Comparative Historical Perspectives on the State of Democracy in Asia and Beyond

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

What is the state of democracy in Asia today? Has it improved or regressed over the last few decades? Do recent developments signal the resilience of democracy in the region, reveal its erosion in specific cases or portend a crisis of regimes?

This panel addresses these questions by analyzing the comparative experiences of several important polities. Its first objective is to explain the respective causal determinants of significant historical outcomes. Specifically, we examine the institutional structures, state-society relations and policy choices that shaped the impact of coups, the removal of national political leaders from office and erosion of democratic norms, institutions and practices. Second, the panel explores whether the conventional frames that dominate the emerging literature on ‘authoritarian resurgence/democratic recession’, 'democratic advance/backsliding’ and ‘democratic consolidation/deconsolidation’ are sufficient to explain these developments in contemporary Asia, or whether we need to conceptualize new dimensions and/or mechanisms that might inform wider comparative debates in other regions, and require novel responses, realignments and reforms.

In "Cold War Crises and Coups," Erik Kuhonta contrasts the respective histories of democratic political development in Indonesia and Chile by tracing the impact of the 1965 and 1973 coups in each country, respectively. He argues that the political leanings of the middle class, the relative institutionalization of political parties, and the nature of collective memory shaped the way in which these formative coups affected the trajectories and quality of democracy in Indonesia and Chile to the present. In "Protest, Coups, Impeachment," Illan Nam compares the divergent outcomes of similar attempts by elite interests to remove two national political leaders, Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand and Park Geun Hye in South Korea. She argues that the Thai opposition’s inability to undermine Thaksin sufficiently through formal institutions led them to resort to a coup, while their counterparts in Korea exercised sufficient control over key institutions, rendering the electoral arena safe for contestation. These contrasting outcomes reflected the divergent developmental trajectory of their respective state institutions. Finally, in "Normalizing the Erosion of Contemporary Indian Democracy", Sanjay Ruparelia demonstrates how the rise of Narendra Modi since 2014, and his populist, plebiscitary and presidential style of rule, echoes earlier developments under Indira Gandhi in the 1970s. Both leaders subverted the autonomy of many crucial institutions and imposed a harsh crackdown on criticism and dissent in the media and civil society. Yet the militant Hindu nationalism, greater organizational power and normalization of violence that characterizes Modi's rule constitutes a greater threat to India's longstanding democracy than Mrs. Gandhi had, despite the fact that she briefly imposed Emergency rule.

The two discussants on the panel, Sheri Berman and Rachel Beatty Riedl, will critical evaluate these papers and situate their findings into a broader comparative perspective that extends beyond Asia to Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Sub Unit

• Division 44: Democracy and Autocracy

Individual Presentations

• Cold War Crises and Coups: Democratic Development in Indonesia and Chile - Erik Martinez Kuhonta, McGill University

• Protests, Coups, Impeachment: Comparing Thailand and South Korea - Illan Nam, Colgate University

• Normalizing the Erosion of Democracy: India since the Emergency - Sanjay Ruparelia, Ryerson University

Chair

• Sanjay Ruparelia Ryerson University

Discussants

• Sheri Berman Barnard College, Columbia University

• Rachel Beatty Riedl Cornell University