The Politics of Accountability in Southeast Asia: The Dominance of Moral Ideologies

257 Pages·2014·1.366 MB·English

by  Garry Rodan, Caroline Hughes

THE POLITICS OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN
SOUTHEAST ASIA
ooxxffoorrddhhbb--99778800119988770033553322..iinndddd ii 1111//77//22001133 11::4477::0088 PPMM
OXFORD STUDIES IN DEMOCRATIZATION
Series editor: Laurence Whitehead
Oxford Studies in Democratization is a series for scholars
and students of comparative politics and related disciplines.
Volumes will concentrate on the comparative study of the
democratization processes that accompanied the decline and
termination of the Cold War. The geographical focus of the
series will primarily be Latin America, the Caribbean,
Southern and Eastern Europe, and relevant
experiences in Africa and Asia.
OTHER BOOKS IN THE SERIES
Democracy, Agency, and the State:
Theory with Comparative Intent
Guillermo O’Donnell
Regime-Building:
Democratization and International Administration
Oisín Tansey
Rethinking Arab Democratization:
Elections without Democracy
Larbi Sadiki
Accountability Politics:
Power and Voice in Rural Mexico
Jonathan A. Fox
Regimes and Democracy in Latin America:
Theories and Methods
Edited by Gerardo L. Munck
Democracy and Diversity:
Political Engineering in the Asia-Pacifi c
Benjamin Reilly
Democratic Accountability in Latin America:
Edited by Scott Mainwaring and Christopher Weina
Democratization: Theory and Experience
Laurence Whitehead
The Politics of Uncertainty:
Sustaining and Subverting Electoral Authoritarianism
Andreas Schedler
ooxxffoorrddhhbb--99778800119988770033553322..iinndddd iiii 1111//77//22001133 11::4477::0088 PPMM
The Politics of
Accountability in
Southeast Asia
The Dominance of Moral Ideologies
GARRY RODAN
AND
CAROLINE HUGHES
3
ooxxffoorrddhhbb--99778800119988770033553322..iinndddd iiiiii 1111//77//22001133 11::4477::0088 PPMM
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Garry Rodan and Caroline Hughes 2014
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2014
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013950252
ISBN 978–0–19–870353–2
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
ooxxffoorrddhhbb--99778800119988770033553322..iinndddd iivv 1111//77//22001133 11::4477::0088 PPMM
Preface

Normative appeals to accountability by political leaders, social activists, and
international policy and aid actors have never been more widespread. It is
tempting to view this development as indicative of the growing power of lib-
eral and democratic ideas associated with greater global economic and political
integration. However, despite a strong historical link between accountability
and liberal democracy in early industrializing countries, there is no inevitabil-
ity about this relationship.
This book investigates the different ideologies informing accountability
politics in Southeast Asia and fi nds that morally conservative ideologies are
much more important than liberalism and democracy in shaping demands for
accountability and responses to them. The key test for distinguishing between
moral, liberal, and democratic ideologies is whose authority is advanced by
accountability practices. Democratic accountability ideologies advance the
authority of the sovereign people; liberal ideologies advance the authority of
the freely contracting individual in the political or economic sphere; moral
ideologies advance the authority of established or charismatic moral guard-
ians who interpret or ordain correct modes of behaviour for public offi cials.
In Southeast Asia, we fi nd both authoritarian and post-authoritarian
regimes that are resorting to the exploitation of moral ideologies to contain
pressures for accountability. This is not culturally based but a by-product of
the social foundations of political and social organizations infl uenced by Cold
War legacies and their intersection with contemporary dynamics of capitalist
development—nationally, regionally, and internationally.
The political economy of different countries produces a range of social
forces that act strategically to contest for power through efforts to promote
different kinds of institutional reform. In the context of such struggles ide-
ology becomes an important means for both mobilizing supporters to pre-
ferred reforms as well as a way of potentially constraining the range of reform
options. This is as true of accountability reforms as it is of reforms to any
other set of political institutions.
In the case studies presented in this volume, we show that different social
actors have various interests in promoting accountability but ideology plays
a crucial role in how this pans out. Ideology infl uences the extent to which
accountability campaigns resonate with a broader group of actors, and whether
or not the basis for cross-class coalitions of social forces is laid. Ideological
appeals can create a sense of common interest around prevailing values that
ooxxffoorrddhhbb--99778800119988770033553322..iinndddd vv 1111//77//22001133 11::4477::0088 PPMM
vi Preface
may have already been internalized among social groups. The effectiveness of
ideology is, however, boosted by the presence of powerful organizations that
can propagate these views. In Southeast Asia, religious bodies, political parties,
and broadcast media are among the most signifi cant such organizations.
We fi nd that the kinds of ideologies most powerful in accountability poli-
tics in Southeast Asia are morally based ideologies. The lack of civil society
organizations propagating liberalism or democracy means that moral cri-
tiques of public offi cials and institutions are the most infl uential bases for
binding coalitions of activists for greater accountability.
In drawing distinctions between ideologies we adopt a strong emphasis on
the need to transcend the mere procedural aspects of democratic account-
ability. For us, institutions are sites of ideological confl ict, so we cannot neatly
line up each ideology with corresponding institutions. This presents method-
ological problems, particularly with respect to democracy which, over the past
twenty years, has increasingly been treated in procedural rather than substan-
tive terms as defi nitions of democracy have been pared back and tightened.
Yet we consider procedural defi nitions of democracy inadequate precisely
because they obscure the extent to which institutions commonly associated
with democracy are the sites of ideological confl ict. This is made abundantly
clear in our examination of accountability procedures in Southeast Asia across
authoritarian and democratic regimes.
Although this particular study focuses on Southeast Asia, our framework
and arguments have universal applicability. Indeed, the aim of this project was
to contribute to general debates about accountability via detailed case studies
of Southeast Asia. In other regions, with contrasting histories and political
economies the nature and extent of organizations and social actors shaping
accountability politics will differ, but the importance of these factors will not.
Garry Rodan and Caroline Hughes
ooxxffoorrddhhbb--99778800119988770033553322..iinndddd vvii 1111//77//22001133 11::4477::0088 PPMM
Acknowledgements

Research for this book was fi nancially supported by the Australian Research
Council (ARC), as a Discovery Project (DP0984569) entitled ‘The Politics of
Accountability Reform in Southeast Asia’. Without such support a project
of this nature and scale would have been impossible. We are thus extremely
grateful to the ARC. Equally, the cooperation of interviewees across Southeast
Asia who generously submitted their views and insights about account-
ability reform has been vital to this project and therefore greatly valued and
appreciated. Additionally, colleagues at the Asia Research Centre, Murdoch
University, and many that are part of the international network of col-
leagues and occasional collaborators of the Centre have in varying ways and
degrees assisted this project. Special mention is warranted for some in this
category whose assistance was particularly signifi cant: Shahar Hameiri, Vedi
Hadiz, Jane Hutchison, Kanishka Jayasuriya, Luky Djani, Khoo Boo Teik,
Kevin Hewison, Pasuk Phongpaichit, Thitinan Pongsudhirak, Eng Netra,
and Walden Bello. We benefi ted also from suggestions and constructive criti-
cisms provided by one Oxford University Press-appointed anonymous ref-
eree in particular, to whom we express our thanks. The research assistance of
James Boyd, Michelle Hackett, Ros Lumley, Ingebjørg Helland Scarpello, Kelly
Gerard, and Audri Sani has also been important. Administrative support for
the management of the project by Tamara Dent of the Asia Research Centre
ensured the extensive fi eldwork for the project was conducted as smoothly as
possible. We also acknowledge that arguments and data of Chapter 5 draw
in signifi cant part on our previously published article, ‘Ideological Coalitions
and the International Promotion of Social Accountability: The Philippines
and Cambodia Compared’, in the International Studies Association journal
International Studies Quarterly , 56, 2012. Finally, both authors have benefi ted
from their respective families’ understanding and support for the duration of
the project, including many months of fi eldwork.
ooxxffoorrddhhbb--99778800119988770033553322..iinndddd vviiii 1111//77//22001133 11::4477::0088 PPMM
ooxxffoorrddhhbb--99778800119988770033553322..iinndddd vviiiiii 1111//77//22001133 11::4477::0088 PPMM
Contents
List of Abbreviations xi
1. Contrasting Ideological Rationales for Accountability 1
2. Accountability Coalitions in the Southeast Asian Context 27
3. Political Crisis and Human Rights Accountability in
Singapore and Malaysia 57
4. Decentralization and Accountability in Post-Socialist
Cambodia and Vietnam 88
5. Social Accountability in the Philippines and Cambodia 117
6. State-based Anticorruption Agencies in Indonesia, the
Philippines, and Thailand 143
Conclusion 179
Bibliography 185
Index 219
ooxxffoorrddhhbb--99778800119988770033553322..iinndddd iixx 1111//77//22001133 11::4477::0088 PPMM