Thailand and the Philippines both face popular street protests against governments.
In Manila, President Gloria Arroyo declared emergency rule to defy an expected military coup on the anniversary of an iconic popular uprising in 1986. Security forces later dispersed 5,000 protestors who had gathered to vent their fury against Ms. Arroyo, whose administration has been dogged by charges of incompetence and vote-rigging.
In Thailand, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra ended weeks of speculation over the legitimacy of his rule by dissolving parliament to make way for an election on April 2 - three years earlier than expected. He called this the best way to end the "mob rule" - the mass protests that have been growing in recent weeks. An estimated 30,000 Thais rallied again Sunday in the capital Bangkok to urge Mr. Thaksin to resign over alleged corruption.
While the two leaders face differing political challenges, both are struggling to satisfy expectations among voters for sustainable reforms. Their plight, say analysts, suggests that unless young democracies develop the institutions that support the rule of law - going beyond the simple right to vote - their governments remain vulnerable to "people power" coups that will usurp the democratic processes.
Democracy is as much a result of factors that create good government as it is a cause of good government.
The Filipinos have discovered that popular overthrows of governments does not lead to less corrupt successors. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Arroyo has lost support, but many middle-class voters see little alternative among the squabbling political elite. And with many disillusioned with past protests that have ousted one leader only to get another corrupt leader, few are rushing to the streets to join the latest protests. "People power is currently exhausted. People don't see it as a viable way to improve governance," says Mr. Rood.
The Filipinos need one leader with enormous virtue. Maybe a popular referendum should be held to give Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore a post where he is given the power to appoint and dismiss the leader of the Philippines. I'm serious. I bet such a system would produce far less corrupt government. When Lee becomes too old to make such decisions maybe his son could take over the role.
Update: Yet another attempted military coup happened in the Philippines this weekend.
MANILA, Philippines – A challenge to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's leadership by disgruntled marine officers ended without violence Sunday but signaled that efforts to oust the president probably will persist even without widespread popular support.
The five-hour standoff by marines began when their commander was relieved of his duties after what the government said was a foiled coup plot.
It left no doubt that the military has extremely restive elements that are fed up with neglect and corruption and are susceptible to being drawn into political adventurism.
Maybe the major branches of the Filipino military should set up a rotation where each branch gets its chance to try for a coup once a year. Or, hey, how about their best poker players play a poker game and the winner's branch of service gets to do the coup?
Or how about a game with their pay where whenever a branch launches a failed coup their salaries all go down and the salaries in the other branches goes up. But if a branch of the military succeeds in launching a successful coup then their salaries go up and the salaries of the other branches would go down. Such a reward system would reduce the number of abortive coups.
By Randall Parker at 2006 February 26 11:55 AM Democracy Failure | TrackBackWhen Lee becomes too old to make such decisions maybe his son could take over the role.
That kind of dynastic power structure has always corrupted in the past. I suspect Singapore would change more in the end than the Phillipines.
Posted by: Bob Badour on February 26, 2006 01:20 PMThe region never properly recovered from the Asian currency crises of 1998. All four countries (Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, and Indonesia) implemented limited reforms in the aftermath, but did not do anything to reduce corruption. The Philippines is especially corrupt. The Philippines did OK under Ramos, but Philippine constitution limits the president to one 6 year term (like Mexico). Estrada was totally corrupt, but was popular among the poor because he was such a dashing, handsome movie star when he was young (yes, these things are important to Philippinos, especial the lower classes).
The problem is that the Philippines has an upper class that is complete parasitical and any politician has to curry favor with it in order to get on the ballet and elected. Also, the fact that poor philippinos are attracted to flashy politicians (many from the film industry) even though they do not do a damn thing to help the poor, also does not help.
Philippine elections are a real scene. One candidate, a woman, (in the 90's) dressed up like a star wars character and used a "ray gun" during speeches. Her platform was to crack down on crime (which is really bad in the Philippines, the worse in any of the Asian countries I have been to). Others used similar antics to attract voter attention. A lot of Estrada's films were shown on the tely during the 1998 campaign, which is part of the reason why he won.
Another thing about coup attempts in the Philippines is that the solders who attempt them are lightly punished. When Aquino was president, there were four coup attempts against her. Each time the coup was put down, the solders involved were punished by having to do little more than press-ups. Very little incentive for them not to attempt coups. When Ramos was elected, being a former military commander, the coup attempts stopped. Of course, the economy did better under Ramos than under either Aquino or Estrada and the current lady.
Thailand has many of the same problems as the Philippines, but has a more developed economy. The fact that Thais are bhuddists (like the Chinese, who make up 30% of the population in Thailand) makes it more compatible with Chinese culture than catholic Philippines or, even worse, muslim Indonesia.
Of course, economic status of any Southeast Asian country is directly proportional to the percentage of Overseas Chinese that make up the population. The contrast between Chinese and Malay (all non-Chinese SE Asians are Malay) is especially noticable in Malaysia, where they make up 35% of the population. Penang and Ipoh are atleast 50% Chinese and KL is 40% Chinese. Kota Balu (in Kelatan state) is almost all Malay. It is much poorer and less developed than the Chinese parts of Malaysia.
Everyone here accepts the notion that the Chinese are smart and work hard, whereas the Malays general do not. It is also against the law to talk about this stuff publically in Malayia. You see, Malaysia also has its version of policial correctness (we are all Malaysian) just like the good-ole USA and Europe.
A reading of Richard Lynn's stuff about the internationa distribution of IQ fits perfectly with personal observations in Southeast Asia.
Posted by: Kurt on February 26, 2006 01:54 PMWould it be true to say that the Filipinos, in general, are wannabe White men?, Hence the enormous number of Filipinas who marry White men and the massive emigration pressure from those islands.
Posted by: Kenelm Digby on February 27, 2006 04:19 AMI think the reasons for white male/asian female marriages are better explained by Steve Sailer
Widespread catholicism in the Phillipines is naturally going to reduce further the friction for marriage in the sense that a Buddhist Chinese is less likely to hook up with a Protestant Caucasian than if both parties share the same religion.
Posted by: Bob Badour on February 27, 2006 07:26 AMKurt makes good points.
Somebody else posted recently (in the trade deficit/currency valuation thread) touting the Asian Tiger democracies. Ha. They are more sophisticated versions of kleptocracy (Japan is institutionally corrupt but not a kleptocracy - when your nation is a market-dominant-minority-to-the-world apparently you can get away with it).
Read the Derbshire column referenced by Sailer and Vdare. The core mentality of the people will manifest in any style of government.
Whitey has been experimenting with representative government since Ancient Greece at least. That has to do with high verbal IQ or some other yet to measured aspect of IQ.
Low verbal IQ in Asians produces a wholly different kind of democracy than the West (Hong Kong is riding the British cultural foundation).
This is the reason TRoosevelt's Gentlemen's Agreement restricting Asian immigration into the US last century reflected a strong grasp on reality. Asians can only be a "model minority" in the US in small numbers. The political consequences of filling the United State's elite schools with Asians will be interesting to say the least.
Uhm why did you say that filipinos are white wannabe's. Just because filipinos marry mostly white doesn't mean their wannabe's so shut up.
Posted by: Pamela on March 29, 2006 05:51 PMWant the Truth.
Read Richard Lynn book
"IQ and Wealth of Nations'
"IQ and Global Inequality"
Google the International Tests on Math and Science.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore are all at the Top.
Philippines, at the bottom next to South Africa.
How come. What's the Truth.
There is a 20 (twenty) gap between the East Asians and South Asians.
It's True.
Google the facts.
The poor philippines have an IQ of around 85-86.
Jananese, Koreans, Chinese have IQ of 105-108
True. Google the Truth.
Google Truth.
sad but true. the filipinoes are the "forrest gump" of asia.
We see now, japan, korea, taiwan, china, vietnam, with growth from 8-10%. How come the philippinoes are so far behind.
How come they are so poor.
The filipinoes are a malay people with IQ of 85-86
Compared japan-philippines.
Japan: 1st world nation. How come
philippines: 3rd world nation. How come.
There is a gap of 20 IQ points between the two nations.
Sad but True. let not fear the Truth