Introduction
This volume assesses structural impediments to the transition from prioritizing the security, development, and rights of the state, to prioritizing those of the citizen in East Asian states. In talking about the āFuture of Power,ā Joseph Nye identifies two salient features of transition: a shift of power among states, which is largely from West to East, and a shift of power from states, West or East, to non-state actors (2011a, b, p. 2). The book examines both these phenomena as they relate to governance in East Asia (broadly defined to include the subregions of Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia). The increased importance of Asian countries and models of governance in this, the āAsian Century,ā and the extent to which non-state actors can pursue an agenda independent of, or even in opposition to those championed by the state and the elites who govern them. The rise of Asia (or perhaps more accurately the resurgence of Asia given its historic importance) has been extensively documented. Nevertheless, despite pressures from above (the international community) and below (internal constituencies), the findings are that in many cases, of which the ones represented in this volume are perhaps the paradigmatic examples, East Asian polities continue to give undue primacy to the state in their governance. Furthermore, there are embedded structural obstacles to achieving human-centered governance objectives in the region. These relate to the role of the military in countries in East Asia , historical authoritarian legacies, and new authoritarian trends.
Historically, in many of the countries in the region, national security projects (including but not limited to the role of the military ), as well as national economic development projects have been championed by authoritarian forces as being in the interest of the whole of society. There are several implications of this prioritization. First, the interests of minorities may be sacrificed on the altar of conformity or in the interests of the supposed collective good. Second, the national projects may themselves provide reservoirs of power and patronage for authoritarian elites . Third, national projects may serve as diversionary activities and rallying points to divert publics from questioning elite domination. Finally, and perhaps most devastatingly, security and development interests at the human level (particularly those of the most vulnerable sections of society) may be undermined through the pursuit of the national variants.
Meanwhile, new and growing authoritarian challenges to governance are reflected first, in the impact of inherited reservoirs of power and authority which distort democratic governance structures, and facilitate elite capture of the commanding heights of government, the economy, and society; and second, the further concentration of power in the hands of central political figures. No matter how enlightened an elite is placed over the common people, it is unlikely that they will give equal consideration to interests that they do not share and which are not represented by their number. This may not necessarily be because of any callous disregard, but merely due to the pressure of time and the complexities of government. Thus, for the wishes of all to be represented, the people must rule and exercise power. The more power is concentrated in the hands of the elite, and the smaller the number of the enabled elite, the greater the authoritarian challenge.
The case studies examined in this volume highlight how, despite some grounds for optimism, the ongoing primacy of the state, as manifested in security, development, and governance policy-making, limits the extent to which non-state actors, civil societies, and global humanitarian and democratic norms can transform East Asian polities. Indeed, there is evidence that at least some of the cases are experiencing an authoritarian backlash, resurgence, or consolidation.
Theoretical Framework
East Asia is a region deeply affected by conflict . Colonial, ideological, and national wars have left their scars and legacies, including disputed borders and divided loyalties. Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, states in the region have looked to minimize the worst manifestations of interstate conflict through emphasizing nonintervention, and domestic governance has emphasized national interest and strength in terms of security and economic growth. Indeed, they remain among the most ardent champions of Westphalian sovereignty (Acharya 2003, p. 9). As a result of colonial experience and postcolonial state-building , security threats have generally been identified from the perspective of the state (Nishikawa 2009, p. 217). Several of the cases examined in this volume stand out as what Martin Smith has described as preeminent examples of postcolonial states subsumed in what development analysis describes as a āconflict trapā (Smith 2007, p. 3). Facing diverse challenges, including ethnic insurgencies, disputed borders, and the remnants of colonial and/or Cold War experiences, successive governments in the region have adopted state-centric national security policies with an emphasis on national sovereignty , territorial integrity and national unity (Tin 1998, p. 392).
The region is not immune to the impact of important international and transnational physical and normative developments. The Communication and Information Technology (CIT) and humanitarian revolutions have had important consequences for governments and their leaders. The end of the Cold War , combined with increased media penetration and dissemination capabilities, did much to render āamoralā policy-making increasingly subject to scrutiny and potentially untenable. Therefore, the governing dictates of that time may be seen as no longer suitable for the regulation of national and international politics, national interest as no longer a sufficient normative guide for action, and even the normative value long attached to the sovereign state open to question.
The new millennium has seen a proliferation of international commitments to normative, or ethical, diplomacy. These include the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) , which were developed out of the eight chapters of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000; the successor Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit September 25ā27, 2015; and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which grew out of the December 2001 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) report, but has since been reinforced by repeated United Nations (UN) General Assembly (GA) and Security Council (SC) resolutions, each of which has received almost universal backing, including from all East Asian states present at the summits involved.
In the security field, there has been a similar shift from state-centric to non-state-centric perspectives. Hence the human security paradigm suggests that international security, traditionally defined with its territorial emphasis, does not necessarily correlate with the concept of security for the individuals who comprise the state, and that an overemphasis upon state security can be to the detriment of human welfare needs (Howe 2013, p. 18). Ultimately, this shift recognizes that traditional conceptions of state security may constitute a necessary but not sufficient condition of human welfare (Newman 2010, p. 79). The complexity of threats in peopleās daily lives now involve transnational dimensions and have moved beyond national security, which focused solely on the threat of external military aggressions. Such threats range from poverty, unemployment, drugs, terrorism, environmental degradation and social disintegration (UNDP 1994, p. 11). The international community has also begun to see security threats not only between, but also within states, and focus on people in addition to states (WHO 2002, p. 218).
The commitments made under this evolving international humanitarian regime have been significantly policed, and operationalized, through the democratization of information brought about by the CIT revolution. International organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), domestic and international media organizations, and even the citizens of almost all countries now have access to information concerning the domestic and international policies of governments, the commitments they have made, and whether they are following through with their obligations. It is increasingly difficult for regimes to govern in manners unacceptable to their people. But it is now also more difficult to carry out unethical policies without being exposed and subject to both domestic and international condemnation.
In an interconnected world, with heavy penetration of states by new media , and high levels of personal contact between the peoples of different states, ideas and norms are now able to diffuse much more rapidly, and state monopoly control of knowledge and opinion-forming is increasingly undermined. The contributions of the CIT revolution can be seen in pressure for humanitarian interventions, the WikiLeaks controversy, and the rise and coordination of non-state actors committed to humanitarian causes and issues, and to impacting governments and corporations. Through the new media , these activists have linked with international bodies and fellow activists in other countries for coordination and support, so that governance is increasingly a two-level game (Putnam 1988).
East Asian countries feature prominently in lists of the most interconnected societies on the planet, and this democratization of information also has important implications for governance in the region. Civil society groups in many Asian countries are increasingly vociferous in condemning unjust privilege and prioritization, whether regarding caste, ethnicity, religion, age/generation, or gender. Furthermore, with democratization of the media , it has become harder for governments to perpetrate, cover up, or turn a blind eye to inhumane practices within their jurisdictions or within those of fellow Asian states. Hence David Shambaugh (2008) has noted that the unprecedented interconnectivity of societies in East Asia has reached the level of a manifestation of Putnamās two-level game model. āNew Preachers,ā NGOs and civil socie...