017
in comparison to the rest of the countries.
Hence, the distance in income level is getting
shorter.
The narrowing gap of per capita
income’s performance also provides the fact
that there is a moderate decline in inequality
between countries. Even though Brunei
Darussalam and Singapore are still
experiencing the higher level of per capita
income's performance, countries such as
Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia are chasing
the economic performance of both Brunei and
Singapore.

155 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

Table 3. Average Growth (net Gini Index)

Source: regional economic outlook: Asia and Pacific, IMF, 2016

Interestingly, from 2012 onwards, the two
countries are in the steady stage of income's
performance. It is providing an explanation on
the narrowing gap on per capita income's
performance in the region. Unfortunately,
Thailand and Indonesia that have significant
acceleration on per capita income have
difficulties to tackle inequality within a
country. Learning from the data published by
IMF (2016), the Gini index of those two
countries is still high if not the worst (Table 3).
The rise of inequality in Indonesia and
Thailand were alarming. As the continuing rise
in per capita income in that two countries
generates inequality, it is a problem that can
trigger economic and political tension. To
some degrees, it implicates that those in
authority could not provide a proper economic
policy that manages the results of development
to be equally redistributed to its people. It
differs from what happens in Malaysia and
Philippine where the rise of economic
development is also followed by the low level
of inequality (Table 3). The specific economic
policy established by Malaysia and Philippine

contributes to the inequality decline (IMF,
2016). From this comparison, there emerges
critical questions, why do countries in the
region that have kept inequality in low level
gain political stability? and why do they not
necessarily need to transform their autocratic
or authoritarian regimes? Hypothetically, a
proper economic policy that accelerates growth
at the robust level and specific polity to reduce
inequality plays a great role in such a situation.
Interestingly, those countries with a
higher income’s performance are under
autocracy regimes. It is evident in the
experience of Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia.
Three countries with good incomes are still in
autocratic during the 30-year periods. Strong
performance in sustainable economic progress
does not necessarily escalate the democracy.
Moreover, the political situation in these
countries during the 30 years are relatively
stable. It confirms the argument that economic
development does not always breed political
transformation into a more democratic political
system. The authority does not necessarily
need to change its autocratic regime when they

156 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

can deliver high and sustain economic
progress.
An exception, however, in Indonesia
and Thailand, the increase in income level does
not have any correlation with the continuing
trend of the autocratic style of leadership.
During the 30 years, two countries tend to be
more democratic. Democratization has
successfully institutionalized resulted in
competitive elections, even though in recent
year illiberal democracy appears. In both
countries, economic progress is accompanied
by democratization. It seems that moderate
achievement, not the substantial achievement,
in economic development provides potential
ground for democratization. Cambodia, Laos,
Vietnam, and Myanmar (CLVM) are four
countries that are still in the different level of
economic achievement if they are compared to
Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and
Indonesia. Even though they are continuing to
make positive progress during the 30-year
periods, the progress in the economic
achievement of CLMV countries is still
lacking behind and still considered as LowIncome Countries (IMF Regional Outlook,
2016). The problem that economic progress of
CLMV countries is accompanied by an
increase in inequality. Consolidated democracy
does not emerge in these four countries, and
they are continuing the struggle to detach from
an authoritarian regime. Hence, there is only a
little progress in political transition among
them.
The previous elaboration implies three
essential
messages
about
social
transformations. First, the autocratic regime
does not have to make a political
transformation into the democratic type of
regime as long as they can maintain a
significant progress in economic development
as in the cases of Brunei and Singapore.
Second, political transformation to a
democratic regime occurs in a country that has
modest progress in economic development as
in Indonesia and Thailand. Third, small
progress in economic development has little
contribution to change authoritarian regime as

in Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and also
Vietnam.
There is a hint that a progress in
economic performance cannot be perceived as
a central factor to explain political
transformation to democracy. Political stability
resulted in sustain and steady progress in
economic performance is a crucial factor to
keep in any regime. They can hold its original
type of regime, whether it is autocratic as in
Brunei and Singapore or it is authoritarian as in
Vietnam and Laos, as long as the economic
progress and the government facilitates
economic expansion. Good progress on
economic development and political stability
resulted from proper maintenance in economic
life in the region, however, was not necessarily
followed by democratic establishment. It is in
contrast to some European countries where
there are connections between democratization
and positive economic achievement (World
Bank, 1999). No matter it is, the autocratic or
authoritarian regime continues to sustain in
some countries.
A dramatic political change in
Indonesia in the late 1990s did not trigger other
countries in SEA to follow the path of
democratization of Indonesia. We argue that
the wave of democratization does not take
place although economic developments were
present. Successful experience in the political
transformation to democracy in one country
does not trigger other countries to follow.
Every country is still in isolation in one
another politically, and there is no sign of the
demonstration effect within this region. There
exists political disconnection continuing to
emerge amongst countries and for such a
reason economic performance does not provide
a significant influence on the political
transformation in the whole region of SEA.
In SEA region, three countries that
experience a significant escalation of education
level during 1990 - 2017 are Singapore,
Malaysia, and Indonesia respectively. On the
other side, the improvement of index in
Brunei, from 0.787 (1990) to 0.853 (2016),
Thailand from 0.583 (1990) to 0.0.755 (2016),

157 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

and Laos from (0.400 (1990) to 0. 601 (2016),
it is recognized as a moderate increase in
education level during the same period
(UNDP-HDI Report, 2017). Interestingly, if
we compare to the government expenditure on
education, the education level does not
exclusively correlate with the continuous
increase in the amount of government spending
in education. Malaysia, Thailand, and
Singapore are three countries that already
provided significant investment in education
but there is a declining trend from 2011
onward. On the other hand, Indonesia, Laos,
and Vietnam have an increasing trend from
2011 onward.
Indonesia that continuously increases
its government expenditure (0.528 in 1990 to
0.694 in 2016) is among the fastest country
accelerating in the increase in education level
(UNDP-HDI Report 2017). Countries such as
Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand that
reduced education expenditure from 2011
onward still keep their improvement in
education level until 2017 (UNDP-HDI
Report, 2017). From UNDP data on education
level, we can conclude that there is a tiny link
between the higher education level of a
country with the type of political regime.
Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, and Malaysia
are still in autocratic regime even though their
education levels are among the highest level.
In contrast, Indonesia and Philippine that level
of education is not so high can be considered
as a democratic country and far beyond from
autocratic regime. With this finding, we can
propose a hypothesis that higher education
level does always not guarantee the
establishment of a democratic regime.
Discussion Note: Identifying Isolative
Factors
Economic development and the
process of deepening democracy may have a
positive correlation as it shows in the political
and economic dynamics in some SEA
countries from 1990 to 2017 — some countries
that can maintain their good economic

performances harvest a positive political
development
transforming
into
more
democratic countries.
Other countries,
however, are still trapped on autocratic
regimes although the economic developments
are robust as Singapore and Brunei
Darussalam. In order to understand this
situation, a deepening exploration on what
happens in domestic politics and economics is
heavily needed.
Democracy provides better choices for
citizens to participate in accelerating their
common prosperity. The impact of democracy
on this matter can be known from the changes
in various fields; ranging from national
macroeconomic structures to the social
security system. There is evidence that a
democratic regime is capable of reducing
infant mortality. It erodes pessimism that
democracy does not help much to improve
human development.
SEA region has shown that the
fluctuations of the political regime are not
always positively correlated with the
development
of
democratic
politics.
Undertaken indicators of HDI, for example,
every country has an interest in providing
better education and health facilities and
infrastructure to its citizens. In this case, HD is
the result of the long-term expansion of
economic growth in which an increase in HD
can be achieved with a growth-oriented and
sustainable economic policy. However, there
are differences in priority scale. In countries
under the dictator or autocracy regime, health
services and social security are not the
primary. A study presents that there is a
relationship between life expectancy and
democracy, in case that health policy
interventions are prioritized in democratic
countries. From the data taken in the period
1980-1990, those developing democratic
countries have the highest achievement of HD
indicators17.
17

Besley, Timothy, and Masayuki Kudamatsu.
"Health and democracy." American economic
review 96, no. 2 (2006): 313-318.

158 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

Table 4: Political Participation in SEA region

Source: Berstelsmann Transformation Index, 2018

The increasing number of citizens who
satisfy with positive achievement of economic
and social development could contribute to the
deepening democracy. The way the authority
fulfills the expectation of its citizen is a
significant factor contributing to the change in
political regime within the country. As in
Singapore and Brunei, the authority still can
manage its autocratic regime due to its high
and
sustained
economic
and
social
achievement. The citizen who is economically
and socially satisfied does not necessarily need
the change of political regime into the more
democratic atmosphere. On the other hand, the
citizen can trigger the political regime when
the authority does not adequately fulfill the
economic and social interests. As it can be
found in Indonesia and Philippines, the
average
performance
of
economic
development and social development done by
the authority triggers the demand for political
change into the more democratic country as it
can be expected to enlarge the need of citizen
concerning economic and social development.

Hence, the interests of citizen and its
view on the authority performances in
economic and social development play an
essential factor for the explanation of the
correlation between economic development
and the deepening of democracy. Based on
experiences of the SEA countries, the rise of
inequality and Gini index of the countries
create economic vulnerability that could
produce citizen dissatisfaction, and in turns led
to the increasing demand for political change.
Autocratic and authoritarian regime survives
with lower political participation regardless of
the degree of level of education, as shown in
Singapore, Malaysia, Laos, and Vietnam. We
argue that the survival of the non-democratic
regime is facilitated by the incidence of the
low level of political participation. Considering
the data of political participation, we might
also confirm that political transformation into
more democratic regimes could occur if the
political participation is at a high level as the
lesson learned from Indonesia and the
Philippines.

159 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

There is a declining trend of political
participation shown in Vietnam, Thailand,
Laos, and Cambodia in recent years (Table 4).
If this trend is continuing, then it is hard to
expect democracy can breed in this region. The
decline of political participation seems to be
correlated with the decline of people’s trust in
the election. The data from Perceptions of
Electoral Integrity (2018) show that countries
continue with a declining trend on political
participation, such as Cambodia, Malaysia, and
Thailand, are also undergoing low perception
on electoral integrity. Meanwhile, countries
such as Indonesia and Philippines that are
better in the perception of electoral integrity
also have a higher degree of political
participation
As each country in SEA region has its
internal dynamic and different stages of
political, economic and social development,
there is a limited collaborative action on
fostering democratization within the overall
region. Countries that are experiencing the
deepening democracy such as Indonesia and
Philippines do not stimulate other countries to
follow the political development. In this way,
democratization happened in one country is
resulted from the internal dynamic that is
contingent to citizens and their authority. It
makes democratization is more likely based on
internal dynamic rather than based on regional
dynamic.
Political development that relies on
internal dynamic is also followed by the
discontinuing wave of democratization within
this region. Countries such as Singapore and
Brunei Darussalam still keep their autocratic
regime and do not necessarily have to make
conformity with the raise of democratization
that happens in other countries. We note that
the phenomenon of discontinuing waves of
democratization in Southeast Asia is caused by
three factors. First, a regional cooperation such
as ASEAN does not provide space for
reciprocal interventions between countries. It
makes every political change in each country
to become a single event and does not have a
significant impact on other countries as it was

ravaged by the 32 years New Order of
Indonesia authoritarian rule which severely
restricted pro-democracy social movements.
The effort of government to ban various prodemocracy forces from open political
contestation also appears in Vietnam18. In this
region, all authoritarian regimes rely on their
legitimacy and resilience from their ability to
emphasize free and open political contestation
and instill a non-democratic belief in their
citizens19.
Second,
intra-mobility
between
citizens, especially in the framework of
economic or socio-cultural exchange is very
limited. As a result, the political regime in each
country is still statically controlled by interests
to perpetuate its political system such as in
Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Every
regime, whether it is dictatorial, authoritarian
or democratic, maintains a pro-economic
growth policy while at the same time, builds a
political coalition that can make them
strengthen their political domination longevity
with the doctrine of economic progress in
development20. Restrictions on civil society
contribute to the uncertainty of the
development model. Economic progress has
become a panacea to pressure citizens that the
political system is not something to be
challenged or questioned as long as the
government has succeeded in increasing the
economic access of citizens. This factor has a
significant influence on the next factor.
Third, economic domination by the
ruling class had a variation in its composition
according to their history and culture. General
18

Dosch, Joern. "Vietnam in 2008: Foreign Policy
Successes but Daunting Domestic
Problems." Southeast Asian Affairs (2009): 373388.
19
Chang, Alex, Yun-han Chu, and Bridget Welsh.
"Southeast Asia: Sources of regime
support." Journal of Democracy 24, no. 2 (2013):
150-164.
20
Rock, Michael T. Dictators, democrats, and
development in Southeast Asia: Implications for the
rest. Oxford University Press, 2017.

160 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

conditions in this region show that the working
class is weak because the industry is
dominated by foreign ownership. The
existence of an educated middle class as the
backbone of democracy requires maturity
concerning their access to the fulfillment of
justice, freedom, and sovereignty. On the
contrary, like in Malaysia, this region
experienced economic progress but the middle
class experienced an insecure syndrome.
Poverty is reduced, but social inequality is
increasing21. In some countries, high levels of
inequality have led to protests and political
reforms, even though the scale has not moved
to make strong democratic consolidation.
We had called the three factors above
as “isolative factors,” namely the factors that
cause the wave of democratization does not
work or else to experience a sudden stagnation
because of specific and unique obstacles
following the conditions and the typical regime
in each country. The composition of the
regime's support is also different. In the case of
democratic regimes in Thailand, politicians
collaborate with senior military officers and
technocrats whereas in the Philippines,
politicians are individual and bring their
network technocrats when in power. The
electoral political competition that promises
democracy on a maximum scale cannot be
guaranteed.
The democratic regime in this region is
still lacking. Each country does not need to
preserve their regional ties that potentially
influence the conditions and the political
stability of each respective country which
result in low political awareness in general22.
21

Embong, Abdul. State-led modernization and the
new middle class in Malaysia. Springer, 2002.
Jomo, K. S. "Growth with equity in East
Asia." Southeast Asian paper tigers (2003): 196219.
22
Aminuddin, M. Faishal, and Joko Purnomo.
"Redefining ASEAN Way: Democratization and
Intergovernmental Relations in Southeast
Asia" Journal of ASEAN Studies 5, no. 1 (2017):
23-36.

Although, the record of socio-economic
development in some countries is impressive
but it is still based on the logic of productivity
where social services are measured to what
extent their contribution to economic
development. It is also used to overcome
various problems that arise in economic
processes and social development. It has not
moved to strengthen political participation in
presenting stronger democratic regimes.
Moreover, autocratic and authoritarian
regime survives within lower political
participation regardless of the degree of level
of education, as is shown in Singapore,
Malaysia, Laos, and Vietnam. Hence, we can
argue that the survival of the non-democratic
regime is facilitated by the incidence of the
low level of political participation. In this
region, high levels of political participation are
listed by Indonesia and the Philippines with a
scale above seven while other countries are
below 5 (BTI, 2018). The data of political
participation also confirms that political
transformation into a democratic regime may
appear if the political participation is still at a
high level. What is worrying is the fact that
there is a declining trend on participation level
in overall. There is a declining trend of
political participation shown in Vietnam,
Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia in recent years.
If this trend is continuing, then it is tough to
expect democracy breeds in this region. Level
of trust in the election is more important to
boost political participation rather than the
level of education. Although the growth of
well-educated people is significant, it does not
accelerate the level of political participation.
The increase in election trust, however,
positively produces high and sustain political
participation.
Conclusion
In the entire region, SEA gains
positive benefits from economic liberalization
but
less
convincing
on
political
transformation. The continuing progress in
economic development, unfortunately, was
not followed by the shift from autocracy or

161 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

authoritarian to a democratic regime. The
high level of economic performance
combined with stable political dynamic,
however, are factors contributed to the
survival of the autocratic and authoritarian
regime.
Based
on
socio-economic
performance and political dynamic it is hard
to find a healthy relationship between
development and democratization. Our
findings show a minor correlation between an
increase in trends in human developments and
a political change in a more democratic
country. Moreover, economic development
provides an insignificant foundation for the
establishment of democracy. Further research
on the type of economic policy chosen by
every country and its impact on political
transformation is needed to find the missing
link between economic performance and
political change.
The stability of democratization,
however, seems to be influenced by the
continuing
progress
in
economic
development. In recent political dynamic in
Indonesia and Philippine, two countries who
relatively success to institutionalizing
democracy than others, there is a decline in

the quality of democracy when the global
economic crisis reduces economic progress.
Hence, a significant decline in economic
performance potentially harms the stability of
democratization, and it may lead to the
incidence of illiberal democracy.
Besides, it is clear that the
fluctuations of the political regime are not
always positively correlated with the
development of democratic politics in South
East Asia. Discontinuation of democratization
take place in South East Asia due to
“isolative factors” namely: (1) regional
cooperation such as ASEAN does not provide
space for reciprocal interventions between
countries; (2) intra-mobility between citizens,
especially in the framework of economic or
socio-cultural exchange is very limited
resulted in continuing control on political life
done by old-established economic actors; (3)
economic domination by the ruling class
whose had variation in composition according
to their own history and culture. Hence, a
political disconnection is a key to understand
the dynamics of political transformation in
Southeast Asia.

REFERENCES

Case, W. (2013). Politics in Southeast Asia:
democracy or less. Routledge.

Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic
Culture, Boston: Little, Brown

Carothers, T. (2002). The end of the transition
paradigm. Journal of democracy, 13(1), 5-21.

Aminuddin, M. F., & Purnomo, J. (2017).
Redefining ASEAN Way: Assesing Normative
Foundation
on
Inter-governmental
Relationship in Southeast Asia. Journal of
ASEAN Studies, 5(1), 23-36.

Chambers, P., & Croissant, A. (Eds.). (2010).
Democracy under Stress: Civil-Military
Relations in South and Southeast Asia.
Silkworm Books.

Aspinall, E., & Mietzner, M. (Eds.). (2010).
Problems of democratisation in Indonesia:
elections, institutions and society. Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
Besley, T., & Kudamatsu, M. (2006). Health
and democracy. American Economic Review,
96(2), 313-318.

Chang, A., Chu, Y. H., & Welsh, B. (2013).
Southeast Asia: Sources of regime support.
Journal of Democracy, 24(2), 150-164.
Cheibub, J. A., & Vreeland, J. R. (2008).
Economic Development, Democratization and
Democracy. American Economic Review, 98,
808-42.

162 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

Dahl, Robert A, (1973), Polyarchy:
Participation and Opposition, Yale University
Press

Neher, C. (2018). Democracy and development
in Southeast Asia: the winds of change.
Routledge.

Doorenspleet, R. (2019). Democracy and
Development. In Rethinking the Value of
Democracy
(pp.
201-236).
Palgrave
Macmillan, Cham.

Papaioannou, E., & Siourounis, G. (2008).
Economic and social factors driving the third
wave of democratization. Journal of
comparative Economics, 36(3), 365-387.

Dosch, Jörn. ‘Vietnam in 2008: Foreign Policy
Successes but Daunting Domestic Problems’.
In Daljit Singh (ed) Southeast Asian Affairs
2009, Singapore: ISEAS 2010, pp. 373-388.

Polity IV, (2017), Polity IV Project, Political
Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 18002017,
<
http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html>.
Accessed on 05.10.2018

Embong, A. (2002). State-led modernization
and the new middle class in Malaysia.
Springer.
IMF. (2016).Regional Economic Outlook. Asia
and Pacific. Washington DC (available online:
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/REO/AP
AC/Issues/2017/03/06/Building-on-Asia-sStrengths-during-Turbulent-Times)
Jayasuriya, K., & Rodan, G. (2007). Beyond
hybrid regimes: more participation, less
contestation
in
Southeast
Asia.
Democratization, 14(5), 773-794.
Jomo, K. S. (Ed.). (2003). Southeast Asian
Paper Tigers?. Routledge.
Laothamatas,
A.
(Ed.).
(1997).
Democratization in Southeast and East Asia
(Vol. 76). Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Lipset, S. M., & Lakin, J. M. (2004). The
democratic century (Vol. 9). University of
Oklahoma Press.
Marwah, K, Tavakoli, A (2004). The effect of
Foreign Capital and Imports on Economic
Growth: Further Evidence from Four Asean
Countries (1970-1998). Journal of Asean
Economic, 5, 399-413

Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A.,
& Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and
development: political institutions and wellbeing in the world, 1950-1990 (Vol. 3).
Cambridge University Press.
Putzel, J. (1999). Survival of an imperfect
democracy
in
the
Philippines.
Democratization, 6(1), 198-223.
Raquiza, A. R. (2012). State structure, policy
formation, and economic development in
Southeast Asia: The political economy of
Thailand and the Philippines. Routledge.
Rock, M. T. (2017). Dictators, democrats, and
development in Southeast Asia: Implications
for the rest. Oxford University Press.
Rodan, G., & Jayasuriya, K. (2007). The
technocratic
politics
of
administrative
participation: case studies of Singapore and
Vietnam. Democratization, 14(5), 795-815.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Socialism,
capitalism and democracy. Harper and
Brothers.
Sidel, J. T. (2008). Social origins of
dictatorship and democracy revisited: colonial
state and Chinese immigrant in the making of
modern Southeast Asia. Comparative Politics,
40(2), 127-147.

163 M.Faishal Aminuddin dan Joko Purnomo | Democracy and Development in Southeast Asia: A Critical
Comparison

Sirowy, L., & Inkeles, A. (1990). The effects
of democracy on economic growth and
inequality: A review. Studies in Comparative
International Development, 25(1), 126-157.
Slater, D. (2006). The Architecture of
Authoritarianism Southeast Asia and the
Regeneration of Democratization Theory.
Taiwan Journal of Democracy, 2(2), 1-22.
Slater, D. (2009). Revolutions, crackdowns,
and quiescence: Communal elites and
democratic mobilization in Southeast Asia.
American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 203254.
Suri, T., Boozer, M. A., Ranis, G., & Stewart,
F. (2011). Paths to success: The relationship
between human development and economic
growth. World Development, 39(4), 506-522.
UNDP, (2017), Human Development Report, <
http://hdr.undp.org/en/data>. Accessed on
10.10.2018
World Bank, (1999), Does Democracy
Facilitate the Economic Transition? An
Empirical Study of Central and Eastern Europe
and the Former Soviet Union. Policy Research
Working Paper, 2194
BTI, (2015), Bertellsman Transformation
Index, < https://www.bti-project.org/en/data/>.
Accessed on 15.10.2018