Bjoern Dressel

The Quality of democracy in Asia-Pacific: issues and findings

In the comparative research we present here as the introduction to a set of case studies, we first assess the quality of democratic procedures, content and outcomes in eight countries in the Asia-Pacific region on the basis of quantitative and qualitative data. Second, we investigate whether, to what extent, and how democratic qualities relate to one another. These investigations are carried out by applying an analytical framework that we developed elsewhere. In contrast to our previous empirical findings demonstrating that all the qualities go hand in hand, that participation and competition are the main determinants of democratic qualities, and that the democratic qualities form a funnel of causality, the present study suggests a different set of conclusions. In the Asia-Pacific region, the democratic qualities are weakly related to one another, do not form a funnel of causality, and participation and competition are not the main drivers of democratic quality. The data presented in the empirical section of the paper claim the existence of an Asia-Pacific exceptionalism. By carefully examining the cases included in our sample, we provide a detailed explanation for why, at least as far as democratic qualities are concerned, the Asia-Pacific region may be exceptional and unique. We reach the conclusion that responsiveness could be achieved by a transition from a rule by law – often coupled with the prominence of patronage, patrimonialist practices and privileges for the elite – to a proper rule of law.

Judicialization of politics or politicization of the judiciary? Considerations from recent events in Thailand

Abstract Courts are becoming major players in the political landscape of Southeast Asia. This paper seeks to examine the causes and consequences of this new trend with particular reference to Thailand. Our study primarily analyzes the behavior of the Thai Constitutional Court during the political crisis in 2006–2008; the findings suggest that recent judicial activism and assertiveness in political matters, while partly explained by the interests of judges themselves and by the constitutional rules guiding their activities, is best understood as a direct consequence of the intervention of the monarchy, to which the judiciary has traditionally been closely aligned. Accordingly, the Thai case not only provides new evidence about what may be driving the new judicialization trend, it also draws attention to problematic aspects of this trend, namely the gradual politicization of the Thai judiciary and with it the erosion of the rule of law in Thailand and its replacement with rule by law. Our findings may also illuminate some larger issues at the intersection of politics and the courts throughout the region in ways that advance the theoretical understanding of both.

The Philippines: how much real democracy?

Democracy in the Philippines is a paradox. It was the first country in the region to topple authoritarian rule. Signs of a vibrant democracy are extensive: high voter turnout, civic engagement, institutional arrangements that theoretically promote accountability and safeguard rights and liberties. Yet the flaws in the democratic process are also extensive: elite dominance, institutional weakness, and widespread abuse of public office, which suggest true representation is largely illusory. Concerns about the quality of democracy have become central to political discourse in the Philippines, as seen in debates about constitutional reform and the hopes associated with the election of reform candidate Benigno Aquino III as president in 2010. This analysis examines how oligarchic structures and dysfunctional institutions threaten the emergence of true democracy in the Philippines.

Governance, Courts, and Politics in Asia

Abstract It is widely argued that an empowered judiciary supports better governance by strengthening the rule of law and helping to make government more accountable and stable, but how solidly that reasoning is based in fact has not been carefully analysed. As recent events in Asia illustrate, apparently similar constitutional choices about courts can have very different effects on political life and ultimately governance. To address the relative lack of empirical observation and more closely investigate the nexus between courts and governance, this article first presents a basic typology of judicial politics and then applies it to Thailand, Singapore, Korea and Japan. The intent is to: (1) provide a much-needed and more nuanced view of the unfolding judicialisation phenomenon; and (2) urge closer attention to how specific patterns of judicial behaviour in Asia relate to dimensions of governance. The study thus offers an opportunity to illuminate larger issues at the intersection of judicial engagement and political governance and to advance a theoretical understanding of both.

Targeting the Public Purse: Advocacy Coalitions and Public Finance in the Philippines

This article analyzes the political dynamics underlying public financial management (PFM) reforms in the Philippines during the Benigno Aquino III administration (2010–present). By inviting widespread civil society participation throughout the budget cycle and by imposing greater transparency and accountability, they mark a substantial policy change in Filipino PFM. Centering on the evolution of public finance advocacy coalitions, this article argues a new type of coalition has emerged among technocratic nongovernmental organizations, which are now able to place “policy brokers” directly in the national administration. However, institutional structures, dependence on donors, and the contestability of core beliefs behind these activities raise doubts about whether they are sustainable. These doubts in turn raise fascinating theoretical and empirical questions.

Public administration and the rule of law in Asia: breadth without depth?

Public administration in Asia has undergone considerable transformation over the last two decades, yet commitment to the rule of law has remained problematic. Presenting a basic typology of state types based on the breadth and depth of how public administration is situated within the rule of law, this article argues that while in recent years states in Asia have made great strides towards fuller legalisation and judicialisation of the public administration space as part of a broader process of institutional layering, they have largely failed to deepen its enforcement in terms of universality and impartiality. Drawing on East Asian Barometer data, the analysis shows how, because citizens’ attitudes have given little support to the rule of law framework in public administration, elites have had little incentive to advocate for reform. Taking into account the broader organisation of state power in Asia with its ideological emphasis on developmental outcomes, substantial empirical and theoretical questions are raised about the trajectory of public administration in the region.

Asian States in Crisis

Abstract Problems common to many Asian states suggest a pattern of crisis in Asia. The evidence suggests that the root cause is the similarity in the patterns of political development of postcolonial states. In Asia such states have attempted to reconcile state strength and internal diversity by constructing a triangular balance between identity construction, hegemonic governance and economic development. Unfortunately, this fragile balance eroded as state structures matured and economies grew, which increasingly exposed countries to escalating crises of legitimacy and instability. By highlighting changes in the postcolonial state compact within the region, this article seeks to advance both the understanding among theorists of political developments in the region and the understanding among those who govern of the roots of the current crisis.

The Struggle for Political Legitimacy in Thailand

At the start of the twenty-first century, conflicting notions of political legitimacy once again caused political instability in Thailand. The most visible signs of a legitimacy crisis were the military’s ouster of popularly elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006, the rewrite of the acclaimed 1997 “People’s Constitution” in early 2007, and the fall of two prime ministers within a year of their election. The unprecedented degree of political polarization—exacerbated by an imminent monarchical succession—introduced deep insecurity throughout the country.