Chapter 7 Cambridge History of SEAsia

CHAPTER 7 THE POLITICAL STRUCTURES OF THE INDEPENDENT STATES Writing about recent history can be an incautious exercise. The closer the past gets to the present, the more insecure it is for the historian. The natural instinct is to withdraw from the present, which is precariously perched on the edge leading to the future, and find that comfortable distance between the writer and the brink. The aim is to gain the security that is often professionally called 'perspective'. From the historian's point of view, the trouble with the contemporary past is that it is still happening and there are no reliable records ('primary sources') to cite. Equally problematic is the possibility that the people described in the narrative may still be alive, and writing about living personalities can be notoriously insecure for the historian. Another dilemma is the fact that readers— fellow historians and others—bring to bear on that same narrative their own experiences and interpretations. Couple these built-in disabilities in writing contemporary history to a description of the political structure of the independent states of Southeast Asia and there will emerge a veritable nightmare. So much needs to be discussed. So many themes can be presented. It is like a Balinese painter at work. He tries to depict as much as possible so that the canvas is completely covered, including the corners. The viewer then faces the task of relating the numerous features to each other. Very often, especially to the uninitiated, the end product merely registers as a patchwork of colours and shapes with no discernible message. Within each state of Southeast Asia are legislative and executive institu- tions: the military, the bureaucracy, religious hierarchies, interest groups and others. All these constitute 'political structures'. However, they often bear little relationship to one another, much like the variety in a Balinese painting. The Balinese style is therefore not the preferred mode of expres- sion. Rather, like Chinese calligraphy, a few strokes here and there on a broad canvas will be applied in order to suggest to the reader what can be perceived. How should political structures in Southeast Asia be studied? Should they be simply described? But if that alone is attempted, the links connect- ing those structures would be lacking, and those interlinkages are them- selves a matter of historical truth. The structures cannot be viewed simply The author is grateful to those who evaluated the draft of this chapter and made comments for improvement. In particular, the following were especially helpful: Associate Professor Cheah Boon Kheng and Dr Abu Talib Ahmad, both of Universiti Sains Malaysia, and Professor Sombat Chantornvong of Thammasat University. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

388 FROM WORLD WAR II TO THE PRESENT as external expressions of human behaviour: the milieu in which they function must also be studied. For analytical purposes, it is convenient to identify three categories of political structures: those affected by revolution and war; the 'plural' ones; and 'maximum' government. Structures affected by revolution and war are relatively unfamiliar because they have been obscured by the more recog- nizable, distinctive and newsworthy 'events' of violence characterizing those phases of history. In Southeast Asia, those structures were largely found in the Indochina states and Indonesia during the early postwar years. To a large extent, they were fashioned by the milieu of war and violence that imposed constraints and demanded makeshift arrangements. Plural political structures were initially predominant in the first flush of independence. They catered for various elements of stresses and strains in society, allowing for dominant and subordinate structures not necessarily sharing common value systems to exist side by side in a plurality. In such political structures, attempts were made to accommodate counter- structures or counterpoints. 1 With the passage of time, however, condi- tions emerged which rendered these plural structures less than efficient. Apart from the Indochinese states, most of the other societies experienced a period of history during the years of independence that coincided with the great Asia-Pacific economic boom. Further research on its impact on political structures is required. However, for present purposes, it can be argued that political structures had to change in scale to adjust to the demands of the new economic conditions. Plural structures with their niches for local interest groups began to make way for maximum govern- ments—pervasive, omniscient, all-powerful, often the fount of authority. REVOLUTION AND POLITICAL STRUCTURES Revolution impacted on the political structures by providing the consensus that transformed society from disparate and separate units into a united whole. It was possible to achieve consensus through revolution because, in the main, Southeast Asian leaders exploited nationalism and focused attention on eliminating a common enemy—usually the colonial power. This nationalism was still very much an extended version of the old anti- colonialism that was prevalent before the states of Southeast Asia became independent. It was especially widespread in Vietnam where the contest against the French and the United States was carried out in a continuous struggle, and it is to Vietnam that attention should first be given. Northern Vietnam Vietnam is not an easy country to understand. Much of what transpired in the society was so enveloped in mystery and secrecy that one could be forgiven for failing to delineate the specific segments of the political structure and give each part its due importance. For a great part of its 1 The term was used in W. F. Wertheim, East-West Parallels: Sociological Approaches to Modern Asia, The Hague, 1964, 26, 34. Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

POLITICAL STRUCTURES 389 history as an independent state, from 1945 till well into the 1980s, Vietnam was, moreover, at war. The military enemies included France, the United States, China, and then the Cambodian guerrillas. How the constant warfare shaped the political structures is particularly difficult to ascertain: given the nature of war, it is difficult to collect data about most issues. Moreover, Vietnam experienced war for such a long period that analytical approaches applicable to other states at peace cannot be simply grafted on to the Vietnamese case. In other Southeast Asian states, leaders played significant roles in moulding political structures. In Vietnam, during the formative years from 1945 to 1960, this does not seem to have been the case. Although Ho Chi Minh remained the towering nationalist leader, there appeared to be no personality cult and no attempt by him to adopt a high profile. Similarly, the communist party kept in the background. The reasons for this state of affairs are not difficult to fathom. The need to reconcile differences among the splintered Vietnamese elite meant that Ho had to work behind the scenes until the situation was sorted out. Also, in the years from 1945 to 1960, the leader of Vietnamese communism—Ho himself—was not firmly established and he had to depend on the support of the non-communists. Much of the work of government was therefore carried out by committees which formed the main segments of the political structure. As long as matters did not get out of hand, Ho took a back seat. Before 1960, he emerged only twice to decide on matters of national importance. The first was the partition of Vietnam into north and south along the seventeenth parallel in 1954. It is still not clear why Ho settled on this concession to the French, especially when the military victory of Dien Bien Phu (1954) clearly promoted the Vietnamese cause at the negotiating table.