The Failure of Economic Development and Political Democracy in Southeast Asia

IN EXAMINING THE REASON FOR THE UNDOUBTED FAILURE of development and democracy in the countries of Southeast Asia it is necessary to notice the changes (the social changes above all) that have occurred in this region in the last hundred years. A hundred years ago the societies of Southeast Asia had an attitude of mind which had been typical of Europe at an earlier period, an attitude of acceptance. Southeast Asia in the 19th century was very much a traditional society. There were, and there had been for centuries, outside contacts and clashes, but these were never sufficient to shake, let alone break, the traditional way of life. The mysteries and miseries of that life were accepted apathetically by people with eyes and minds traditionally blinkered into believing that what had been must be, and that life and society could not be altered. A traditional society can be very strong, it can hold together through millenia provided that there is no major attack upon it; and it is possible to trace back many features of this traditional way of life for hundreds of years. Of course in Southeast Asia these traditional patterns varied from country to country. The structure of a traditional Malay State for example differed considerably from that say, of Ava, while there was the world of difference between the government of a Borneo tribe and the sophisticated administration of Vietnam. But despite these differences, each and every one of them was a traditional society, accepting what had gone before, unchang. ing in nearly everything. The capital city was often the only city, a royal town situated deep in the centre of its agricultural lands. Rice growing was the main crop, and the padi fields marched right up to the city's edge. Padi growing placed a very great social value on conformity. All the procedures for its successful cultivation had been evolved centuries earlier. The best way to secure a good crop was to do exactly as had been done before. The innovator, the experimenter, was socially objectionable. The emphasis was perpetually on conformity, producing an obedient society. This society was a hierarchical one, with peasants and courtiers. There were few middle class people, for there was little trade; the coastline was deserted and each State was virtually entire unto itself, existing on a subsistence economy. The peasants grew the padi and the courtiers flocked