Military interventions in politics have a long history in many corners of Southeast Asia. In Indonesia, the military was a central entity for over three decades. In Myanmar, the military has been in power since 1962. In Thailand, the military had a hand in almost every coup (or coup attempt) dating back to 1933. In all three countries, many military members, active or retired, continue to wield political power.
In the ensuing power vacuum after Japan retreated from Southeast Asia in 1945, different groups began to contend for political primacy, and that kind of primacy partly depends on who can brandish weapons best. Over time, the relatively well-coordinated militaries across the region unsurprisingly rose in importance within nascent nations riven by different ethnicities, competing ideologies, and vast geography.
Coal mine in Inner Mongolia, 2005. Wikimedia Commons
In that context, the military grew to see itself and be seen by its people as the ultimate guardian of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is one reason why military rule in the countries previously mentioned has a sheen of respectability. In the face of venal bureaucrats and wicked civilian politicians, who else would safeguard the national interests?
However, the fact that national interests always seem to coincide with the military’s raises questions. Who decides what a nation’s interests are is fundamentally an issue for its citizens to consider, not its military. So why does Thailand’s military junta continue to use its lèse majesté law to crack down on critical Thais when King Bhumibol Adulyadej himself said in 2005, “If we hold that the king cannot be criticized or violated, then the king ends up in a difficult situation?” What exactly should Myanmar democracy be ‘disciplined’ against that its military, by law, must secure a quarter of legislative seats and three ministries?
Suspicions that the military in those three ostensible democracies confuses its own interests for the nation’s will endure, given the history and the military’s long shadow in national politics. Recent intrusions by Indonesia’s military commander into presidential politics, as this week’s first Spotlight article outlines, are re-igniting fears that some in the Indonesian military want to turn the clock back. Likewise, as this week’s second Spotlight article analyzes, some fear Myanmar’s military may pull the plug on its ‘disciplined democracy’ experiment as international criticism over the Rohingya mounts.
A nation’s sovereignty comes from its people: the authority to govern itself according to the wishes of its people. From Indonesia’s reforms since the late 1990s, to Thailand’s general elections in the 2010s, to Myanmar’s general election in 2015, the people have spoken and they want more democracy and more political freedoms. Are these not national interests the military should safeguard?
