The Democratic Process Of Southeast Asian Countries

Furthermore The First past the Post system gives rise to a coherent opposition in the legislature. In theory, the flip side of a strong single-party government is that the opposition is also given enough seats to perform a critical checking role and present itself as a realistic alternative to the government of the day. It advantages broadly-based political parties. In severely ethnically or regionally divided societies, FPTP is commended for encouraging political parties to be ‘broad churches’, encompassing many elements of society, particularly when there are only two major parties and many different societal groups. These parties can then field a diverse array of candidates for election. In Malaysia, for example, the Barisan Nasional government is made up of a broadly-based umbrella movement which fields Malay, Chinese, and Indian candidates in areas of various ethnic complexions.

We know that democracies are common among the economically urbanized countries and rare between the very deprived ones. The reason we scrutinize this pattern is not that democracies are more probable to emerge, as a result, of economic development but that they are to a large extent more possible to survive if they occur to emerge in most urbanized countries. The paths to democracy are diverse. Indeed, they appear to follow no unsurprising pattern. But once democracy is conventional, for whatever reasons, its endurance depends on a few, easily particular, factors.

In the midst of the prevalence of democratic transitions, a number of developing countries are seeking to achieve the successful consolidation of civil order in modern days. Among those participants, Mexico and Nigeria has been spotlighted for the completely contrastive endings at the end of their long-adventures towards democratization since their independence; Mexico, from its independence, has maintained the political stability despite the authoritarian single-party regime and even accomplished the solid democratization at the time of the 2000 election whereas Nigerian regime has been deteriorated by a series of military cues d’états and

Australia and Indonesia political systems are instrumental in shaping the development of individual nations. These systems determine the policies that are to be followed by the government and the governed and aim to establish political stability. Despite Australia is a constitutional monarchy and Indonesia is a republic, the two country have many similarities and differences in the political system. This extended response identifies and compares the key features of government system and election between Australia and Indonesia political systems.

Since the dawn of human civilization, individuals have been constantly immersed in conflict with each other. Whether these conflicts stemmed from socio-economic inequalities, political disputes, property rights, religious disagreements, or any other contentious matter, the creation of human governments has necessarily been to handle, organize, and resolve conflicts between people within communities in the least destructive manner possible. Governments act as a formal instrument through which individuals in a society can agree upon shared rules, solve problems, and engage in cooperative behavior, and it helps avoid the severe repercussions resulting from revolutionary social upheaval. The purpose of government – as spelled out in the Preamble of the Constitution – is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” While countless forms of government have sprung up over the centuries, only one has been resilient enough and has had the pervasive influence necessary to stand the test of time: democracy. While there are many different types of democracies, this paper will focus on liberal democracy specifically. A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy that operates under the paradigm of classical liberalism. According to the Center for Research on Globalization, liberal democracy is defined as:

question the reliability of these sources, the nature of the inconsistency between these two articles has

Democracy has become the most widespread political form of government during the past decade, after the fall of all its alternatives. During the second part of the 20th century, the 3 main enemies of democracy, namely communism, fascism and Nazism, lost most of their power and influence. However, democracy is still only to be found in less than half of this world's countries. China with a fifth of the total population "had never experienced a democratic government" and Russia still doesn't have a well established democracy. By adopting a democratic perspective, 3 types of governments emerge, non-democratic, new democracies, and old democracies, and all have a different challenge to overcome: either to become democratic, to "consolidate"

There are numerous ways to improve the Malaysian electoral system both in fairness and efficiency. Currently, there is a lack in confidence in the validity or neutrality of the Electoral Commissions (EC). Members of the EC are elected by the Yang di- Pertuan Agong (YDPA) after discussing with the Conference of Rulers (Legal Research Board, 2013). However, according to Article 40 the YDPA can only act after receiving advice from the Cabinet or a Minister representing the Cabinet (Legal Research Board, 2013); in most cases it would mean the Prime Minister. Hence, it may seem that the politically neutral EC were to be pro-government. A solution to this problem would be to amend the Constitution so that the House of Representatives can debate on the nomination of the EC members, then their decision would be passed on to the YDPA. By doing so, the EC would comprise of members that have the approval of both the government and opposition, thus making the committee fairer. Aside from that, the EC should manage its own budget, and should be reviewed by the Auditor-General and not be dissected by the Parliament.

The creation and manipulation of representative institutions as democracy decorations help authoritarians in providing legitimate governance and ensure political survival. Authoritarians face challenges from representative institutions such as the legislative, judiciary,

Since the initiation of the Third Wave of Democracy, several countries have attempted to form a democratic system of governs. We take note that not all have succeeded. At the dawn of this era, democracy was being applied to countries with no prior history of a governing body that was place by the people for the people hence success of such a system could not be guaranteed because of the innumerous variables that existed in each country. People being the highlighted factor of variance, it may become easier to understand how countries such as Pakistan and Nigeria, both countries prior to the Wave had no local governing machinery. Pakistan further endured a partition from India which resulted in not only an instant religious and

According to Andrew Janos, “the price of economic progress has been political turmoil”. (Janos, pg. 21) If the Modernization Theory holds that countries tend to become more democratic the more they modernize, then political turmoil is to be expected in democracies. Certainly this can occur in both parliamentary and presidential systems: as Linz argues, the presidential system concentrates too much power on the president, resulting in “winner-take-all” politics (Linz, pg. 56) and the polarization of political parties. This is evident in the United States, where the president is elected separately and Congress is divided between the opposing Democrats and Republicans. Conversely, the parliamentary system in Britain, as well as that adapted by the former British colonies of Sri Lanka and Nigeria, has had its fair share of single-party hegemony and political abuse. (Horowitz, pg. 78) Democracy is therefore not a perfect form of government when put in practice, and much of its

Ericson’s argument that the insecurity felt in modern times and the corresponding response by state intervention which leads to an erosion in democratic processes is not universally concurred. Some countries like Singapore strike a unique balance between the use of counter-law in times of emergency while practising inclusionary measures. Multiculturalism, the very definition of an inclusive society, plays a central role in the governance of Singapore yet counter-law exists. Singaporeans have a tendency to prioritise security over the liberal values of democracy (Lee, 2013; Harris, 2014). Even if it is a temporary suspension of democratic processes, Singaporeans are generally cooperative to their version of counter-law which is the Internal Security Act. The problem with Ericson’s argument is that it does not apply to most Asian country. The number of uproars over the lack of ‘proper democracy’ in Asia advocated by most liberal western media seem to illustrate the fact of ethnocentrism. Ericson concluded by stressing that counter-law “itself becomes a source of harassment, alarm and distress” (Ericson, 2007, p. 7). Perhaps, it would be worthwhile to consider that certain democratic liberties are just not readily agreed upon in the Asian context. Additionally, the harmonious and inclusive feature of the Singaporean model while practising the use of counter-law is a point of disagreement to Ericson’s argument. This could serve as a reminder that the liberal values of democracy are not the universal ‘correct’ end objective to achieve. This is and has always been a debate on the exclusion and inclusion of certain culture, practices, and communities. Who is to say that the culture and practice of the individualistic, liberal, and democratic ideals should be the lens to analyse pervasive issues of contemporary

The ruling party of Malaysia, Barisan Nasional has been in power since the country’s independence in 1957. This fact has provided Malaysia a high degree of stability and the confidence of foreign investors / businesses.

The election was the process of electing a leader to govern the country and this system are implemented in most of the democratic country. The election processes are important in order to get the leader that can run the country in harmony and peace. According to Lim Hong Hai (N/A), the electoral system is important because it applies an essential and liberated effect on electoral outcomes, and hence on the balance of benefit among contestants in the fight for representation and power in the political system. In Malaysia, the electoral processes are done after 5 years. This election process began after Malaysia got its independence as a condition from the colonial master. Malaysia is the example one of the Muslim country that has held periodic national and state level of the election since its independence (Syed Aribi Idid, 2008). Besides that, there a many levels of the election like the parliamentary elections, elections at the state level, by-elections, and elections for the senate and election of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. However, the most popular election event is the by-election and there are six steps in the by-election process which are consist of the issuance of the writ, nomination, election campaign, polling, counting votes, and lastly announcement of the election results.

Malaysia is a unique country. It is made up of multi-ethnic group who are living in harmony. Conflict among ethnic group is rare and even if conflict occurs, is not to the extent of destroying the country. In fact, it is the diversity that drives the development of the country and makes this country colourful. Malaysia has been recognized by the world as a model for other plural societies. The concept of ‘unity in diversity’ is always insisted by the leaders. The concept is now supported with the ‘1 Malaysia’ concept which is introduced by the current Prime Minister. The Malaysian government is always put efforts to ensure the