What this lesson teaches
I can judge how Southeast Asian governments held on to power and what this led to.
Syllabus 9174, Paper 2, Theme I, Learning Outcomes. evaluate the outcomes of Southeast Asian governments in consolidating power in different contexts and over time
Make a guess
Suharto ruled Indonesia for 32 years. Do you think a long rule proves a government consolidated power successfully?
- Yes, length of rule is the test that matters most.
- Not by itself: also judge stability, acceptance and peaceful succession.
- No, because elections are the true test.
Show the answer
Not by itself: also judge stability, acceptance and peaceful succession.
Suharto lasted long but fell in crisis with no peaceful handover. Governments with several sources of legitimacy lasted best.
Some governments kept power for decades; others collapsed. Those that combined several sources of legitimacy lasted longest.
Judge outcomes by clear criteria: how long the government lasted, how stable it was, how widely it was accepted, and whether power passed on peacefully.
The PAP in Singapore and the Alliance and Barisan Nasional in Malaysia kept power throughout the period. They combined elections, performance and control of opposition.
Suharto lasted 32 years by combining the army, managed elections, economic growth, anti-communism and US support. He fell when the economy collapsed in 1997-1998.
Marcos lasted 20 years but fell in 1986. Economic crisis, the murder of opposition leader Benigno Aquino in 1983, a stolen election and army defections came together.
Burma's military kept power by force, but it lost legitimacy and much of the economy. Thailand's generals repeatedly took power but could not keep it against mass protest.
The lesson for essays is that no single source of power was enough. Rulers who relied on one source, such as force or charisma, were the most vulnerable.
- Criteria
- Duration, stability, acceptance, peaceful transfer.
- Long-lasting
- PAP, Barisan Nasional, Suharto.
- Collapsed
- Sukarno, Marcos, Suharto in 1998.
Real examples to use
Marcos, 1965 to 1986
His fall followed the murder of Benigno Aquino at Manila airport on 21 August 1983, economic collapse in 1984 to 1985, a stolen election and army defections.
Suharto, 1966 to 1998
He lasted 32 years but resigned on 21 May 1998 after the rupiah collapsed and the economy shrank by about 13 per cent.
The PAP and the Barisan Nasional
Both kept power through the whole period, winning every general election by combining performance, managed rules and control of opposition.
Worked example: Building a comparative judgement
How successful were governments in consolidating power?
- Most successful: Singapore and Malaysia, with several sources of legitimacy.
- Long but fragile: Suharto's Indonesia.
- Failed: Sukarno, Marcos and Thailand's generals at key moments.
- Power without legitimacy: Burma's military.
Watch out for this
A government that stayed in power for a long time had consolidated power successfully.
Length matters, but so does legitimacy. Burma's military stayed in power, but by force and without public acceptance.
Check your understanding
Which government combined several sources of legitimacy most successfully?
- The PAP in Singapore
- Ne Win's military government in Burma
- Sukarno's Guided Democracy in Indonesia
Show the answer
The PAP in Singapore
Right. Elections, performance and control together.