上からの国家建設-タイ、インドネシア、フィリピン
アジアの民族と国家 東南アジアを中心として
1987 年 1987 巻 84 号 p. 27-43,L7
詳細
1987 年 1987 巻 84 号 p. 27-43,L7
In the age of the United Nations, the state derives the meaning of its existence from the imagined nation, from the fiction that the executives of the modern state are a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole nation. From this, constitutional democratic thinking draws one conclusion: the key to legitimacy is the mandate of the nation/people, represented through fair and free elections; governmental performance in managing the common affairs of the nation is important, but it is translated into legitimavy only through elections. “Authoritarianism and development” thinking draws another: the legitimacy of a regime and hence regime stability ultimately depend on governmental performance in carrying out the common affairs of the nation, that is, national independence, unity, order and welfare. It is not the mandate of the nation/people represented through elections, but governmental performance itself that is the key to legitimacy. The ruling elite are those who know what the national goals are. The Important thing is to do the job. Legitimacy will come if the job is done well.
Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines adopted this “authoritarianism and development” strategy for nation-building in the 1960s and 1970s with different results. Thailand and Indonesia have been successful in the task of state-building and are now trying to cope with the task of expanding political participation in different ways. In Thailand the bureaucratic polity has become a thing of the past and the search for a new form of “power-sharing” is now under way. In Indonesia, in contrast, the bureaucratic polity has been consolidated and the integratin of social forces in the regime is being attempted through functional representation. Only in the Philippines Marcos' “revolution from the center” and “democratic revolution” proved to be a dismal failure. But the argument Marcos made proved to be valid. It was indeed a “reoriented political authority” that initiated the “democratic revolution.”
