THE MODERN MUSLIM WORLD COMPARATIVE POLITICAL TRANSITIONS BETWEEN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA Lost in Transition Teresita Cruz-del Rosario & James M. Dorsey The Modern Muslim World Series Editor Dietrich   Jung Centre for Contemporary Middle East Studies University of Southern Denmark Odense ,  Denmark The modern Muslim world is an integral part of global society. In transcending the confi nes of area studies, this series encompasses scholarly work on political, economic, and cultural issues in modern Muslim history, taking a global perspective. Focusing on the period from the early nineteenth century to the present, it combines studies of Muslim majority regions, such as the Middle East and in Africa and Asia, with the analysis of Muslim minority communities in Europe and the Americas. Emphasizing the global connectedness of Muslims, the series seeks to promote and encourage the understanding of contemporary Muslim life in a comparative perspective and as an inseparable part of modern globality. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/14429 Teresita   Cruz-del Rosario • J ames M.  Dorsey Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa Lost in Transition Teresita   Cruz-del Rosario James M.  Dorsey National University of Singapore Rajaratnam School of Singapore International Studies Nanyang Technological University Singapore The Modern Muslim World ISBN 978-1-137-54348-6 ISBN 978-1-137-54089-8 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54089-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2016945492 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2 016 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Cover image © PhotoAlto / Alamy Stock Photo Printed on acid-free paper This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Nature America Inc. New York F OREWORD This book was sparked by prolonged informal discussions comparing transition in Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, as well as an initial stab at comparative analysis in a fi rst journal article. To the degree that scholars have sought to compare the 2011 popular revolts in the Middle East and North Africa with other parts of the world, the focus was on Eastern Europe and Latin America. The decision to look at a comparison with Southeast Asia grew out of recognition of signifi cant similarities as well as differences between the two regions. It was further informed by the fact that we have lived and worked in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia for more than 40 years. Anti-government protests in 2011 on public squares across the Middle East and North Africa that toppled four autocratic leaders were as fi ery and passionate as were those staged by Burmese monks and students in 1988 and 2007, who demanded an end to military rule. The self- immolation of Tunisian street vendor Mohammed al-Bouazizi in December 2010 sparked an outrage that gave birth to anti-government protests and popu- lar revolts in a swath of land that stretched from the Atlantic coast of Africa to the Gulf. This singular event evoked the same sentiment that returned social movements to the public sphere in the Philippines and spawned new ones, in the aftermath of the cold-blooded assassination of opposition leader Benigno Aquino in 1983. But unlike Libya, after the demise of Col. Muammar Ghaddafi in 2011 that gave birth to rival governments and scores of warring militias, Indonesia emerged from its revolt against General Suharto in 1998 as a fairly coherent nation state. Both countries were ruled by two military v vi FOREWORD offi cers who seized power and whose regimes endured for over three decades, yet the contrast in their transition outcomes could not be starker. There are no civil wars in Southeast Asia that threaten to redraw national boundaries, while the postcolonial borders of at least two Middle Eastern countries—Syria and Iraq—are in doubt and many question whether they will remain even loosely federated nation states when the dust of sectarian wars settles. Two oft-cited “models” of Muslim democratic success—Indonesia and Malaysia—feature signifi cantly more sharia ordinances than Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, or Lebanon, to name only a few. It is also worth noting that mainstream Islamist movements in the Arab world largely no longer include the hudud punishments for theft, adultery, and apostasy in their political platforms and rarely discuss them in public. South and Southeast Asian Islamists, on the other hand, haven’t been as circumspect. These and other observations regarding the nature of civil society, the structure and the role of the military, the character of ethnic strife, the varieties of regimes in Asia and the Arab world, the place of donor aid, and regional and global geopolitics drove us to take a stab at more systematic analysis. Our various backgrounds in student activism, experience in govern- ment, academia, and as a foreign correspondent furnished us with a shared interest and complimentary perspectives. Covering the Middle East for over 40 years often amounted to street and battlefi eld ethnography in the midst of wars, assassinations, kidnappings, and the rise of autocracies that seemed, at times, invincible. Working for the government sector after people power in 1986 in the Philippines provided a crash course in transi- tion politics in the school of hard knocks. On the ground reporting from the Middle East and North Africa in recent years as the popular revolts and the counterrevolution unfolded, as well as our ringside view of the demonstrations in Bangkok in 2014 and the eventual imposition of mar- tial law in Thailand, offered immediacy as we witnessed the return of the generals in various guises. Field research in Myanmar a week before the by-elections in 2012, and subsequent visits in 2013, provided immediate insights and exposure to a country in the midst of multiple and competing directions for social change. It was an experience that was simultaneously exhilarating and troubling, as the generals retreated even as they continue to maintain a grip on power through various institutional arrangements. Dialogues with Burmese media practitioners and civil society activists FOREWORD vii operating in above-ground circumstances for the fi rst time in 50 years was wholly reminiscent of the feverish pace of the Philippine transition in the post-uprising period of 1986. Across the border, exiles from minority communities living and working in Chiang Mai in Thailand were more guarded with their optimism. The exception that is Tunisia remains the only bright spot in the Middle East and North Africa. The awarding of the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize to the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet for its contribution to building a pluralistic democracy, demonstrates that democratic transition in the world’s most troubled region is possible, even if it is a torturous, and at times, retrograde process. These and many more observations led to speculations about transi- tion processes in both regions and constitute many subtexts in this book. Eventually, we surrendered our intellectual hunches to the beckoning of systematic research. However, without these fi rst-hand experiences as a backdrop to our scholarship, we would be engaging in armchair theoriz- ing rather than analysis built from the ground up. Collaboration on this book was possible because of the unwavering support of both our institutions. The Asia Research Institute (ARI) at the National University of Singapore and the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) at Nanyang Technological University are our institutional pillars. They offered an unrivalled environment in which to undertake this research project. We are particularly grateful to ARI Director, Prasenjit Duara, RSIS Executive Deputy Chairman, Ong Keng Yong, and Dean, Joseph Liow Chin Yong, for appreciating the merit of this research project and making available the resources to write in a highly unperturbed environment. To a large extent, the venue for writing this book in Singapore is not purely accidental. Singapore refl ects signifi cant lessons of transition. First and foremost is the fact that when transition processes are carefully and sensi- tively managed, as Singapore has done since its separation from the Malaya Federation in 1965, their social, economic, and political outcomes tend to be unequivocally positive. As a result, Singapore’s successful transition, despite legitimate criticism, offers important lessons for countries in both regions that are still grappling with their own. Teresita   Cruz-del Rosario James   M.   Dorsey October 2015 Singapore C ONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 2 Nascent and Latent: Differential Roles of Civil Society in Southeast Asia and the MENA Region 21 3 To Shoot or Not to Shoot: The Military in Political Transitions 55 4 Superpowers, Regional Hegemons, Ethno-N ations, and Sectarian States: Identity Politics in Transition Regimes 89 5 Conclusion: Transition(ing) to What? 123 Bibliography 139 Index 155 ix