“State Repression and Democracy Protest in Three Southeast Asian Countries”
7
“State Repression and Democracy Protest in Three Southeast Asian Countries” Boudreau
description
“State Repression and Democracy Protest in Three Southeast Asian Countries”. Boudreau. Democratic Transitions. 1986-1998: Three (3) Dictators Fall in Response to Demo Movements Burma: Ne Win (1988) Philippines: Marcos (1986) Indonesia: Suharto - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of “State Repression and Democracy Protest in Three Southeast Asian Countries”
“State Repression and Democracy Protest in Three Southeast Asian Countries”
Boudreau
Democratic Transitions
1986-1998: Three (3) Dictators Fall in Response to Demo Movements
Burma: Ne Win (1988)Philippines: Marcos (1986)Indonesia: Suharto
Democratic Transitions: Did it Occur or Not? Did Philippines and Indonesia become Democratic? Did Burma miss the boat?
Political Context: State Repression. Movement Repertoires (29)
Political Context: State Repression. Movement Repertoires (29)W/M/S each used repression to maintain control. They used repression
strategically.
SM and State Repression: Determined “Relational Possibilities” In each country, activists learned how to adapt to the unique repressive
tactics of each dictator. Patterns of repression eliminated some SM, but left others intact. In such repressive environments, the distinction between legal and illegal became very clear, and SM activist used such distinctions tactically.
The interaction between the state and SM shaped the “relational possibilities” available to Democratic activists.
Burma
Burma: Ne Win seized power in a military coup in 1962, then used the military to
clear urban areas of any politics, or protest. Military ran the govt through the Burma Socialist Program Party.
Hence, openings for protest only emerged during periods of “crisis”
Indonesia
Indonesia: Suharto took power by eliminating (through mass murder) his only
opponents: the PKI or Indonesian Communist Party.
But he tolerate some types of unorganized protest (except for separatists). The state would typically move to ban groups after the fact, leading activists to continually create new groups, and to define them as “moral” rather than “political.” Though this kept alive protest, it prevented them any groups from getting too large.
Philippines
Philippines:Marcos declared marshal law as a means seize power. But Marcos never
eliminated protest. Rather, he sought to split moderates from communists by coopting the former and crushing the latter.
Burma:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/burma601/video_index.html
