The change of leadership in Asian countries

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Centre For Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta, bandoro@csis.or.id

Mahathir Mohamad, who came to power in 1981 when the global stage was dominated by "hard-hitting leaders" such as Ronald Reagan (U.S.), Margaret Thatcher (Great Britain) and Leonid Brezhnev (Soviet Union, now Russia), was recently replaced by the quieter Adullah Ahmad Badawi, who is more of a team player type of leader.

What impressed the region is that the succession of leadership took place in orderly manner, one that should be followed by other developing countries in the process of replacing their leaders.

Badawi is to lead Malaysia at a time of condemnation by some Western countries over Mahathir's remarks at an Islamic summit in mid-October that Jews rule the world by proxy. Not only that, the leadership change in Kuala Lumpur also takes place at a time of great political and strategic challenge faced by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), to realize ASEAN's dream of becoming a true community before 2020. The people in the region are anxious to see what Badawi can offer to Malaysia and the region in terms of development of democracy and economy.

The recent handover of power in Malaysia, however, is only the beginning of a long process of the changing of the political guard across Asia, where a new generation of political leaders is taking charge. Over the next 18 months or so, the region will witness presidential and parliamentary elections in Indonesia and Thailand. Japan will also hold general elections this week.

Singapore is also preparing for a leadership change. Thus, the first semester of next year will be a hectic period in Asia's political calender. All of this leadership change will influence the course of political and economic development in the region.

It is not yet clear how the political succession in the countries mentioned above will take place. However, a recent report by the World Bank noted that "instead of creating major tensions, the many elections and political transitions in the region over the next 18 months will tend to strengthen overall political legitimacy and stability".

The report might have been based on the assumption that past political transitions in those countries took place in an orderly manner. Thus, it is expected that the coming political transitions will proceed peacefully.

There are always reasons to expect that smooth political changes will help produce political stability and guarantee the continuation of economic development. It has been noted that not so long ago, a string imminent or potential changes in leadership would have set off waves of uncertainty, apprehension and political turmoil.

But now the prospect of change is anticipated with calmness. This phenomena can be expected to happen most in Thailand, Singapore and, to some extent, South Korea. This in a way is a positive development for the region. A stable political system and a smooth political transition, after all, is a prerequisite for the long-term security and stability of the region.

We have seen that leaders like Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand and Goh Chok Tong in Singapore are leaders who, in the eyes of their publics, do not force their people to follow their visions. Instead, through convincing statements on national problems and the enacting of popular national policies, they influence their people in such a way that they can address and identify problems without having to sacrifice the overall interests of the public. They also recognize avenues to successfully deal with problems, and move toward the achievement of national goals. Political stability and relatively stable economic development are partly due to such factors.

But one must not ignore the possibility that change, particularly leadership change, can be a destabilizing factor for a country as well as for the security of the region as a whole. This is particularly true when the leaders who are supposed to hand over their power refuse to do so. This will certainly guarantee political turmoil, if not violent upheaval, in a given country.

Indonesia can be cited as an example of this. The massive street demonstrations that forced Soeharto to step down clearly showed that we failed to accomplish a normal succession. Signs that the coming presidential and legislative elections in Indonesia are unlikely to go smoothly are already being seen, such as the recent clash between the supporters of Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), leaving two people dead.

A change in leadership can also be destabilizing when leaders lose their political battle at the ballot box but cannot accept defeat, and mobilize their supporters against the winning and accepted leaders. This could happen in our elections next year.

What we see is that next year the region of Southeast Asia will be the center of world attention as member countries of ASEAN undergo leadership changes. But perhaps we should not be too worried about the leadership succession process in Singapore or Thailand.

In Singapore, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (62) has announced plans to step down by 2005 or perhaps even earlier in favor of his deputy, Lee Hsien Loong (51). It is also expected that there will be a smooth succession of leaders in Thailand. But we are certainly not sure whether the succession process in Indonesia and the Philippines next year will follow the same path.

People have reason to worry about the process and its impact on Southeast Asia. What worries people the most is perhaps the fact that ASEAN patriarchal leaders have evolved a consensus style that enable them to set aside political differences for the sake of peace, stability and cooperation.

In other words, there is no guarantee that the new leaders will follow the same path as their predecessors. If their priorities are on the home front, but the home front is in trouble, the leaders might become more nationalistic.

If this is the case, then we have reason not to be overly complacent with the quality of succession, particularly in our immediate region. A changing of the political guard in Asia will be a political reality, but the question remains as to whether the new guard will be able to guard the stability of the region.