Analyzing the effectiveness of SE Asian leaders during the colonial period is difficult. It is easy to argue that the leaders did what they could in the face of overwhelming European military power. They had little choice but to give in to the demands of the Europeans. It would be very easy to give these leaders a free pass for not doing more. When we take a closer look, it is clear that the leaders in SE Asia were also self-serving and frequently used the European powers to maintain their own power. Those capable of getting into power do not relinquish it easily. I think many of the leaders in SE Asia were nothing more than colonial puppets, but to these "leaders" being a colonial puppet with some power was better than having no power at all.
The leaders of the anti-colonial movement fought under the guise of throwing off the bonds of colonial oppressors, but in hindsight, many of them had more sinister plans. Communist revolutionaries had the short term goal of overthrowing an oppressive regime with the support of the people, not to install a democratic and honest system, but to install a new totalitarian regime. The intent was to overthrow the colonial regimes so that the new leaders could rule at their whim without being puppets of the colonial powers. One only has to look at what happened in Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos to see how the new regimes treated their own people once they gained power.
Even today, the specter of totalitarian regimes haunts SE Asia. Vietnam, Myanmar, and Laos are still ruled by totalitarian regimes. The remainder of the SE Asian countries enjoy various levels of freedom, but none are close to free.
Ultimately, I judge the leaders of a country by the level of freedom allowed. Did the leaders bring true freedom or did they merely grab power for themselves and brutally oppress their own people? By that criteria, SE Asian leaders have failed their people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Transistions are always difficult peirods to go through. SE Asia went through a hardcore transition from first European colonization,then Japanese control, then de-colonization, and then became a battleground between democracy and communism. How are leaders supposed to survive this strong wave. Like you, I felt that they did the best they could under the circumstances. However, there was corruption and ineptitude. Look at Sihounak in Cambodia who had the dream of uniting his country in peace. He started to do that, but then his inabilities forced the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, which cost the lives of many millions of Cambodians. Sukarno in Indonesia was the same. He was considered the father of Modern Indonesia, but lost control and the support of his people and the army because he was a poor administrator.
ReplyDeleteThus, examining the effectiveness of SE Asian rulers is difficult.