It was Tuesday, 20 November 2007. The ten leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) were gathered at the 13th ASEAN Summit in Singapore for the signing ceremony of an important document in the Associationâs historyâthe ASEAN Charter. The signing ceremony was a major milestone for ASEAN. The ratification of the Charter was an important âconstitutional momentâ providing ASEAN with a more formal, legal framework to achieve deeper economic and security cooperation (Fawcett 2013, p. 12). The signing of the Charter also reflected the determination and commitment on the part of the ASEAN leaders to advance regional community-building in Southeast Asia. This is because, for the very first time since ASEANâs inception in 1967, its leaders had agreed to sign a Charter, which was designed to streamline and strengthen ASEANâs processes, mechanisms, and working methods and incorporate all of ASEANâs basic documents.
A few weeks later on Thursday, 13 December 2007, on another continent, the 27 European Union (EU) heads of government and states gathered in Lisbon for the signing ceremony of a treaty that was designed to transform the EUâs institutional structures, capacity, and decision-making proceduresâwhich came to be called the Treaty of Lisbon. At the official signing ceremony of this Treaty, the then European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso stated that âthe Treaty of Lisbon will reinforce the Unionâs capacity to act and the ability to achieve our goals in an effective way. As such, it will help the Union to deliver better results to European citizensâ (cited in EurActiv 2007). The Treaty of Lisbon strengthened the EU by giving it a legal personality (Article 47 Treaty of Lisbon 2007). It re-emphasised the notion that every citizen of a member state is also an EU citizen (Article 8 Treaty of Lisbon). The values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights were reiterated in the Treaty (Article 1A The Treaty of Lisbon).
ASEAN and the EU are examples of regional bodies, but their progress towards regional community-building varies. ASEAN was established to promote social progress and stability, regional peace, and economic development. ASEAN leaders did not set up compliance bodies, or any supranational authority or dispute-settlement mechanism. Consultation as a means of arriving at a mutual consensus has governed ASEANâs decision-making processes since its establishment. The entire structure of ASEAN is in stark contrast to the EUâs supranational institutions, its legalistic approach, and its formal characteristics. The EUâs founding leaders agreed to pool their sovereignty in certain policies and delegate decision-making powers to the EUâs institutions as an effective way to seek closer cooperation in Europe through regional integration (Nugent 2010). The EUâs founding leaders took a legal approach whereby EU legislation is interpreted and applied in the same way in all the EU countries, although in some instances, member states are able to decide how they will implement a decision at the national level. Since its establishment, EU leaders have chosen formal rules whereby the majority of the EUâs policies, norms, and values are codified in treaties and in an array of written agreements. The differences between ASEANâs and the EUâs institutional designs and decision-making processes illustrate that each regional body is unique and represents distinct institutional characteristics and structures, underpinned by different visions and priorities.
Political leaders establish regional organisations for numerous reasons. These can include the promotion of economic, political, and security cooperation, the provision of checks and balances on power relations between dominant and small states in the region, and the consolidation of state building (Fawcett 2004, p. 429). Therefore, regional integration, in much of the scholarly literature as well as among states, connotes positive outcomesâa potential solution that could conceivably bring about peace, stability, wealth, and prosperity, for instance. These positive outcomes have encouraged and inspired leaders to promote regional integration schemes (Fawcett 2004, p. 429). Perceived needs and benefits serve as incentives for leaders to set the objectives of regional initiatives (Murray 2004, p. 46). The desired objectives are reflected in the regional integration architecture, as decisions on the form and function of a regional body reflect the historic role played by internal drivers of integration, such as national leaders (Wunderlich 2007). The behaviour and decisions of national leaders, therefore, can help explain the differences in the institutional design, trajectory, and levels of development of ASEAN and the EU.
This book critically examines the extent to which political leadership, as one of the key drivers of regional community-building, is crucial both at inception and in sustaining a community over the years. Political leadership, as argued throughout the book, is an important factor for the success in creating and strengthening regional community-building efforts. Leaders decide on the necessity of regional bodies; on the membership, that is, who is in and who is out, either at formation or during enlargement processes of a particular regional body; and on the institutional architecture of these regional bodies. In addition, political leadership is important in regional community-building in order to provide appropriate responses to challenges and problems; follow through with policy implementation; and in deciding on the future direction of regional community-building. This book thus argues that the role of actors or their agency in the process of regional community-building must be taken into account because âhuman agency can produce changeâ (Hart and Rhodes 2014, p. 11). Leaders at the helm of power are in control and can change the conditions around them (Hart and Rhodes 2014, p. 9). In addition, since attempts to achieve a desired outcome come with costs and benefits (Mattli 1999b), any explanation and understanding of what a particular regional community is, and what it has and has not achieved, must also recognise the historical context that influences a leaderâs calculation of the costs and benefits of initiating and sustaining a regional organisation.
Many scholars have generally acknowledged the central importance of political leadership in the establishment and maintenance of a community over time (Chee 1991; Dent 2012; Fawcett 2015; Hidetaka 2005; Mattli 1999b, 2012; Murray 2004, 2010, 2015; Webber 2006, 2013). According to Chee (1991), political leadership is important in determining an institutionâs aims, agendas, and membership, and in finding alternative solutions when agreement is impossible to achieve (Chee 1991, p. 6). This view is supported by Boin (2001), who suggests that a leader can set the political agenda and ensure the progress of regional integration (Boin 2001). These scholars, however, are yet to provide a tool for the systematic analysis of the role and/or functions of political leadership in a regional context (Laursen 2010; Mattli 2012; Tallberg 2006). Laursen (2010) and Tallberg (2006) have pointed to a limitation of the existing scholarship, namely that leadership has been narrowly conceptualised thus far. For example, in some studies, the focus has only been on the type of leadership that is provided by a dominant country in a region and other forms of leadership have not been examined (Dent 2012; Laursen 2010; Tallberg 2006).
This book, therefore, aims to fill the gap in the contemporary literature by examining the role of political leadership as an important factor that determines the progress, and development, of regional integration. In so doing, it compares the role of political leadership in the regional community-building of ASEAN and the EU as a driver of the establishment and maintenance of a community over time. This comparison will help in demonstrating why political leadership is an important factor in the success of regional integration efforts more broadly.
1.1 Central Arguments
The central question that this book examines is the following: Under what conditions can political leadership be a driver of regional community-building? In addition, it also critically asks three interrelated questions. First, what is political leadership and how is it characterised? Second, to what extent are leadersâ personalities and visions important to the development of regional community-building? Third, are there conditions that are not conducive to leaders providing leadership in regional community-building? The answers to these questions may enhance our scholarly understanding of the nature of leadership in the context of regional community-building. It is hoped that answers to these questions will provide a deeper understanding of the extent to which, and under what conditions political leadership is a driver of (or impediment) to the success of regional community-building over time, both in creating and in sustaining the community.
Central to this book is an understanding of the key concepts pertaining to regionalism, regional integration, and regional community-building. Regionalism in this book is defined in accordance with the definition provided by Hurrell (1995), who states that regionalism encompasses regional awareness and identity, regionalisation, regional interstate cooperation, state-promoted regional economic integration, and regional cohesion. Regional awareness refers to the shared perception of belonging to a particular community which lays great emphasis on language and rhetoric in the discourse of regionalism and the political process that contribute to definitions and redefinition of regional identity (Hurrell 1995, p. 335). Regionalisation refers to the process of cooperation, integration, cohesion, and identity in creating a regional space (Söderbaum 2009). Regional interstate cooperation involves both formal and informal cooperation to serve a variety of purposes, namely as a means of responding to external challenges and of coordinating regional positions in international institutions or negotiating a forum (Hurrell 1995, p. 336). State-promoted regional economic integration concerns regional economic integration which involves specific policy decisions by governments, designed to reduce or remove barriers to mutual exchange of goods, services, capital, and people (Hurrell 1995, p. 337). Regional cohesion refers to âthe possibility that, at some point, a combination of these four processes might lead to the emergence of a cohesive and consolidated regional unitâ (Hurrell 1995, p. 337). Unless otherwise specified, the term regionalism as used throughout the book falls into a wide range of explanations given earlier.
Regional integration here refers to a âprocess in which units move from a condition of total or partial isolation towards a complete or partial unificationâ (Van Langenhove 2005, p. 5). It is a broad framework that can describe, f...