Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:13:27.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opposition in Asian Constitutional Systems: Characteristics and Potential for Democratic Consolidation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

James Cotton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Analysis of Opposition in Asian Political Systems raises acute problems of definition. At one end of a continuum lie those polities in which an ‘opposition’ is either inconceivable (North Korea is perhaps the best example) or inevitably in a state of war or confrontation with the regime (as is the case in Burma/Myanmar). In cases at this end of the continuum opposition cannot be democratic in the systemic sense, unless the opposition realizes its programme and becomes a democratic government. At the other end of the continuum, however, the character, standing and potential of ‘opposition’ is very much a matter of debate. In these systems a multiplicity of non-governing political parties exist, and these parties contest elections and send members to legislatures, though they often operate under rules (informal as well as formal) and conditions which tend to prevent them from gaining power. The focus of this article will be upon these systems, which are here labelled – whether parliamentary or presidential – ‘constitutional’. ‘Constitutional’ is understood as entailing the existence of an embedded and more or less regularly operating set of electoral mechanisms which plays an essential part in the selection of the government.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 175 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dahl, Robert A. (ed.), Regimes and Oppositions, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1973, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

2 Dahl, Robert A., Polyarchy. Participation and Opposition, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1971, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

3 Przeworski, Adam, Democracy and the Market. Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Di Palma, Giuseppi, To Craft Democracies, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990, pp. 126, 143Google Scholar; Linz, Juan J., ‘Transitions to Democracy’, The Washington Quarterly, 13, 1990, No. 3, p. 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 These systems are the subject of an extensive literature, though comparative work on them is surprisingly sparse. The best survey is found in: Larry Diamond et al. (eds), Democracy in Developing Countries: Vol. 3 Asia, Boulder, Rienner, 1989.

6 Diamond, Larry, ‘Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered’, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 35, 1992, pp. 450–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Robinson, Thomas W. (ed.), Democracy and Development in East Asia, Washington, American Enterprise Institute, 1991, p. 30.Google Scholar

8 Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, S., The Civic Culture, Boston, Little, Brown, 1965, p. 86.Google Scholar

9 Huntington, Samuel P., The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman, Oklahoma University Press, 1991, pp. 142, 151.Google Scholar

10 Kitschelt, Herbert, ‘Political Regime Change: Structure and Process-Driven Explanations?’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, 1992, No. 4, pp. 1028–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Przeworski, Adam, ‘Some Problems in the Study of the Transition to Democracy’, in O’Donnell, Guillermo et al. (eds), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. Prospects for Democracy, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986, Vol. 3, pp. 47–63.Google Scholar

12 Tremewan, Christopher, The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore, London, Routledge, 1994, pp. 187–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seow, Francis, To Catch a Tartar. A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s Prison, New Haven, Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, 1994.Google Scholar

13 Chung-Si, Ahn, ‘Democratization and Political Reform in Korea: Development, Culture, Leadership and Institutional Change’, in Doh Chull, Shin et al. (eds), Korea in the Global Wave of Democratization, Seoul, Seoul National University Press, 1994, pp. 161–78.Google Scholar

14 Means, Gordon P., Malaysian Politics. The Second Generation, Singapore, Oxford University Press, 1991, ch. 5Google Scholar; Shamsul, A. B., ‘Religion and Ethnic Politics in Malaysia’, in Keyes, Charles F. et al. (eds), Asian Visions of Authority. Religion and the Modern States of East and Southeast Asia, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 1994, pp. 99–116.Google Scholar

15 Fu, Hu and Yun-han, Chu, ‘Electoral Competition and Political Democratization’, in Cheng, Tun-jen and Haggard, Stephen (eds), Political Change in Taiwan, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 1992, pp. 186–97.Google Scholar

16 Sun-kwang, Bae, ‘Continuity or Change: the Voter’s Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election’, in Cotton, James (ed.), Politics and Policy in the New Korean State: From Roh Tae-woo in Kim Young-sam, Melbourne, Longman/New York, St Martin’s Press, 1995, pp. 66–82 Google Scholar; Sun-kwang, Bae and Cotton, James, ‘Regionalism in Electoral Politics’, in Cotton, James (ed.), Korea under Roh Tae-woo. Democratization, Northern Policy and Inter-Korean Relations, Sydney, Allen & Unwin, 1993, pp. 170–84.Google Scholar

17 Chen, David W., ‘The Emergence of Environmental Consciousness in Taiwan’, in Rubinstein, Murray A. (ed.), The Other Taiwan. 1945 to the Present, Armonk, M. E. Sharpe, 1994, pp. 257–86.Google Scholar

18 Su-Hoon, Lee, ‘Transitional Politics of Korea, 1987–1992: Activation of Civil Society’, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 66, 1993, No. 3, pp. 351–67.Google Scholar

19 Pye, Lucian W., Asian Power and Politics. The Cultural Dimensions of Authority, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1987 Google Scholar; Moody, Peter R., Political Opposition in Post-Confucian Societies, New York, Praeger, 1988.Google Scholar

20 McCoy, Alfred W. (ed.), An Anarchy of Families: State and Family in the Philippines, Manila, Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

21 Bosco, Joseph, ‘Taiwan Factions: Guanxi, Patronage and the State in Local Politics’, Ethnology, Vol. 31, 1992, No. 2, pp. 157–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Teng Lang, Tan, The Singapore Press: Freedom, Responsibility and Credibility, Singapore, Institute of Policy Studies, 1990.Google Scholar

23 Samudavanija, Chai-Anan, ‘Thailand: A Stable Semi-democracy’, in Diamond, Larry et al (eds), Democracy in Developing Countries. Asia, Boulder, Rienner, 1989, p. 324.Google Scholar

24 Adam Przeworski, Democracy and the Market, p. 89.

25 Stepan, Alfred, ‘On the Tasks of a Democratic Opposition’, in Diamond, Larry and Plattner, Marc F. (eds), The Global Resurgence of Democracy, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993, p. 67.Google Scholar

26 Burton, Michael G. and Higley, John, ‘Elite Settlements’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 52, 1987, pp. 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 An earlier version of this essay was read at the 13th Korean Association of International Studies Conference, held in Seoul. The author is indebted to the KAIS for its hospitality, and co the participants for their comments.