著者

山田 満

出版者

JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1997, no.116, pp.46-63,L8, 1997-10-18 (Released:2010-09-01)

参考文献数

50

---

ASEAN will be composed of ten countries in the near future. The forms of government in the ASEAN countries is conceptualized as authoritarian regime for development. Authoritarian regimes in ASEAN take many forms such as military regime, single-party dictatorships, the ruling coalition, personalist autocracies, and absolute monarchies. They refuse the concept of Western democracy claiming that it does not bring stability and development for developing countries. The authoritarian characteristics of the Indonesian government and the Malaysian goverment are analyzed in this paper.The Suharto government is called the “New Order”. Suharto controlled the army, the bureaucracy, and the business community. He is supported by Golkar, which is a corporatist group that includes the entire bureaucracy, the armed forces, and the business sector. Golkar has won six elections overwhelmingly since the advent of the New Order. He promotes the economy for development in Indonesia based on the authoritarian system which is supported by the army, technocrats, and Golkar.The Mahathir government is supported by an UMNO-led coalition of parties representing the three ethic groups. The Malaysian government has promoted the New Economic Policy which eradicates poverty and channels more of the nation's wealth to the Malays during 1971-1990. Mahathir attempts to complete his developmental policies through some visions such as “Look East policy, ” “Malaysia Incorporated, ” and “Vision 2020.” The purpose of his authoritarian regime for development regime is to realize the ethic balance after the disturbance of 1969. His popularity becomes higher and higher because of his leaderships. This was seen in the overwhelming victory of the 1995 election.Finally, the middle class is growing in ASEAN. Do they contribute to democratization in their own countries? In the case of both countries, they are conservative generally because their consumptive lives depend on the developmental government. However, I conclude that the degree of democratization between the two becomes greater and greater because of the size of population, the characteristics of leaderships, the rise of the middle class, and the distribution of economic development.