The Role of the Military in Promoting Democracy and

Development in Southeast Asia

Introduction
After World War II and the wave of decolonization, Southeast Asian countries gained
independence, one after the other, and started instituting their own states. Since then there have
been trends and changes on the relationship of the military and the state. There have been
authoritarian rulers, military-backed governments and people power revolutions that existed and
occurred in the region (Alagappa2013,94).
Authors has seen and explicitly stated that the military has played a big role in political
changes not only in Asia but around the world, it has a crucial role in domestic and local politics,
it plays an important role in state and nation building and in political domination, as we are about
to see (Blair 2013,43;Alagappa 2001, 2). Since we are trying to see what the role of the military
inpromoting democracy and development is, this paper will first start by looking at what the
militarys role is or should be in the state. And then trace how it became a major political actor.
Based on what I observed by reading case studies on different countries in the Southeast Asian
region, the military engaged in politics by three means or reasons which are: they were first a
supporter of an authoritarian ruler; the need intervene during an economic crisis; and the belief
that civilian government is incompetent in ruling. If it is true that the military institution are by
nature un- or antidemocratic, cases in which this assumption does not apply will be cited in this
paper (Alagappa 2013, 93). Cases of the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand will be used to
meet these objectives.

Militarys Role and Political Engagement

As a starting point, we must first look at what the role of the military should be in the
state for us to see whether there had been deviations from their original purpose. One author
stated that the primary purpose of the military is against external enemies and support for
internal economic development and safety, however, internal security roles are limited,
temporary, and do not include using force against peaceful protests (Blair 2013,52). The military
in this sense refer to the army, navy and air force it also includes police and the paramilitary
forces (Alagappa 2001, 2). In Indonesia,the military was already involved in politics since 1945
when they were fighting forindependence against the Dutch and as the military persistently
claimed that it was not only born at the same time as Indonesia but also helped give birth to the
republic (Alagappa 2001,230; Sukma2013,114). During the Sukarno and Suharto authoritarian
regime, from 1957 to 1998, the military have been a central player in politics as a strong
supporter(Sukma 2013,113). Blair identified three occasions where the military expanded into a
major political actor. First was in the mid-1950s when the government asked the military to put
an end to constant rebellions against the government (Sukma 2013,115). Second was in 1959
when President Sukarno dissolved the Constituent Assembly and reinstalled the Presidential
system. During this time the army chief of staff Gen. Nasution formulated the dwifungsi doctrine
which states that the military was both a defense and political force that served the peopleand
the nation, not the government to provide a legal basis for the armys role in politics (Sukma
2013,116). And the third was in 1965 when it had the chance to destroy the Indonesian
Communist Party then entered into a coalition with civilian political forces to remove President
Sukarno from power (Sukma 2013,116).
In the Philippines, the supremacy of civilian control over the military have been
inculcated to Filipinos by foreign influences and is even put into the countrys First Constitution
and the succeeding constitutions (Ferrer, Hernandez 2013,139). The President was also the

commander in chief of the armed forces. This was observed even during the American and
Japanese invasion. Prior to the imposition of the martial law,the Philippines was regarded as one
of the exemplars of democratic control of armed forces in the developing world (Ferrer,
Hernandez 2013,140). The Marcos regime marked the entrance of the military into politics. The
function of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) shifted from traditional functions such as
the imposition of external security to being involved in national development which was
imposed by Marcos(Ferrer, Hernandez 2013,142). The AFP was enabled to occupy positions in
the government that was occupied by bureaucrats thus politicizing the AFP and loosening the
grip of civilian control over the military (Ferrer, Hernandez 2013,142). Marcos secured the
militarys support by bribery and this this helped erode democratic civilian control (Ferrer,
Hernandez 2013,142).
The emergence of militarys role in politics in Thailand was during the 1932 coup to put
an end to monarchy in the country (Bunbongkarn2012,166). It was led by a number of military
officers who were educated abroad. During this time the military offices were eligible of being
members of the House of Representatives (Bunbongkarn2012,166). And the belief that Thailand
was not yet ready for democracy helped legitimize their involvement in
politics(Bunbongkarn2013,142). In 1947, a coup led by a group of officers was staged against
PridiPhanomyong, who was more democratic than the former Prime Minister PhibunSongkram
who had plans on establishing an autocratic rule, and they assumed leadership for 20 yearrs
(Bunbongkarn2013,167). In 1948, the military-backed Phibun government returned. This
government was replaced by a more antidemocratic, military ruled governments under Sarit, who
believed that democracy is not suitable for Thailand and to fight communism, political stability
was needed, strong political leadership and rapid economic development which he believes is
only possible through paternalistic autocratic rule (Bunbongkarn2013,172). And then was
replaced through one coup d etat after the other (Bunbongkarn2013,167).

Military in Promoting Democracy

Politicization of the military, as we can see on the instances stated above, was a
stumbling block or was the reason for the discontinuity of democratization in the three countries.
But not in all instances was the military acting as one body, at some points, parts of the military
supported democracy. During the Suharto Regime, factions within the Indonesian Armed Forces
(ABRI) were emerging due to Suhartos policy shift which then led to the division of ABRI into
two classes: those who supported General Wiranto and those who rallied behind Lieutenant
General PrabowoSubianto and Suhartos son (Sukma 2013,119). While General Subianto was
accused of kidnapping and murdering students and political activists against Suharto which led
to the fall of Suhartos support base, General Wiranto said that force will not be a good way of
addressing the crisis and suggested that the president step down from office (Sukma 2013,122).
General Wirantos act was one thing, but embracing democratization (Sukma 2013,122).
After the October 14, 1973 event in Thailand, the army, just like what happened in
Indonesia, was divided into three factions: Young Turks, the Class 5, and the Democratic
Soldiers. In 1981 during General PremTinsulanondas semi democratic rule, the Young Turks
staged a coup d etat against him but he was able to overcome it having the Class 5 and the
Democratic soldiers behind him (Bunbongkarn 2013,170).Under semi democratic government of
General Prem, political parties were given the opportunity to engage in business and social
groups; the continued operation of the elected House of Representatives facilitated the
institutionalization of an elected legislature and the dissemination of democratic values among
the Thais (Bunbongkarn 2013,170). Economic crisis also played a part in the fall of military
rulers like what happened in 2006 when a coup assumed office and immediately forced outfor
not being able to improve economic performance of the country ((Blair 2013,51).
Military leaders and member in the Philippines showed their support for democracy in
participating during EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 demonstrations leading to the ouster of Marcos and
Estrada, respectively(Ferrer, Hernandez2013,147).

Conclusion
The trend now in the engagement of the military in the three countries is its declining
influence, though not complete, in politics and governance. In a democratic government, the
armed forces are established by the fundamental laws of the countryits constitution or legal
code. Citizens of a democracy expect their armed forces to be skilled warriors, capable of
deterring and defeating threats to their national interest (Blair 2013,15).
The Thai armed forces, which played an important political role in the past,now accept
that Thailand needs a stable democratic political system in theform of a constitutional monarchy
(Bunbongkarn 2013,184).
Ferrer and Hernandez identified two elements of democratic civil-military relations: a
military organization that is subordinated to the civilian political authority and a set of civilian
oversight institutions (Ferrer, Hernandez 2013,155).
The TNI (Indonesian Armed Forces) opted out of politics not because it wanted to
impress the international community but because it had to find a new place in a democratizing
Indonesiaa process it had become powerless to prevent (Sukma 2013,132).
In the process of democratization, the military should not be the only one to adjust but it
should be aided and understood by the civil society.

References:
Alagappa, Muthiah, ed. 2001. Coercion and Governance:The Declining Political Role of the
Military in Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 1-25
Blair, Dennis. 2013.Military Engagement: Influencing Armed Forces Worldwide to
Support Democratic Transition A Handbook Project. Volume One.Accessed on
November 2014.http://ccd21.org/military_handbook/volume _one/index.html
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2013.Military and Democratic Development in Asia: A Complex Narrative
in Military Engagement: Influencing Armed Forces
Worldwide to
Support
Democratic Transition A Handbook Project. Volume One. Blair Dennis. ed. Accessed
on November 2014. http://ccd21.org/military_handbook/volume _one/index.html
Sukma, Rizal. 2013.The Military and Democratic Reform in IndonesiainMilitary Engagement:
Influencing Armed Forces Worldwide to Support Democratic Transitions (Volume
Two: Regional and Country Studies).Blair, Dennis ed. Brookings Institution Press.
Washington DC. 113-138
Ferrer, Raymundo B., Hernandez, Carolina G. 2013.The Military in Democratic Development: A
Philippine Case StudyinMilitary Engagement:Influencing Armed Forces Worldwide
to Support Democratic Transitions (Volume Two: Regional and Country
Studies).Blair, Dennis ed.Brookings Institution Press. Washington DC.139-164
Bunbongkarn, Suchit. 2013.The Armed Forces and Democratic Development in Thailand in
Military Engagement:Influencing Armed Forces Worldwide to Support Democratic
Transitions (Volume Two: Regional and Country Studies).Blair, Dennis ed. Brookings
Institution Press. Washington DC.165-187