DEMOCRATIZATION IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA AS A FEASIBLE AND RELEVANT POLICY FOR FULL REGIONAL INTEGRATION

Running Head: Democratization in ASEAN1

DEMOCRATIZATION IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA AS A FEASIBLE AND RELEVANT

POLICY FOR FULL REGIONAL INTEGRATION

Ardiyanto Pramono

4081140


INTL 5645 Asian Area Studies

Dr. Kenneth Houston

Webster University Thailand Campus

Post-Cold War, The Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN) has been

performing well as an example of a success story of a regionalist organization.

Although its members have different political systems and social backgrounds

domestically, ASEAN’s members have proven that common interests and a non-

interference policy can unify them into a new emerging economic power. However, the

integration process among ASEAN’s members for a more efficient organization is

moving slowly due to clashes of interests among ASEAN’s members. Democratization, as

proposed in the ASEAN Political-Security Blueprint, is perceived as a relevant solution

for ASEAN’s integration problem even though this policy can generate new issues when

implemented. This paper analyzes the feasibility and relevancy of democratization as a

solution for ASEAN’s full-integration manifested by the ASEAN Economic Community

(AEC).

Started as a regionalist organization for common security,

ASEAN is proving that it is working consistently in helping its

members improving their economic power. In the 90s and 2000s,

ASEAN-5 (Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and

Singapore) economic growth consistently stood at 5.37%. For


comparison, in the same period, Japan’s economic power only grew

at 1, 31%, the United States of America (U.S.) economic power

only raised at 2, 52%. Only China performed better than ASEAN-5

by maintaining its economic growth in 9, 98% per year

(Panennungi, 2011).

ASEAN was blessed by a strategic location and simultaneously

a relatively peaceful regional situation. This situation was

significantly created by the success of ASEAN’s members in

managing their differences and working pragmatically for regional

stability. Thus, for a more advantageous partnership, ASEAN is

forced by recent reality to step-up to the next level as a fully

integrated economic community which is safe for investment and

promises benefits for external investors. Several summits

including Bali Concord II generated a monumental agreement to

integrate the region. This agreement was titled as the AEC. To

ensure every member’s commitment to the AEC agreement and to keep

regional stability, democratization, with all its consequences,

may be a relevant policy for ASEAN member.

This paper will analyze democratization issue in ASEAN.

First, this paper will begin with a review of the literatures to


create a theoretical framework for analyzing democratization in

ASEAN. A background of democratization in ASEAN will be presented

after the review of literatures. The results of research

concerning socio-political realities in ASEAN will be the next

section. Analysis and the paper’s conclusion are the closing

sections of this paper.

Review of the Literatures

Regionalism is a main theoretical framework to explain

ASEAN’s policies or, internally in ASEAN as a guide to generate

policies. The core idea of regionalism is the implementation of

an institution for states which share a geographical area and/or

mutual interdependence (Nye, 1968). Regionalism is based on the

realization that states cannot fulfill its interests

independently; they need partners which help them to fulfill

their interests independently. In a regionalist institution,

member states will be encouraged to share part of their

sovereignty in order to gain efficient results from their

cooperation. Due to this system, regionalism has a strong link

with functionalism.


Pragmatism and efficiency are the two main keywords of

functionalism. In functionalism, the most prominent thing,

instead of institutional administrative aspects, is the function

of the institution. From the perspective of functionalist,

regionalist organizations are urged to put purposes and functions

of the organization at the top priority list; simultaneously

regionalist organization should ignore irrelevant aspects of a

state’s sovereignty. In the context of ASEAN, the leaders agreed

to impose a democratic system at different levels, domestic and

regional, to ensure ASEAN’s capability to face global challenges

(ASEAN Summit 1997 in Kuala Lumpur, 1997). However, similar to

other policies, this raises numerous questions. Is

democratization a policy that ASEAN’s member states should

impose? Is it relevant for ASEAN’s vision? After all, ASEAN’s

member states have different political systems and they are

proving that they can maintain a partnership in this diverse

environment. Obviously, perspectives mentioning that

democratization might undermine the partnership among ASEAN’s

member states are not irrelevant. If the worst case scenario

happens, democratization in ASEAN will be counter-productive to


its pursuits of mutual benefits and integrated partnership.

Through the functionalist framework, this paper tries to analyze

the future role of democratization in ASEAN.

As the most popular recent ideology, democracy is taking

central stage in numerous political debates. During the Cold War,

the idea of government by people was challenged by the expansion

of communism. Post-World War II, Samuel P. Huntington stated in

his book, “The Clash of Civilization” (Huntington, 1993) that

democracy will be challenged by different ideologies such as

Islamism. Recently, theoretical approaches which mention the

democratic system’s capacity to guarantee sustainable development

have been challenged by social-economic realities. A democratic

system is not always supportive of community development.

Charles Maurass, a philosopher and political activist from

France, stated that ‘democracy is evil, democracy is death’

(Kofmel, 2008). Maurass came up with the idea that a democratic

system will provide quantity but not quality. A government based

on the people will give power to ‘foreigners’, the term that

Maurass used to describe people who have no deep understanding

about the current state’s socio-political reality. When the


elected government comes into power, there is a high-risk that

this government is not capable of functioning as an effective

administration. This situation will lead the state into

uncertainty and instability.

One of Maurass’ controversial ideas is that he believed in a

hierarchical system among the people. Maurass believed that

equality does not exist. There are different social classes and

every class of people has its own role. It is essential, in his

perspective, that political rights are more preferably delegated

to the people from social classes whom have a good understanding

of politics and are educated well enough to make strategic and

efficient policies.

Another perspective criticizing a democratic system came

from Fareed Zakaria (Zakaria, 2003) (Judis, 2013). Zakaria stated

that democracy without a strong libertarian culture is not

guarantee a people-centered government and even threaten the

essence of democracy itself. There is a war on elitism but there

is no mechanism for educated people to ensure that there will be

no hidden war among the lobbyists, business stakeholders and

other elites. Democratization by itself is not a valid answer for


real issues. Zakaria proposed constitutional liberty rather than

democratization as an instrument to ensure the existence of a

people-centered government. A state is putting itself into a

vulnerable position if they are democratizing their political

system and ignoring the urgency to provide liberty first. He

urged that if the liberal democracy process is not managed

accordingly, then there is a high chance that democracy will

undermine liberty. He put Germany under Nazi rule as a model of

the failure of the democratic system to protect the people’s

liberty.

James Gomez and Robin Ramcharan, based on their analysis on

socio-politic historical patterns in South East Asia noticed that

a democratization process does not always lead to a people-

centric government; often it generates an authoritarian regime.

(Gomes & Ramcharan, 2014). Generally, though using different

approaches, Gomez and Ramcharan are on the same page with

Zakaria. Both of those researches draw the same conclusion: a

democratization process itself is not adequate for ensuring a

people-centric government.


While ASEAN members are still struggling with internal

contentions, external threats are on the way to hamper the

democratization process within ASEAN. Consequently, the urgency

for ASEAN’s members to solve their internal issues is increased.

ASEAN’s members need to consolidate their power so it is possible

for them to protect their system and cooperation. Amitav Acharya

from American University is one of numerous political experts who

demonstrate their concern for external power’s threats to ASEAN’s

democratization process (Acharya, 2011). Acharya specifically

pointed out China’s political maneuvers as the crucial factor in

deciding whether the democratization process in ASEAN is on track

or not. Acharya stated that democratization in ASEAN potentially

spreads into China’s mainland and undermines the authority of the

communist regime. Therefore, any counter reaction from China

towards ASEAN’s democratization process is expected.

Narrative

The Objectives of Democratization in South-East Asia

During the 38th Anniversary of ASEAN, Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono, former President of Indonesia, delivered his lecture

to explain the strategic role of democratization in South-East


Asia (Yudhoyono, 2012). Yudhoyono emphasized Indonesia’s

achievement in redeveloping Aceh as an example of how development

supported by the people was able to demonstrate good development

performance. Moreover, he highlighted how Indonesia maintains

multi-dimensional development by relying on its democratic

system. In fact, Indonesia is now one of the largest democratic

countries. This is a significant achievement considering the two

first presidential successions in Indonesia ended in socio-

political chaos.

Putting ASEAN in context, Yudhoyono believed that ASEAN’s

development plan should be built by the active participation and

involvement of the people of ASEAN so it will accurately focus on

significant issues experienced by the people of ASEAN. By

building a development blue-print in this way, ASEAN will be able

to solve critical social issues in South-East Asia. ASEAN member

states will then be able to expect success in overcoming social

issues, maintaining socio-political stability and strengthening

productive economic development. Sustainable development with

multi-dimensional positive impacts, then, is feasible for ASEAN’s

members.


According to another perspective, democratization in ASEAN

is an important step to resolve issues generated by rapid

economic development among ASEAN’s members. The growth of the

middle-class will generate educated people with strong purchasing

power and connection to education and information, these people

will have power to compete with their government’s supremacy and,

therefore, the government will be forced to accommodate these

people within a democratic system to avoid contention between the

government and the people (Laothamatas, 1997). When the ASEAN

Economic Community (AEC) comes into effect and performs

efficiently boosting the economic power of the people, a

democratic system will be the best option to ensure general

stability. Once more time, Indonesia is a good case for

illustrating this theory. Undoubtedly, two of Yudhoyono’s

legacies for Indonesia are positive economic growth symbolized by

Indonesia’s membership in G-20 and political-security stability

as a result of consistent effort to build a democratic system

(Mietzner, 2014). Both legacies have a strong correlation.

Technically, democratization within ASEAN simultaneously

functions as a ‘check and balance’ system. Democratization in


this context is not only about domestic democratic system among

ASEAN’s members. Democratization is further promoted by the

ASEAN’s institutional system also. Anwar Ibrahim, the prime

minister of Malaysia during the Asian Economic Crisis in the ‘90s

promoted an idea to put ‘constructive intervention’ into practice

(Acharya, 2011). Anwar Ibrahim perceived that economic systems

among ASEAN members were connected. Therefore, every member had a

responsibility for regional economic stability. He stated that

ASEAN can no longer build on the principles of non-interference

and flexibility. To ensure political-social-economic stability,

there must be a democratic mechanism to generate strict policy

and legitimate laws as insurance for the economic security of all

of ASEAN’s member states.

Indeed, simultaneously, a democratic domestic political

system within ASEAN’s members also provides ‘check and balance’

system for the administration in power. Historically, ASEAN

member states’ experienced numerous cases of corrupt regimes

which failed to generate good governance and brought their

countries into socio-political crises. In several cases, these

domestic crises impacted other members. As an illustration,


Recently, ASEAN’s member states’ reputation in economic freedom

is not impressive. Indonesia for example, despite of the massive

economic development, is only rank as the 105th freest economic

community based on Index of economic freedom. Other example,

Thailand, is rank as the 75th freest economic community based on

the same index (2015 Index of Economic Freedom). This data is

reflecting the weaknesses of South East Asia as a promising

investment land and, in the future, it is possible to see the

degradation of investment growth in South East Asia resulting

domestic-regional socio-political crisis. Therefore, ASEAN’s

member states’ intention to prevent those historical occurrences

can be justified. If all ‘check and balance’ systems, in at the

domestic and regional levels, function properly, fiascos within

the AEC are preventable. Based on this logic, democratization is

probably the key of the AEC/ regional integration and the most

precise solution to ensure sustainable development in South East

Asia.

Furthermore, democratization is more attractive to foreign

investors. Due to the popularity of democratic peace theory, a

democratic system is perceived as the most sustainable political


system and one capable of ensuring economic security. The U.S.

and its allies recognize democratization as a strategic policy

for global peace (The Stanley Foundation, 2005). There is a

perspective held by the U.S. and its allies that their efforts to

combat terrorism and other threats will gain massive support from

democratic countries. These democratic countries further will

have a strong partnership for guaranteeing common security. In

short, democratic countries will be safer. Based on this fact,

democratic institutions or states are more favorable to foreign

investors.

ASEAN’s Social Political Reality

ASEAN is frequently labeled as the club of elites. This

organization was founded by initiatives from regimes in-power and

the member’s governmental elites hold a significant role in

ASEAN’s policy making process (Gomes & Ramcharan, 2014). Most of

these regimes hold their power means other than democratic

elections. Even though several leaders come into power through

national elections, the validity of the results of the elections

are being questioned; there are several indications of corruption

and fraud.


To turn ASEAN from a state-centric organization into a

people-based organization is not a simple task. Conflicts of

interests among elites are likely to happen and a smooth

transition is the last thing to be expected. Democratization

campaigns will meet intense resistances in domestic levels from

elites which are threatened by the democratization process. In

addition, ASEAN’s efforts to promote a democratic system will be

hampered with its non-interference principal. Consequently, there

is a chance that the democratization process will result in a

dead-lock and this issue will obstruct ASEAN’s goals.

Despite all the issues that might be happening due to the

democratization process among ASEAN members, massive supports for

this policy is demonstrated by numerous political figures.

Figures that favor the democratization processes in ASEAN refer

to Indonesia as a model of state which can maintain political and

security stability through the democratization process. After the

1998 revolution, Indonesia has successfully achieved smooth

governmental transition through three presidential elections.

Notwithstanding, the political phenomenon in Indonesia could not


simply happen in other ASEAN member states because they have

diverse political and social backgrounds.

There is also a question about the sustainability of the

elected government and democratic system once it is installed in

ASEAN’s member states. The supremacy of the elected government is

being doubted; a mandate from the people is not enough to

guarantee the authority of the elected government. Thaksin

Shinawatra’s regime and Aung San Suu Kyi’s party have proven that

the voice of the people is not significant to ensure the

continuity of their office. For the government in power, there

are obligations to address vital factors that affect their office

precisely without relying on the power of the people’s mandate.

The armed forces are the major concern among ASEAN’s

members. In numerous cases, the armed forces have their own

political standing and interests. Their loyalty is not always for

the government in office. As the actor with direct access to

weaponry and armies, the armed forces’ leaders have a capacity to

oust the government and replace it with a new government which is

supportive for the armed forces’ interests. Based on latest

situation, ASEAN’s member states such as Thailand, Indonesia, the


Philippines, Myanmar, Vietnam and Laos are still vulnerable to

the military coups due to various reasons (Croissant, 2013),

mostly because there is no power or mechanism to prevent the

armed forces from flexing their muscles.

Simultaneously, threats to governmental legitimacy in ASEAN

are coming from insurgent groups and inter-social group

conflicts. ASEAN’s members have a complex social-political

background resulting from diverse religions, sects and races. The

possibility of conflict among these different parties is high. In

Myanmar, a country with hundreds of racial-cultural groups, the

Karen Rebellion and religious conflict between Muslim Rohingya

and the Buddhist majority are the Burmese government’s major

concerns. In Laos, the Hmong rebellion is a vital issue for Lao

government supremacy. In Indonesia, Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (GAM),

Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) and other smaller rebellions are

triggering insurgency in different parts of the biggest

archipelago country in the world.

Furthermore, inequality among the people of ASEAN member

states has the potential to generate conflicts that trigger

socio-political instability. This political instability is able


to oust the regime in-power. The 1998 revolution in Indonesia was

generated by massive inequality followed by a genocide carried

out against Chinese-minority Indonesian. In the last ten years,

Thailand has been facing episodic political instability as a

result of clashes of social class. Future conflicts are likely

inevitable because social inequality still exists and there is no

breakthrough program from ASEAN or domestic governments to

overcome this issue. This inequality is reflected by the Human

Development Index and Multidimensional Poverty Index published by

the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (the UNDP, 2014).

As an illustration, in Indonesia, 16, 20% of the total population

lives with income below US$ 1, 25 per-days when the gross

national income per-capita is around US$ 8,970. This huge gap

between the lower-economic class and middle-class exists in other

ASEAN members. When the AEC is effectively in place, this huge

gap will potentially become more complex and future conflicts are

predictable. The country with the highest gross national income

per capita is Singapore at US$ 72,371 / capita. In contrast,

Myanmar only generated US$ 3,998 per-capita.


When the government is changed from state-centric to people

centric, it is harder for the government to control the people.

Democratization is promising a more political dynamic which

powers are distributed and conflicts are likely to be happened.

Authoritarian regimes are more favorable to maintain political

stability with absolute power and pragmatic policy.

When democratization is being implemented, obviously the

governments of ASEAN’s members cannot handle these multi-

dimensional issues without assistance from other. Yet, civil

society, the expected supportive party, is not strong enough to

provide proper support. The development of civil societies in

ASEAN is held back by the regime in-power. By ignoring the

evolution of civil society in South-East Asia, civil society is

force to the government’s apathetic attitudes towards its role

and is further restrained through unsupportive policies (Rother,

2013).

Analysis

The objective of democratization is, obviously, socio-

political stability. The democratic system is perceived as the

key to sustaining socio-political stability. Paradoxically, the


domestic democratic systems among ASEAN’s member does not

consistently generate socio-political stability. The Philippines

has faced political violent conflicts during several elections.

Thailand is trapped in uncertainty due to problematic elections

and maintaining its stability through coups and the

implementation of the martial law. Cambodia’s last election is

ended in 12 months of deadlock due to disputed election results

and only resolved when all the parties agreed to meet each other

halfway through power sharing agreement (Sainsbury, 2014). This

solution is beneficial for elites but not really effective for

improving the election system in Cambodia; resulting in a

democratic system that exist in blurry area between a valid

system and a rhetoric jargon only. In South East Asia,

ironically, the democratic system seems to be the source of

socio-political instability rather than a significant solution

for the implementation of a people-based system. Nonetheless, it

is an act of ignorance to simply drawing a conclusion that the

democratic system does not fit with the socio-political reality

of South East Asia. There are different factors that generate

political-security instability among ASEAN members.


On the other side, an authoritarian system does not always

bringing positive impacts to ASEAN members. Instability is

probably more easily prevented in government with total control.

Yet, at the same time there is no ‘check and balance’ mechanism

which frequently leads the government to become a corrupt and

inefficient institution. The policies of this government will be

elite-centric and left the people in the periphery. The state’s

development, consequently, is affected in negative ways. These

countries are potentially no longer attractive for foreign

investors when the rule of the law is doubted. The fall of

Myanmar’s economic power under various militaristic regimes is an

example of attempting to sustain stability without positive

economic growth.

Reconciling a people-based government with an effective

government is a critical issue to address. A democratic system

needs people who could explore a democratic environment to

provide an advantage to participate in their state’s development.

If a libertarian system is not integrated into the people’s

political environment, the people do not know how to act in a

democratic environment, and then the people will use a democratic


environment for destructive purposes. In other cases,

irresponsible groups will exploit it as a way for them to fulfill

their group’s interests only. As mentioned in the literature

review, democratization can lead the state into oligarchic regime

if the people are not ready for a democratic system (Zakaria,

2003). Hence, not only is the distribution of power vital in a

democratic governmental system but the distribution of

responsibility is equally crucial for a productive democratic

system.

In South East Asia, civil society is the actor that

practically has a huge potential to receive both the power and

the responsibility to develop the community. Per contra, civil

society is the weakest link between the government and the

people. The role of the civil society in South East Asia is still

limited and insignificantly developing the society. Even, in a

political climate where the government is a totalitarian regime,

civil society is ended as a governmental instrument to control or

alienated people from the developmental plan. A similar

phenomenon has happened in states with weak democratic systems.

Civil society in this political climate is being used by


political elites as an instrument to obtain power and loses its

function to serve the people’s interests.

ASEAN’s member states must ensure that civil society can

fulfill its role as a partner and a watchdog for ensuring

sustainable developments and democratization process. A strong

civil society is beneficial for the people and for improving the

government’s reputation. In ASEAN, efforts to empower the civil

society can be initiated by giving more freedoms to civil society

and facilitating the implementation of civil society’s strategic

project that synergize with ASEAN members’ goals for benefiting

the people.

The next step for ASEAN is to ensure the rule of law. Rule

of law is important for guaranteeing the continuity and relevancy

of democratization process. Based on Worldwide Government

Indicator published by the World Bank (The World Bank, 2014),

rule of law in ASEAN has no reliable reputation. Governments of

the CLMV (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam) averagely only

achieve below 20% out of 100% for their efforts in ensuring rule

of law. Only Vietnam performs above 30%. As a matter of fact,

ASEAN will experience numerous positive impacts if they can


guarantee rule of law in the region. It will function as a

protective mechanism for civil society and the people from groups

or interests that undermine the ASEAN’s goals. Subsequently,

ASEAN’s reputation from the point of view of foreign investors

will improve if they are convinced with the security of their

investment in South East Asia. Massive investment will support

the developmental plan at the end of the day.

Considering that ASEAN members and ASEAN as an institution

have different characteristics than the European Union (EU),

ASEAN needs to realize that it needs a specific democratic system

to answer its issues. The EU, undoubtedly, shares some

similarities with ASEAN and both of these organizations can be

labeled as each other’s counterpart. Thus, ASEAN does not

possible to adopt the EU model without modification. To ensure

the fittest democratic system for ASEAN, the willingness and

good-intention of ASEAN members is required for constructive

dialogue to change the image of an elite-centric regionalist

organization into a people centric economically productive

organization. It is essential to ensure that the balanced


representation of majority and minority is managed according to

the principle of fairness and productive partnership.

Democratization, though it is a long process, is a justified

strategy for ASEAN to bring the regional organization into next

level. A smooth transition is possible to be expected, yet it is

a long process for ASEAN to finally change. The nature of socio-

political background of ASEAN is complex and peace-building at

domestic levels and the regional level need to be maintained

consistently.

Conclusion

Democracy and political stability are different things and

not always inclusive. There is no guarantee that democracy will

bring political stability. An example can be found from Egypt,

one of the world’s biggest Arabic countries, which is suffering

from chaotic political transition. There is a gap between

democracy and political stability. This gap demands a commitment

of good-will from the government of the state undergoing

democratic-transition to be closed. Obviously, the people are the

most vital part of a state and should be involved in building a

productive democracy.


ASEAN’s members’ vision to prioritize democratization is

supported by observing the case from the EU though the EU and

ASEAN are facing different challenges. It is an urgent issue for

ASEAN’s members’ to formulate a fitting model of democratization.

Recently, the democratization blue-print made by ASEAN is still

biased and does not provide safeguards for consequences of

democratization in ASEAN. If the democratization process is not

managed precisely, there is a chance that democratization in

ASEAN will be counter-productive.

Total Words: 4,254 Words

Bibliography(n.d.). Retrieved March 7, 2015, from 2015 Index of Economic Freedom:

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/thailand

Acharya, A. (2011). Speech to 5th Annual Nordic NIAS Council Conference. Stockholm: Stockholm University.

ASEAN Summit 1997 in Kuala Lumpur. (1997). ASEAN Political Security Community Blue Print. Kuala Lumpur: ASEAN Secretariat.

Croissant, A. (2013). Coups and post-coup politics in South-East Asia and the Pacific: conceptual and comparative perspectives. Australian Journal of International Affairs Vol. 67, no. 3.

Gomes, J., & Ramcharan, R. (2014). Introduction: Democracy and Human Rights in Southeast Asia. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 33, 3,3–17.


Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Clash of Civilization? Foreign Affairs.

Judis, J. B. (2013, June). Putting Liberty First: The Case Against Democracy. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from Foreign Affairs: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58988/john-b-judis/putting-liberty-first-the-case-against-democracy

Kofmel, E. (2008). Anti-democratic Though. Charlottesvile: Imprint AcademicPhilosophy Documentation center.

Laothamatas, A. (1997). Development and Democratization: A TheoriticalIntroduction with Reference to the South East Asian and East Asian Cases. Democratization in Southeast and East Asia, 1-21.

Mietzner, D. M. (2014, September 18). SBY’s mixed legacy. Retrieved February 14, 2015, from New Mandala: http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/09/18/sby-mixed-legacy/

Nye, J. (1968). International Regionalism. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Panennungi, M. A. (2011, May 11). ASEAN economies past and future. RetrievedFebruary 21, 2015, from Jakarta Post: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/05/11/asean-economies-past-and-future.html

Rother, S. (2013). ASEAN Civil Society under the Myanmar Chairmanship.German Institute of Global Area Studies.

Sainsbury, M. (2014, August 25). A new era for Cambodia after political deal. Retrieved February 2, 2015, from Nikkei Asian Review: http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/A-new-era-for-Cambodia-after-political-deal

The Stanley Foundation. (2005). Challenges to Democracy in Southeast Asia:Rethinking US Policy. 46th Strategy For Peace Confrence. Warrenton: The Stanley Foundation.

the UNDP. (2014). Human Development Index and its components. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from United Nations Development Programme:


http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-1-human-development-index-and-its-components

the UNDP. (2014). Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). Retrieved February 15, 2015, from United Nations Development Programme: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-6-multidimensional-poverty-index-mpi

The World Bank. (2014). the World Bank.org. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from Worldwide Governance Indicator: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports

Yudhoyono, S. B. (2012, July 27). On Building the ASEAN Community: The Democratic Aspect. Retrieved February 14, 2015, from ASEAN.org: http://www.asean.org/resources/2012-02-10-08-47-56/leaders-view/item/on-building-the-asean-community-the-democratic-aspect

Zakaria, F. (2003). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democray at Home and Abroad. New York: Norton &Company.

DEMOCRATIZATION IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA AS A FEASIBLE AND RELEVANT POLICY FOR FULL REGIONAL INTEGRATION

Documents

Transcript of DEMOCRATIZATION IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA AS A FEASIBLE AND RELEVANT POLICY FOR FULL REGIONAL INTEGRATION