Skip to main content

Political Durability and Protests

  • 322 Accesses

Part of the Palgrave Series in Asia and Pacific Studies book series (PSAPS)

Abstract

This introduction provides an overall context to the discussion of how regime rulers in Southeast Asia have clung onto power; it also investigates the resistance of grassroots communities to the strategies, such as rent extraction from natural resources, employed by incumbent rulers to remain in power. The chapter then explains key concepts underpinning the discussion of how protests are organised to target both the government and the corporations. It frames a ‘protest cycle’, or the way in which movements of civil society organisations orchestrate protests in the hope of the government regulating the corporations to address the formers’ demands; these demands are construed here as the expected outcomes of the protests. The chapter defines how a movement fails or succeeds in achieving its demands; thus, key determining factors, such as strategies, networks, political opportunities and resource mobilisations of social movement theories, are discussed. The chapter explains that these factors are not conclusive in delineating why and under what conditions some movements fail while, simultaneously, others succeed in a political regime. In essence, political survival—that is, how the rulers have clung onto power for more than a regular term by designing extractive economic institutions—is discussed in relation to social movements and collective actions. The degree of failure or success of a movement within a regime is contingent on notions of, firstly, repression and, then, co-option (concession, in other words) on the part of the rulers to remain in power. These two approaches duly define not only the responses of the corporations, but also the outcomes—success or failure—of social movements such as civil society organisations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-981-33-6112-6_1
  • Chapter length: 31 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-981-33-6112-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the individual chapters detailing particular Southeast Asian countries, I will assess and classify which regime type each country belongs to.

  2. 2.

    Rent-seeking can be bad or good according to Tullock (1988). The latter is deemed more injurious to society in dynamic rather than static settings.

  3. 3.

    Corporations choosing to invest in such countries are presumably offered a share of rents, perhaps via local monopolies, implicit subsidies and other protections.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, N. Y. (2015). Clientelism and the personal vote in Indonesia. Electoral Studies, 37(0), 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amenta, E., Caren, N., Fetner, T., & Young, M. P. (2002). Challengers and states: Toward a political sociology of social movements. Research in Political Sociology, 10, 47–83.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Amenta, E., Dunleavy, K., & Bernstein, M. (1994). Stolen thunder? Huey Long’s “share our wealth” political mediation, and the second new deal. American Sociological Review, 59, 678–702.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinall, E. (2005). Opposing Suharto: Compromise, resistance, and regime change in Indonesia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, D. C. (2011). Patrimonialism and neopatrimonialism: Comparative trajectories and readings. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 49(3), 275–294.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, J., & Faust, J. (2014). Foreign aid, democratization, and autocratic survival. International Studies Review, 16(4), 575–595.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Banaszak, L. A. (1996). Why movements succeed or fail: Opportunity, culture, and the struggle for woman suffrage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. V. (2002). The role of government in advancing corporate sustainability. Background Paper. Sustainable Enterprise Academy, York University (Canada).

    Google Scholar 

  • Borras, S. M., Jr., Edelman, M., & Kay, C. (2008). Transnational agrarian movements: Origins and politics, campaign and impact. Journal of Agrarian Change, 8, 169–204.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bosi, L., Giugni, M., Uba, K. (2016). The consequences of social movements: Taking stock and looking forward. In L. Bosi, M. Giugni, & K. Uba (Eds.), The consequences of social movements (pp. 3–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, V. (2004). Resisting dictatorship: Repression and protest in Southeast Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boykoff, J. (2006). The suppression of dissent: How the state and mass media squelch US American social movements. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratton, M., & Van de Walle, N. (1994). Neopatrimonial regimes and political transitions in Africa. World Politics, 46(4), 453–489.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B. B., & Smith, A. (2009). Political survival and endogenous institutional change. Comparative Political Studies, 42(2), 167–197.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B. B., & Smith, A. (2010). Leader survival, revolutions, and the nature of government finance. American Journal of Political Science, 54(4), 936–950.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, P. (1999). Social movements and public policy. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), How social movements matter (pp. 3–21). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Y. (2010). Collective resistance in China: Why popular protests succeed or fail. Standford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caouette, D. (2007). Going transnational?: Dynamics and challenges of linking local claims to global advocacy networks in Southeast Asia. Pacific Focus, 22(2), 141–166.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Caouette, D., & Turner, S. (Eds.). (2009). Agrarian angst and rural resistance in contemporary Southeast Asia. Abingdo: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caraway, T., & Ford, M. (2020). Labor and politics in Indonesia (Cambridge studies in contentious politics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Case, W. (1994). Elites and regimes in comparative perspective: Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia. Governance, 7(4), 431–460.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Case, W. (2002). Politics in Southeast Asia: Democracy or less. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, W., & Vander Wall, J. (2002). Agents of repression: The FBI’s secret wars against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian movement (Vol. 7). Cambridge: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, C. S. (1985). Third world politics: An introduction. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cress, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 1063.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. J. (2002). Thinking about hybrid regimes. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 21–35.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, T. (2008). Crude democracy: Natural resource wealth and political regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Erdmann, G., & Engel, U. (2007). Neopatrimonialism reconsidered: Critical review and elaboration of an elusive concept. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 45(1), 95–119.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Escriba-Folch, A. (2013). Repression, political threats, and survival under autocracy. International Political Science Review, 34(5), 543–560.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2013). Social activism in Southeast Asia: An introduction. In M. Ford (Ed.), Social activism in Southeast Asia (pp. 1–21). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, J. C. (2009). Contentious challenges and government responses in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly, 62(4), 700–714.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A. (1990). The strategy of social protest (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A., & Meyer, D. S. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements (pp. 275–290). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gandhi, J. (2008). Political institutions under dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: A new data set. Perspectives on Politics, 12(2), 313–331.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Golden, M., & Min, B. (2013). Distributive politics around the world. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 73–99.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, J. A., & Tilly, C. (2001). Threat (and opportunity): Popular action and state response in the dynamics of contentious action. In R. Aminzade, J. A. Goldstone, D. McAdam, & E. Perry (Eds.), Silence and voice in the study of contentious politics (pp. 179–194). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, D., & Woods, N. (2006). Making corporate self-regulation effective in developing countries. World Development, 34(5), 868–883.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hegre, H. (2001). Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political change, and civil war, 1816–1992. American Political Science Review, 95(01), 33–48.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hicken, A. (2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 289–310.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, P., & Warren, C. (1998). Introduction: Through the environmental looking glass: The politics of resources and resistance in Southeast Asia. In P. Hirsch & C. Warren (Eds.), The politics of environment in Southeast Asia (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooi, Y. K. (2020). The Bersih movement and democratisation in Malaysia: Repression, dissent and opportunities. Singapore: ISEAS—Yusof Ishak Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, N., & Wantchekon, L. (2004). Resource wealth and political regimes in Africa. Comparative Political Studies, 37(7), 816–841.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Josua, M., & Edel, M. (2015). To repress or not to repress—Regime survival strategies in the Arab Spring. Terrorism and Political Violence, 27(2), 289–309.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kalland, A., & Person, G. (1998). An anthropological perspective on environmental movements. In A. Kalland & G. Person (Eds.), Environmental movements in Asia (pp. 1–43). Surrey: Curzon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal, 51(159), 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerkvliet, B. K. (2005). The power of everyday politics: How Vietnamese peasants transformed national policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. H. (2000). Rent-seeking as Process. In M. H. Khan & J. K. Sundaram (Eds.), Rents, rent-seeking and economic development: Theory and evidence in Asia (pp. 70–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. H., & Sundaram, J. K. (2000a). Introduction. In M. H. Khan & J. K. Sundaram (Eds.), Rents, rent-seeking and economic development: Theory and evidence in Asia (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. H., & Sundaram, J. K. (2000b). Rents, rent-seeking and economic development: Theory and evidence in Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G. (2007). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business and Society, 47(1), 21–49.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 395–421.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, H. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), 57–85.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur, D. (2011). Regulation and regulatory governance. In L. David (Ed.), Handbook on the politics of regulation (pp. 1–25). Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2002). The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q. (2009). Democracy, autocracy, and expropriation of foreign direct investment. Comparative Political Studies, 42(8), 1098–1127.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, K. (2014). The Politics of global supply chains: Power and governance beyond the state. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M. G., & Cole, B. R. (2014). Global report 2014: Conflict, governance, and state fragility. New York: Polity IV, Center for Systemic Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D., Tarrow, S. G., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Medina, L. F., & Stokes, S. (2007). Monopoly and monitoring: An approach to political clientelism. In H. Kitschelt & S. I. Wilkinson (Eds.), Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition (pp. 68–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. S. (2004). Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 125–145.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Morgenbesser, L. (2016). Behind the façade: Elections under authoritarianism in Southeast Asia. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, K. J., & Li, L. (2006). Rightful resistance in rural China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway, M. (2003). Democracy challenged: The rise of semi-authoritarianism. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peou, S. (1998). Hun Sen’s pre-emptive coup: Causes and consequences. Southeast Asian Affairs, 1998, 86–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peou, S. (2014). The limits and potential of liberal democratisation in Southeast Asia. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 33(3), 19–47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1977). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, G. B. (2010). The politics of protest in hybrid regimes: Managing dissent in post-communist Russia. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. A., & Acemoglu, D. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M. L. (2001). Timber booms and institutional breakdown in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, R. (1972). Patrons, clients, and factions: New dimensions of conflict analysis in Africa. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 5(1), 104–119.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. C. (1972). The erosion of patron-client bonds and social change in rural Southeast Asia. The Journal of Asian Studies, 32(01), 5–37.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. C., & Kerkvliet, B. J. T. (Eds.). (1986). Everyday forms of peasant resistance in South-East Asia. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shawki, N. (2011). Organizational structure and strength and transnational campaign outcomes: A comparison of two transnational advocacy networks. Global Networks, 11(1), 97–117.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sindzingre, A. (2012). Neopatrimonialism and its reinterpretations by development economics. In D. C. Bach & G. Mamoudou (Eds.), Neopatrimonialism in Africa and beyond (pp. 90–108). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, D. (2010). Ordering power: Contentious politics and authoritarian leviathans in Southeast Asia. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (2004). Transnational processes and movements. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 331–336).  London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, I. O. (2013). Election boycotts and hybrid regime survival. Comparative Political Studies, 47(5), 743–765.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Soule, S. A. (2009). Contention and corporate social responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Soule, S. A. (2012). Social movements and markets, industries, and firms. Organization Studies, 33(12), 1715–1733.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, J. K., & Gomez, E. T. (2000). The Malaysian development dilemma. In M. H. Khan & J. K. Sundaram (Eds.), Rents, rent-seeking and economic development: Theory and evidence in Asia (pp. 274–303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, H. (2013). Of sticks and carrots: Repression and food policy as a cause and consequence of mass unrest in East Germany. In APSA 2013 Annual Meeting Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, G. (1988). Rents and rent-seeking. In C. K. Rowley, R. D. Tollison, & G. Tullock (Eds.), The political economy of rent-seeking. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., & Caouette, D. (2009a). Agrarian angst: Rural resistance in Southeast Asia. Geography Compass, 3, 950–975.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S., & Caouette, D. (2009b). Shifting fields of rural resistance in Southeast Asia. In D. Caouette & S. Turner (Eds.), Agrarian angst and rural resistance in contemporary Southeast Asia (pp. 1–24). Abingdo: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Walle, N. (2001). African economies and the politics of permanent crisis, 1979-1999. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vreeland, J. R. (2008). The effect of political regime on civil war unpacking anocracy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(3), 401–425.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, E. T., Martin, A. W., & McCarthy, J. D. (2008). Confronting the state, the corporation, and the academy: The influence of institutional targets on social movement repertoires. American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 35–76.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, L., & Hassan, S. (Eds.). (2003). Social movements in Malaysia. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J., & Escriba-Folch, A. (2012). Authoritarian institutions and regime survival: Transitions to democracy and subsequent autocracy. British Journal of Political Science, 42(02), 283–309.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J., Frantz, E., & Geddes, B. (2013). Oil and autocratic regime survival. British Journal of Political Science, 45, 287–306.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Yakovlev, E., & Zhuravskaya, E. (2006). State capture: From Yeltsin to Putin. In J. Kornai, L. Matyas, & G. Roland (Eds.), Corruption, development and institutional design (pp. 24–36). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, S. (2015). Contention and corporate sustainability practices in the Cambodian agricultural sector. Hong Kong SAR: Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, S. (2016a). Movement of indigenous communities targeting an agro-industrial investment in Northeastern Cambodia. Asian Journal of Social Science, 44(1–2), 188–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, S. (2016b). Popular Resistance in Cambodia: Rationale behind the government response. Asian Politics & Policy, 8(4), 593–613.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Young, S. (2020a). Social movements in Cambodia: Why they succeed or fail. Journal of International Relations and Development, 23(4), 899–923.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Young, S. (2020b). China’s belt and road initiative: Patron-client and capture in Cambodia. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 8(20), 414–434.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Young, S. (2021). Political Durability and Protests. In: Strategies of Authoritarian Survival and Dissensus in Southeast Asia. Palgrave Series in Asia and Pacific Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6112-6_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6112-6_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-33-6111-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-33-6112-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)