“Recent Trends in Democratization and Decentralization in Southeast Asia” 
(Dr. Eric Haanstad)

The second colloquium of the Southeast Asian Studies at Freiburg with the title “Recent trends in Democratization and Decentralization in Southeast Asia” took place on the 8th of June 2010. First Dr. Eric Haanstad gave a presentation of the recent events taking place in Bangkok, Thailand. The symbolism which was used by both government and anti-government was explained and illustrated by using the cover pages of recent Thai magazines. It was observed that media based misinformation and covert manipulation took place on both sides. In addition, the complexity of the events and the misinformation make it impossible for scholars to take sides. The nature of recent anti-government protests can therefore be seen as both democratic and undemocratic. Furthermore, the physical events were discussed in regards of the locality in which they took place. 
The next part of the colloquium focused more specifically on the concept of decentralization. In regards of Cambodia, it was pointed out that decentralization has been used as a technique in order to consolidate the power of the center. In addition, local institutions have received more power through decentralization. In 2008 the following key points could be observed: First, decentralization was beneficial to ruling party which gained power over almost all local governments. Second, there has been a replication of this party control on other levels of government. Third, the control of land exercised by the centre has been majorly extended. The fact that one company controls almost all parts of the country was also pointed out.
The following part of the colloquium focused on the different effects which are attributed to decentralization. First, decentralization can be used in order to mobilize local authorities. Giving power to local areas can in effect shore up the power of the center. In addition, it was argued that decentralization can only survive if there is a central party that holds control. The diminution of central control is therefore compensated through party control which maintains stability within the country. In China for example local parties are being used in order to give orders to local leaders. Second, it was mentioned that decentralization should improve service delivery and lead to democratization. Third, decentralization can be seen as subordination which is the case in China where local officials work towards increasing economic growth in order to be promoted. Fourth, it was brought up that for decentralization to work there needs to be a strong structure. Often influential political parties will provide this structure and benefit from it. While elections continue to be part of the political game the leading political will consolidate its power. Fifth, the relationship between democratization and decentralization was also raised as an issue of importance for further research. The question in this regard was on whether decentralization has led to a reproduction of the central structure at the local level or whether something new has been created. In this context the potential effects of decentralization on culture were also mentioned. Participant observation could be used in order to analyze local elections in regards of cultural changes. Sixth, the issue of decentralization being used as rhetoric was also debated. 
The following questions were raised in the discussion: Is decentralization part of a process of democracy or does it reflect a deepening of uncertainty? How do we explain the motivation to spend a lot of time and money on winning election? It was argued that irrationality and rationality are both reflected in this context. In addition, it was suggested that politicians are not “bad” as such but that they just follow the existing social structure. The influence of authoritarian nostalgia was also mentioned in this context. On the other hand, young politicians try to believe democracy. In regards of Aceh and the democratization of the former GAM one could argue that this was due to decentralization. Furthermore, the centralization of party financing was also mentioned which is controlled by handful of individuals and is rising exponentially. The decentralization of corruption was another issue brought up in the discussion. It was mentioned that an increase of corruption has taken place in the context of decentralization which provides more opportunities for corruption. The bribe price can be seen as an indicator. Lower bribe prices reflect more corruption opportunities. It was suggested that corruption presents a good lense through which decentralization can be studied. It was also mentioned however that studying decentralization should not just focus on elite corruption. The argument was that the patron client relationships need to be revised because the elite is not save to win elections anymore and therefore is also being exploited. Elites can spend a lot of money and fail and business man have to spread their money between parties. In this context it was also mentioned that within the multiparty system of Indonesia the same thing is being offered by different parties and that there is no potential to distinguish them. All parties present themselves with the focus of fighting poverty. The fact that in Indonesia no politician wants to promise a decrease in poverty by a certain amount was also observed. 
Before 2001 the situation in Thailand was similar to the situation of Indonesia today with politicians having to invest in all political parties. This changed however after Thaksin’s party emerged. Thaksin held most capital and was therefore able to absorb other politicians. Thaksin was so successful because he was able to absorb patrons, who in turn controlled decentralized networks of patronage, into his own network. Previous to Thaksin’s influence politicians were switching parties and alliances very often. In Thailand election campaigns have focused on cheap health care and “state rituals” were enacted in order to gain support. 
It was observed that the issues of identity and structure play an important role in the decentralization process. The question is what people make out of the political structure and financial possibility? Often they are using their own money in order to get elected and then spend public money in order to develop the province. This creates a new identity and identification with the politician.

The next colloquium will take place on Wednesday the 7th of July 2010, 2-4pm. The topic will be communicated through e-mail and posted on our website: www.southeastasianstudies.uni-freiburg.de