The change of leadership in Asian countries

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.