Inclusion and Power-Sharing in Pacific Asia: From Consociationalism to Centripetalism

• Authors: Reilly Benjamin
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper looks at the changing nature of political power-sharing in the Asia-Pacific region, characterised by the ethnically-plural democracies and semi-democracies, and it reviews several cases in terms of their institutional structures and mechanisms adopted for the purpose of political inclusion. The paper states that the classic consensual recommendations of parliamentary rule, proportional elections and ethnic parties have been abandoned in favour of more majoritarian and multiethnic models of governance. In this shift from one model of power-sharing to another, political inclusion in Southeast Asia then increasingly takes place informally, through centripetal rather than consociational means, via some key institutional mechanisms: oversized but not grand coalition governments; aggregative rather than segmental political parties; ethnically-mixed federal or other sub-national jurisdictional units; and majoritarian, vote-pooling political institutions. As a result, this “Asian model” of political inclusion stands in contrast and in many ways in opposition to the classic consensual recommendations.

Keywords

EN

power-sharing; consociationalism; centripetalism; Pacific Asia; political inclusion

• Publisher: Instytut Kultur Śródziemnomorskich i Orientalnych PAN
• Journal: Acta Asiatica Varsoviensia
• Year: 2017
• Volume: Tom 1
• Pages: 65-88

Dates

published

2017-06-01

Contributors

author

Reilly Benjamin

References

• James Fearon, ‘Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country’, Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 8, No. 2, June 2003, pp. 195–222.
• See Benjamin Reilly, ‘Democracy, Ethnic Fragmentation, and Internal Conflict: Confused Theories, Faulty Data, and the “Crucial Case” of Papua New Guinea’, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2000, pp. 162–185; Benjamin Reilly, ‘State Functioning and State Failure in the South Pacific’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 4, 2004, pp. 479–493.
• Tonga’s Constitutional and Electoral Commission (2008) recommended that the Single Transferable Vote be adopted for future elections. In the Solomon Islands, reform debates have focused on the Alternative Vote. Neither has yet been adopted.
• See Benjamin Reilly, Democracy and Diversity: Political Engineering in the Asia-Pacific, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
• Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration, New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1977.
• Michael Rock, Dictators, Democrats and Development in Southeast Asia, New York: Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 233–234.
• R. William Liddle, ‘Coercion, Co-optation, and the Management of Ethnic Relations in Indonesia’ in Government Policies and Ethnic Relations in the Asia-Pacific, Michael E. Brown and Šumit Ganguly (eds), Cambridge MA and London: MIT Press, 1997, p. 311.
• Dan Slater, Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 93.
• Joel Selway, ‘Electoral Reform and Public Policy Outcomes in Thailand’, World Politics, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2011, pp. 165–202.
• Benjamin Reilly, ‘Introduction’ in Political Parties in Conflict-Prone Societies: Regulation, Engineering and Democratic Development, Benjamin Reilly and Per Nordlund (eds), Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2008.
• Stephan Haggard and Robert Kaufman, The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995; Rock, Dictators, Democrats and Development….
• This section draws on my chapter ‘Political Reform and the Demise of Consociationalism in Southeast Asia’ in The Crisis of Democratic Governance in Southeast Asia, Aurel Croissant and Marco Bünte (eds), New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
• See Benjamin Reilly, Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 185–192.
• Arend Lijphart, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries, New Haven CT and London: Yale University Press, 1984, p. 22.
• Pippa Norris, Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 10.
• See Arend Lijphart, ‘Self-determination Versus Pre-determination of Ethnic Minorities in Power-sharing Systems’ in The Rights of Minority Cultures, Will Kymlicka (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
• Arend Lijphart, ‘Electoral Systems, Party Systems and Conflict Management in Segmented Societies’ in Critical Choices for South Africa: An Agenda for the 1990s, R.A. Schreirer (ed.), Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 1990, pp. 2 and 13.
• See, for instance, William Case, Elites and Regimes in Malaysia: Revisiting a Consociational Democracy Monash: Monash Asia Institute, 1996.
• See Narayanan Ganesan, ‘Democracy in Singapore’, Asian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1996, pp. 63–79.
• Ian Holliday, ‘Voting and violence in Myanmar: nation building for a transition to democracy’, Asian Survey, Vol. 68, No. 6, 2008, p. 1050.
• J.S. Furnivall, Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948, p. 169.
• Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies..., pp. 198–201.
• See Allen Hicken and Yuko Kasuya, ‘A guide to the constitutional structures and electoral systems of east, south and southeast Asia’, Electoral Studies, Vol. 22, 2003, p. 135.
• William Liddle, ‘Coercion, Co-optation, and the Management of Ethnic Relations in Indonesia’ in The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management and Democracy, Andrew Reynolds (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 286.
• James Chin, ‘Pseudo-democracy and the making of a Malay-Islamic state’ in Routledge Handbook of Southeast Asian Democratization, William Case (ed.), New York and London: Routledge, 2015.
• Robert B. Albritton, ‘Cambodia in 2003: On the Road to Democratic Consolidation’, Asian Survey, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2004, p. 102.
• Brij Lal, ‘Fiji’s Constitutional Conundrum’, The Round Table, Vol. 92, Issue 372, October 2003, pp. 671–685.
• See Dan Slater, ‘Indonesia’s Accountability Trap: Party Cartels and Presidential Power after Democratic Transition’, Indonesia, Vol. 78, 2004, pp. 61–92.
• Juan Linz, ‘The Perils of Presidentialism’, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1990, pp. 51–69; John Gerring, Strom Thaker and Carola Moreno, ‘Centripetal Democratic Governance: A Theory and Global Inquiry’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 4, 2005, pp. 567–581.
• Scott Mainwaring, ‘Presidentialism, multipartism, and democracy: The difficult combination’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1993, pp. 198–228.
• Robert Elgie and Sophia Moestrup, ‘The Choice of Semi-Presidentialism and its consequences’ in Semi-Presidentialism Outside Europe: A Comparative Study, Elgie and Moestrup (eds), New York: Routledge 2007, p. 237.
• A subject I cover in more detail in my chapter ‘Parties, Electoral Systems and Governance’ in Democracy in East Asia – A New Century, Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner and Yun-han Chu (eds), Baltimore Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
• See Benjamin Reilly, ‘Electoral Systems’ in Routledge Handbook of Southeast Asian Democratization, William Case (ed.), New York: Routledge, 2015.
• Erik Martinez Kuhonta and Allen Hicken, ‘Shadows from the Past: Party System Institutionalization in Asia’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2011, p. 573.
• An exception to this rule applies in Aceh, and was a key part of the 2005 peace agreement there. See Ben Hillman, ‘The Policy-Making Dimension of Post-Conflict Governance: The Experience of Aceh, Indonesia’, Conflict, Security, and Development, Vol. 11, No. 5, 2012, pp. 533–553.
• The assassination in February 2017 of U Ko Ni, a prominent Muslim intellectual and legal adviser for Aung San Suu Kyi’s government, was another marker of the sharp downwards turn in the country’s ethnic relations.
• William H. Riker, The Theory of Political Coalitions, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962.
• See Alvin Rabushka and Ken Shepsle, Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1972; Daniel Posner, ‘The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas Are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi’, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 98, No. 4, 2004, pp. 529–545; idem, Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• C. Volden and C.J. Carrubba, ‘The Formation of Oversized Coalitions in Parliamentary Democracies’, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2004, p. 521.
• See Reilly, Democracy and Diversity..., chapter 7.
• With no formal power sharing requirements, the Barisan Nasional relies on the willingness of its three main constituent ethnic parties – UMNO, the MCA and the MIC – to ‘pool votes’ across communal lines. The component parties typically divide up the electoral map so as to avoid competing with one another on a constituency level, and campaign under the Barisan label rather than as separate parties. See Donald L. Horowitz, Ethnic Groups in Conflict, rev. ed., Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000.
• Under Myanmar’s constitution, three ministers – of Border Affairs, Defence and Home Affairs – are appointed by the National Defence and Security Council, while the military retains a quarter of seats in the national legislature.
• Nils-Christian Bormann and Martin Steinwand, Power-Sharing Coalitions and Ethnic Civil War, American Political Science Association annual meeting, 1–4 September 2016, Philadelphia, PA, p. 1.
• Timothy D. Sisk, Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflicts, Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996, p. 55.
• Krzysztof Trzcinski, ‘The Consociational Addition to Indonesia’s Centripetalism as a Tactic of the Central Authorities: The Case of Papua’, Hemispheres: Studies on Cultures and Societies, Vol. 4, No. 31, 2016, pp. 5–20.
• Reilly, Democracy in Divided Societies..., chapter 4.
• R.J. May, R. Anere, N. Haley and K. Wheen, Election 2007: the Shift to Limited Preferential Voting in Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby: National Research Institute, 2011.
• See http://devpolicy.org/did-changing-electoral-systems-change-election-results-png-20170502/ (accessed: 02.05.2017).
• Jon Elster, Securities Against Misrule: Juries, Assemblies, Elections, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• Jon Fraenkel, ‘The Alternative Vote System in Fiji: Electoral Engineering or Ballot-Rigging?’, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2001, pp. 1–31; Jon Fraenkel and Bernard Grofman, ‘Does the Alternative Vote Foster Moderation in Ethnically Divided Societies? The Case of Fiji’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2006, pp. 623–651; cf. Donald L. Horowitz, ‘Strategy takes a holiday: Fraenkel and Grofman on the alternative vote’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2006, pp. 652–662.
• Bormann and Steinwand, Power-Sharing Coalitions and Ethnic Civil War…, p. 1.