Conclusions: Comparing Governments and Political Institutions in Southeast Asia

The structures, processes, and actors of the political systems as well as the current political situation of 11 Southeast Asian countries differ widely. Still, this chapter aims to collect and connect insights from an in-depth study of the region and provide a comparative perspective. The deep and numerous political, economic, cultural, historical, and social differences among the countries in the region defy any straightforward generalization, even more so than in other world regions. While there were several democratic transitions in the region between 1986 (Philippines) and 2002 (Timor-Leste), none of them resulted in institutionally coherent, liberal democracies. All Southeast Asian democracies remain “defective” and are subject to legitimacy crises, deficiencies in the rule of law, or problems with their sociopolitical structures of representation and integration. Autocrats in the region remain in power if they manage to grant their “winning coalition” and members of the moderate opposition access to private goods but maintain their ability to counter opponents or dissidents by coercive force. Especially the well-institutionalized regime parties in Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam have maintained social stability by balancing elite interests. Successful management of interethnic conflict in Singapore and Malaysia or winning independence in Vietnam, Laos, or Myanmar provide an important additional source of regime legitimacy. Still, ideological sources of legitimacy are declining in importance for autocratic rulers. Whether this structural legitimacy deficit will result in eventual collapse or whether regimes in the region will manage to tap into new sources of legitimacy or refine their systems of co-optation and repression remains speculative.