Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, and .

Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States

in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar

and Thailand

Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika 10.22146/globalsouth.50258 Institute of International Studies, Indonesia [email protected]

Military forces have had many important roles in political life in Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand, where the has a full power or major role and influence in the domestic politics. These forms of military intervention in domestic politics are called praetorianism, which is characterized by the military being more inclined to take care of domestic political affairs rather than carrying out its professional duties as guardians of sovereignty from external threats. This paper aims to analyze what factors are the background of the widespread practice of praetorianism and how the practice can last for a certain period of time, even still to this day in these three specific countries that located in Southeast Asia. The main argument is the weak political institutions and the low political culture of developing country are the main causes of various intervention efforts made by the armed forces in the domestic political realm of a country.

Keywords: Praetorianism, military, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand

Introduction countries can be categorized as praetorianism. The modernization process of several This paper aims to analyze what factors are countries in Southeast Asia brought the role the background of the widespread practice of of the military forces in the development of praetorianism and how the practice can last for socio and political life of some countries. In a certain period of time, even still to this day in some cases, the military’s role has become so three specific countries of Southeast Asia. great that it tends to get off track and become The main argument is the weak political unprofessional with a lot of military intervention institutions and the low political culture of in domestic politics with the tendency to take developing country are the main causes of care of domestic political affairs rather than various intervention efforts made by the carrying out its professional duties as guardians armed forces in the domestic political realm of the countries from external threats. In of a country (Perlmutter, 1969). This was Southeast Asia there are three countries with also experienced by these especially after the distinctive military role in its socio political Second World War where armed forces felt life of the countries, Indonesia, Myanmar and that it was the only capable group to restore Thailand, so that the military’s role in the three political order and maintain national stability.

Global South Review 7 Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand.

In addition, past experiences such as the war of the military to control the core groups of of independence and resistance to rebellion in political power that may develop when civilian which the armed forces played a major role in institutions lack legitimacy or are in a position mitigating the incident, led to the assumption to be dominated by military. With this power, that the state has a debt of gratitude to the the military has the ability to appoint military armed forces. This condition led to another officials, sympathizers, and supporting parties assumption that these “heroes” were the most as the holders of positions in all bureaucratic entitled party to hold the political power in a fields in a country. particular country. Therefore, it provides a way A more specific definition of to emerge and develop praetorianism practices praetorianism is proposed by Perlmutter and in these three Southeast Asian countries where Nordlinger, which is summarized by Yasser military institutions have assumed power over El-Shimy (2016). Perlmutter argued that a the domestic politics in the country under the praetorian regime can be characterized with pretext of restoring security and order stability. the army’s potential to dominate the political system with the political processes favor the Defining Praetorianism development of the army as the core group in Praetorianism which literally means countries political development. It was done “the special guardian of the King (ruler)”, is by interfering in affairs, including explained as the excessive political influence influences and sustains particular constitutional of the Armed Forces in a country marked provisions. Furthermore, this definition were by actions oriented towards the expanded Nordlinger with his argument that domestic life of a country. Mc Alister (1961) a regime can be considered as a praetorian explains that the practice of praetorianism regime if it meets these conditions: arises from a combination of the high level of 1. The military came to power by means of a social and political disorganization of a country coup; combined with the low professionalism of the 2. The highest government officials have country’s armed forces. Furthermore Perlmutter served in the army or continue to; and (1969) after concluding McAlister’s concept of 3. The rulers are primarily dependent on the political disorganization as the main cause of the support of the armed forces for the retention practice, Rapoport’s (1960) idea of government of power. (El Shimy, 2016) without consensus as a general definition of Modern praetorianism mostly emerged modern praetorianism, and Huntington (1965) in the aftermath of the World War when military concept of the corrupt society, explains that in instruments no longer had much interest in the practice of modern praetorianism, military expanding territories or defending the country tends to intervene and has great potential to against external attacks so that the military’s dominate a country’s political system. This role as a domestic force was greatly enhanced arises because the political situation of a (Karabelias, 1998). Military institutions were country strongly supports the development considered as the most modern institution in

8 Global South Review Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. a country and had the capability to bring the merely give the military a leading position country to reach a higher level in the ladder of in power holders in several countries such as social and political development. In addition, Indonesia and Myanmar. They must compete the military was considered as the only group with various other political groups who also capable of maintaining political stability so that claimed a stake in the country’s independence military institutions were often asked to play efforts. The struggle of power in the domestic a multidimensional domestic role, including realm of each particular country at that time in non-security fields, such as the economy caused instability in the political situation. and even socio-cultural development. The It was impossible in this era of instability key word for the emergence of praetorianism to build a strong political and democratic in a country is modernization. Praetorianism culture in each country. This condition was often appears in the early and middle stage of exacerbated by the many cases of insurgency modernization in a particular country. These and attempts to take power by groups who periods are marked by widespread political and were dissatisfied with the post-independence order instability. The military will act and take power distribution. As the result, the military power when civil groups fail to legitimize their became very active to overcome such crises so power due to several circumstances under the that its role in maintaining the stability of the pretext of restoring security and order stability country during the modernization period was (Perlmutter, 1969) increasingly in the spotlight. At the same time, In Southeast Asia, there are three the civil government which had assumed power countries that can be included in the category of since the early days of independence after the praetorian states as defined by the description Second World War gradually began to lose its of the characteristics above, These countries legitimacy. are Indonesia, Myanmar, and Thailand. For The socio-political situation in that reason, this paper aimed to analyze the Indonesia, Myanmar, and Thailand during the emergence and the practice of praetorianism modernization process of each countries was of these countries so a prevention method can marked by the low rate of socio-economic be found and implemented to achieve a more development and under-developed political professional level of military development. institutions. Indonesia for example, the high underdeveloped population post-independence The emergence of praetorianism in become the main burden of the industrialization Indonesia, Myanmar, and Thailand of the country. For this reason Indonesia’s GDP The end of the Second World War and per capita stagnated at US$70 with an annual the withdrawal of colonial power in Southeast growth of real GDP was only 3.2 percent in 16 Asia in the late 40s gave Southeast Asian years span from 1951 to 1967, while population countries the opportunity to begin their post- growth was 2.0 percent in the 50s (van der Eng, independence modernization and development 2009). In Myanmar, the socialist way that tried processes. However, this condition did not to be pursued by the founding fathers with large-

Global South Review 9 Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. scale state control of the economy hampering the early days of Indonesian independence the growth potential of Myanmar, including were surprisingly marked by an assertion of efforts to restore its glory in the colonial period civilian control and authority over the military. when the economy tends to support free trade. The existence of Sukarno as a charismatic But when the government tried to restore figure who was a pioneer of independence the free trade policy back in the early 60s, this and a symbol of unifying the nation was the was precisely opposed by the military and key to the distribution of power in Indonesia. became one of the reasons for them to carry out However, a government and political system a coup by assuming that the Nu Nu committed that were run with a wide range of political parties treason against (Mya Maung, 1964). based on ethnic, religious and geographical lines In Thailand, there are at least two factors that with unclear policy implementation weaken the caused Thailand’s economy to crash in the early legitimacy of civil government. This was proven 1930s. The first was the rice price crisis in the by 17 changes between 1947 and 1958 late 20s that had a major influence on the lives with a span of less than 2 years for each change of the majority of the Siamese (Thailand at that (Noperi, 2018). Various separatist and insurgency time) people who were farmers (Manarungsan, events that occurred across the country such as the 2001). The second and foremost factor is the Darul Islam Army in West Java, PRRI Permesta “Great Depression”, which occurred in 1929 in Sumatra, and the Maluku People’s Rebellion and continued into the early 1930s. The great ultimately led to the need for military force to deal depression led to the emptiness of the royal with these events and restore security. This made treasury which then stabilized the economy and TNI’s position stronger in the struggle for power delegitimized the absolute power of in Indonesian politics, especially when people in Thailand. compared the success of TNI with the failure of The disarticulated heterogeneous the civilian government in maintaining stability structures of the society were imbued with ethnic (Kwok, 2010). antagonisms and ethnic dominance created However, once again it was proven that vulnerability towards military intervention. Soekarno’s position as a charismatic leader and Coupled with a central military position in the symbol of national unity was very crucial. the midst of society, this condition made third Although the TNI began to increase its power world countries such as Indonesia, Myanmar, in the practical political arena, this had not and Thailand vulnerable to military intervention yet surpassed Sukarno’s power. He cleverly (Edeh & Ugwueze, 2014). We can see the same succeeded in placing the military as one of the pattern by analyzing case studies that took pillars. It was in 1965 when the political tension place in Indonesia and Myanmar in the early in Indonesia became chaotic, Soekarno’s period of post-independence modernization. In legitimacy began to be questioned. The political Indonesia, for example, although the Indonesian crisis culminated in the occurrence of the G30S National Army (TNI) was considered to have a / PKI incident in which a coup attempt against crucial role in ousting Dutch colonial forces, the government was marked by the killing of

10 Global South Review Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. seven high-ranking military officers which later (Win, 1959). U Nu’s role as a central figure in caused massive political turmoil throughout the in the early days of Indonesia (Crouch, 2007). independence slowly began to be weaken along The incident gave the military a big gap with the increasingly strong influence of the to take over greater power under the pretext military in the politics. Meanwhile the military of restoring security amid the weakening of began to tighten its grip on the implementation Sukarno’s power. It was also undermined of practical politics in Myanmar. They claimed by other issues such as the weakening of the that since its struggle for independence, the economy and the issue of its closeness to the military played role to achieve the independent which was considered as the and it was under the Burmese Independent mastermind of the great chaos. Finally, through Army that Myanmar got its independence. They the Supersemar (Order of Eleventh March) also claimed to be the founders of the Union of in 1966 which was later strengthened by the Burma, and claimed that it had prevented the decision of the People’s Consultative Assembly country from disintegrating (Devi, 2014). (MPRS) in March 1967, which decided to Various kinds of social chaos which impeach Soekarno from the presidency, Major reached the level of the crisis General Soeharto who represented the military in 1958 prompted the civilian government of succeeded in taking full power and began 32 U Nu to request the military to take over the years of the praetorian regime known as the government and form a caretaker government. New Order Era (Ricklefs, 1981). After security and stability were successfully In Myanmar, the independence of the established, it was expected that the military country was marked by the approval of the 1947 would return the government to civilians after the constitution that placed civilian control over holding of the general election. The fact is that military spending and appointments under a after the general election was held the Myanmar secretary of defense. Myanmar became a country public assumed that the elected government was with a bicameral consist of Chamber a corrupt government and did not have the ability of Deputies and with to maintain the security and social stability of U Nu as the first prime minister. In 1951- 1952, the people of Myanmar at that time. On the other 1956, and 1960, Myanmar held multi-party hand, the Military’s credibility is even stronger elections. In this period, Myanmar managed to after it was deemed to have played a major role overcome various political upheavals such as in restoring social order stability and success in the insurgency of the communists. However, supporting the holding of the general election in the political upheaval in this country continued, 1960 (Myoe, 2009). especially with the breakdown of the Anti- In 1962, the military led by General Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL), staged a coup under the pretext the main political alliance in Myanmar at that of fears of national disintegration if the time, into two factions, one led by Thakins Nu government remained in the hands of the and Tin, the other by Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein AFPFL-Government. In addition, the military

Global South Review 11 Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. also considers that the federal government became the end of the . The and the multi-party system are at high risk of worsening condition of the world economy in causing national disintegration so they want 1920 affected the Thai economy and caused a to establish a more centralized government royal budget deficit. The king was considered (Myoe, 2009). The coup began the era of to have mismanaged the fiscal policy so that it Myanmar under praetorian government which affected the royal budget. Furthermore, the rise will last until 2011. Ne Win, who had been the of western idea of , , and highest leader in the military since 1949, will gave way to the bloodless coup be the leader of Myanmar until 1988, before that occurred in 1932 (Handley, 2006; Stowe, being replaced by another military figure who 1991). The end of the absolute monarchy will continue the military junta’s rule until the in 1932 provided space for the military to effort was carried out at the increase its role in practical politics and create beginning of the decade. an informal network of elites (from the palace, In Thailand, we find that the beginning military and bureaucracy), which marginalizes of praetorianism had quite a different history the substance of democracy in Thailand to this from Indonesia and Myanmar. Thailand, which day by exploiting the fragility and lack of public had never had the experience of being under participation and representative institution in colonial rule, makes the history of the military’s the country (Bunbongkarn, 2004). role slightly different than that of other countries From analyzing the origin of the such as Indonesia and Myanmar. But that did development of the military’s role in the not mean the military does not have a big role practical implementation of politics in these in the history of the country’s modernization. In three countries in Southeast Asia which then fact, precisely because it was never colonized developed into praetorianism, we can find the by western powers, the Royal Thai Army were same pattern showing the initial power held by able to maintain one of the longest and steadiest non-military groups began to lose its legitimacy military traditions in Asia since it came into in the early days of the country’s modernization existence in 1852. The military’s major role efforts which filled with social and political in the modernization of Thailand peaked in and economic turmoil. Various economic 1932 when four western educated high ranking policies taken by the previous leaders caused a military officials successfully staged a coup that lot of uncertainty so that they were considered ended the era of absolute monarchy in Thailand. unable to create stability in society. As stated The declining legitimacy of King previously, the economic crisis in the early Vajiravudh in practical politics due to the 60s in Indonesia, the controversial pro- free mismanagement of government coupled with trade policy taken by civilian government in the development of western thought brought Myanmar, and the great depression and the royal by the Western-educated “commoner” elites treasury crisis in Thailand become the factors of Thailand was considered to be the main of a factor in the decline in the legitimacy of cause of the Siamese revolution of 1932 which civil administration in these countries. This gap

12 Global South Review Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. provided an opportunity for military groups to with a . emerge as they were able to offer stability and security that cannot be provided by the civilian The practice of praetorianism in Indonesia, government. The military, which no longer had Myanmar, and Thailand a flurry of activity to expel invaders, expanded Efforts to restore national stability territories, and faced external threats after the which became the basis for the takeover of end of the Second World War era, began to divert political power by the military then developed its preoccupations to further expand its influence into praetorianism practices that persisted into domestic politics. The military’s position for the next few decades and some even still was strengthened by their image and prestige in survive today throughout Southeast Asia. As the eyes of the people after heroic actions they explained by Perlmutter (1969), in a modern delivered in expelling colonial power or external praetorian state the military plays a dominant threats in the past. The role of the military in role in political structures and institutions. It the efforts of the nation’s independence from is specifically marked by military interference the Western occupation was still so profound and its potential to dominate a country’s in Southeast Asian society at the time that the political power. The political development stories of heroism gave military groups more in the country favor the development of the legitimacy to take power. military as the core group and the growth of In Indonesia, various incidents of its existence as a ruling class. Political leaders domestic uprising and turmoil that culminated in the country are specifically appointed from in the G30 / S-PKI incident caused the loss of the military or from sympathetic groups, or legitimacy of the civilian government, which at least not antagonistic, to the military. The provided a space for military groups to take role of the military in domestic politics was power on the pretext of restoring national then strengthened by constitutional changes stability. The same thing happened in Myanmar that favor military interests, sustained by the when the military junta took power in 1962 military and frequent interventions from the after a series of political upheavals motivated military towards government. by conflicts on the elite level and separatist The characteristics described by acts became the background of the takeover of Perlmutter were found during the reign of the power because the military was considered as praetorian regime in these three particular the only group that can restore national stability. Southeast Asian countries after taking power In Thailand, the weakening of the condition of from the civilian group. Systematically military the monarchy as the absolute power-holders pre- groups utilize social cohesion that occurs in 1932 provided an opportunity for the military to nation’s community during the praetorian era cooperate with a number of elite commoners that tend to prioritize the interests of their to carry out a coup that ended the absolute respective groups and then emerge as a symbol monarchy that had been practiced for hundreds of unity to rule and introduce some coherence by of years in the Thai kingdom and replaced it force. In various social conditions encountered,

Global South Review 13 Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. the weak middle class that functions as a where the military was not only responsible link between power and the bottom poor, as for protecting the country from internal and well as a major source of political awareness external threats, but they would also involve and cohesion of a country also perpetuate themselves in the economic and social the practice of praetorianism in decades. development of the state. The military were Praetorianism which is driven by the elite class deeply involved in various activities outside easily perpetuates their power because of the the interests of defense and security such as lack of social and political control of other business activities where the military and class groups. its cronies tried to find a way in order to A praetorian regime will appoint maximize their profits to meet the interests of military officials, ex-military officers, their own groups (Elson, 2001). The military sympathizers, and people who support military position was strengthened by the success interests in the struggle of power to occupy of their efforts in political consolidation by strategic positions in government that are not developing a particular ideology (whose only limited to political but also economic and ideas specifically originated / benefited their socio-cultural affairs. Centrality is also one of group), patrimonial concessions by giving the important points in running the praetorian power to those who supported their groups, regime. The government will tend to encourage the success of economic development which the community to support a central development became a strong claim in the takeover of value so that differences of opinion from power in the community welfare development the community can be minimized. National sector, as well as systematic repression of development will be carried out through a top- individuals or groups who threaten their bottom system where the central government position in power (Mietzner, 2012). controls all the interests of the people. Efforts to preserve the practice of praetorianism in Indonesia began Dual Function: a blurred line between with political design and consolidation. military and civilian regime in Indonesia After gaining power in the late 60s, the Indonesia is considered as a concrete military which initially portrayed itself as example of the practice of praetorianism a caretaker government that would return which deeply entrenched in people’s daily the government position to civil society lives in the mid-1960s to the which groups after security stability could be was marked by a society that was prone to controlled, began a systematic political military rule (Mietzner, 2012). The growing consolidation by establishing and developing influence of the military in Indonesia’s the pro-military grouping of Golkar into the socio-political and economic life at that regime’s electoral machine which resulted time, which was also famously known as in a landslide victory in the 1971 (staged) the “New Order” era, was marked by the general election (Suryadinata & Emmerson, implementation of dwifungsi (dual function) 1989). This political design effort continued

14 Global South Review Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. in 1973 with the attempt to merge nationalist close relation with the western bloc also had political parties which were represented by major influences on economic development. many parties to unite as Partai Demokrasi This made the Indonesian people more Indonesia or the Indonesian Democratic tolerant towards the praetorian regime as Party, and Islamic parties into one party, the government even though repression and Partai Persatuan Pembangunan or the United violations routinely occurred, Development Party. Under the pretext of because according to them these things were preventing ideological threats, the New Order not important as long as the people can still regime routinely intervened in the internal feel the improvement of welfare quantity affairs of the party thereby minimizing their (Mietzner, 2012). potential to develop to challenge the regime’s Heavy reliant of the claim of the power. As a result, Suharto was re-elected success of economic development was what six times in a series of elections in the New will later bring the fall of the praetorian Order era, circa 1973-1998 (Mietzner, 2012). regime which ruled for 32 years. As argued In economic affairs, the key to the survival of by Mietzner (2012) although there are several the praetorian regime of the New Order was other factors, but the 1998 Asian economic the success in economic development. It was crisis which had a profound impact on the built by a distribution of patronage rewards Indonesian economy became a major factor pyramid system in which Suharto was the in the fall of the praetorian regime which has supreme leader and the military group held the survived for the past three decades. As a result upper echelon positions. This system consists of the economic crisis, Indonesia’s economy, of reward for subordinating followers of the which has steadily experienced growth of officials with lucrative posts in government 5-10 percent annually, has suddenly dropped and state enterprises, concession and business and even experienced a drastic decline of 14 opportunities in order to skim money from the percent. Millions of economically vulnerable state budget, and favored access to business citizens felt into poverty, while at the exact contracts and credit (Aspinall & Mietzner, moment, the middle classes faced raising debts 2008). Most of cabinet positions were held as the value of rupiah decreased from around by military officers, so did 80 percent of the 2500 to the US dollar in mid-1997 to more governorships and various strategic positions than 17,000 in one particular point in early in state-owned enterprises. Even though it 1998. Therefore, by March 1998, the poor, looks corrupt, the New Order government middle-class and rich Indonesians, which always defends himself by highlighting the was quite rarely allied, had turned against the fact that there had been an increase in the regime, demanding Suharto’s resignation in welfare of the community in general despite mass demonstrations across the archipelago. the fact that external influences such as the This was then compounded by a number of oil boom in the late 70s, and the large amount other factors such as Suharto’s aging and the of foreign aid entering Indonesia due to its decline in military institution support for him.

Global South Review 15 Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand.

After the fall of Soeharto in 1998, there imposed by the military compared to praetorian were actually many fears of a return of military regimes in the region. In the Southeast Asia, intervention in domestic politics, given the Myanmar was the only country with a purely country’s fragile socio-political condition praetorian regime held the absolute control after chaos in 1998, and the strong strength of the political realm of the country. In this and influence of the military that was built case, the military took over all government massively during the 32 years of the Praetorian affairs while civilian political expression was regime. However, the unity of the civilian and considered as an act rather than government effectiveness played key roles any involvement in the governmental process in both the establishment of a democratic (Kwok, 2010). regime afterward and the removal of praetorian What also distinguishes the praetorian regime rule in Indonesia. This was done through a in Myanmar was rather than a continuous ruling reform effort led by civilian elites with several regime with a single leader throughout the era constitutional amendments that allowed the of praetorianism as found in Indonesia, what president to be directly elected by the people we can found in Myanmar were several phases thereby increasing political participation of all with different leadership styles depending on walks of life and starting from 2004 a directly the socio-political conditions at a particular elected president enjoyed strong legitimacy time and the leader who hold the highest with the Constitutional Court was respected authority. In the first phase after the coup in as the highest authority in settling political 1962 until 1972, Myanmar was in the era of disputes (Mietzner, 2012). direct military rule. Under General Ne Win, the country was shaped into a under Total praetorianism in Myanmar the military- led party called Burma Socialist Just like in Indonesia, praetorianism in Program Party (BSPP). Moreover, Ne Win Myanmar began in the 60s after the military quickly rescinded the declaration of Buddhism took power through a coup under the pretext of as the state religion. The democratic institutions restoring state stability and security. The political were dismantled and concentrated in the hands coup conducted by the Myanmar Military of Revolutionary Council under General Ne in 1962 saw this country enter the praetorian Win, which comprised of the group of senior regime at least until 2011. Praetorianism in officers. In theory Myanmar remained a federal Myanmar was marked by the increasing role state, but in practice the military junta treated of the military (or even total control) in all the country as a (Devi, 2014). aspects, politically, socially and economically. In the phase of direct , Although in general it had the same pattern as Ne Win and the military were declared as the implementation of praetorian regimes in the supreme authority. The constitution was Indonesia and in Southeast Asia, in particular suspended, all political parties and efforts to what distinguishes praetorianism in Myanmar form political parties were banned, freedom of was the much higher level of totalitarian control association and organization were exterminated,

16 Global South Review Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. and even protests were brutally suppressed. and civil rights fighter, she and several retired The government withdrew all involvement army officials who criticized the military junta in international affairs and isolated Myanmar founded the National League of Democracy from the outside world (Myint-U, 2007). This (NLD) inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s non- first phase ended in the early when there violent philosophy and Buddhist concepts to was an economic crisis and with widespread confront the political force controlled by the shortage of rice, cooking oil and other basic ruling regime (Houtman, 1999). commodities leading to rise of the black Although it had an important role marketing and corruption. in the emergence of civilian forces that can With the high pressure from the challenge the power of the military junta in the economic and socio political condition, in early future, the short-term effect of such large-scale 1970s the government issued intentions to draft demonstrations actually benefits the military. a new constitution and that the election would The turmoil across the country was exploited by be held according to the new constitution and General Saw Maung to stage a coup followed authority would be transferred to the elected by the establishment of the State Law and Order civilian government after the election and Restoration Council (SLORC) which then marked the beginning of the second phase of applied the to reinforce the direct the praetorian regime in Myanmar although control of the military to the political unrest. in the end Ne Win and his cronies who had The government through SLOCR then changed retired from the military were the ones who the country’s official name from the “Socialist then occupied the “civil position”. During the of the Union of Burma” to the “Union year from 1962-1988, three national elections of Myanmar” in 1989 and prepared the country were held in 1974, 1978 and in 1981. But even to hold the People’s Assembly elections. The though there was a civilian rule in Myanmar, it SLORC government which should only be was just for the cover and in fact the military a transitional government and must return still continued to rule. the government to a democratic process after The chaos in the second phase of the conditions began to stabilize in fact continued to praetorian regime in Myanmar peaked in 1988 hold the reins of power until at least 1997. In the when the pro-democracy mass carried out a period 1989 to 1997 the SLORC took a number large-scale demonstration known as “8888 of actions that drew international criticism, uprising” to denounce government policy including by not recognizing the NLD victory especially in the economic sector and human in the 1990 elections and put Suu Kyi rights abuses. This moment also marked the under house arrest (Hlaing, 2007). emergence of civilian forces led by Aung San Major changes took place in 1997 Suu Kyi who would later be able to stand up as when the SLORC was renamed the State Peace opposition and challenge the powerful military and Development Council (SPDC). This was junta. As the youngest daughter of Myanmar’s followed by a series of bright spots with the founding father Aung San, a national icon release of 300 NLD members from prison in

Global South Review 17 Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand.

1998. But this did not last long. In the 2000s the first time since the military coup in 1962. the military re-launched a series of violations Public predicted that the NLD as the winner that injured human rights (Steinberg, 2001). of the election would implement political and Opposition politicians have been arrested again economic reforms, including amending and / or and the military junta has again been pressured repealing laws that restricted human rights or on both opposition and ethnic minorities, at civil liberties (Martin, 2016). least until 2011. The civilians received fresh air after the Thailand: the land of interventions election and the release of In contrast to the two praetorianism from house arrest in 2010. In November 2010, practices found in Indonesia and Myanmar the main military-backed party, the Union where the military holds power continuously Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), for a period of time, in Thailand we find claims resounding victory in first election for intense competition between the military 20 years. As a form of commitment from the and civilians in the struggle for power and military Junta, the government launched the so- alternately hold the highest power in the Thai called 2011-2015 Myanmar political reforms. government. Specifically, that the struggle of After being appointed president in early 2011, power is marked by numerous interventions by President U announced far-reaching the military against the existing government, political, administrative, and economic reforms. which led to a series of coups by military He cited his experience visiting groups under the pretext of restoring stability Delta after a devastating hit the and security. Throughout history there have area in May 2008 which led to a conclusion been 19 military coups in Thailand where 11 that a change must be made immediately. of them succeeded. Besides that, the military Furthermore, there were other factors such as also interferes in various domestic political the need to re-engage with the West to prevent matters. In Thailand the military positioned dependence on China and the need to open up itself as the agent of democracy in which they the country so that the sanctions imposed by claimed to restore the democratic order in the the isolationist policies did not obstruct foreign midst of a corrupt civilian government with investment and able to encourage the business a coup as one of the main avenues. (Ockey, sectors that would help the economic growth 2007). Since 1932 the military have attempted of the citizens (Bünte & Dosch, 2015). This many coups against the head of government, bureaucratic reform then reached a high point in 1933, 1947, 1948, 1957, 1958, 1971, 1977, in 2015 with the start of the transition from 1991, 2006, and 2014. military rule to democratic government. This The practice of modern praetorianism transition was the result of a landslide victory in Thailand can be seen from two military in the 2015 elections which later put Aung San coups that took place in the 21st century. After Suu Kyi as the State Counselor of Myanmar the 2006 coup the military held 67 out of 242 and started Myanmar’s civilian government for seats. The number increased after the coup in

18 Global South Review Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand.

2014, where now the military controls 143 elite bureaucrats that were limited in quality out of 250 parliamentary seats. Likewise, in and quantity of resistance. The general public the cabinet now 12 people out of a total of 36 considers that politics is the domain of the elite cabinet members have a military background. so they do not feel the need to contribute much This is reinforced by the growing influence towards Thai politics (Bunbongkarn, 1988). of the military in the monarchy as the highest Apart from placing personnel in holder of legitimacy in all forms of social and strategic positions of civil administration, the political life of Thai society. From 13 members practice of praetorianism in Thailand is also of the Privy Council, the body that advises new characterized by abusing the law that applies King Maha Vajiralongkorn, more than half of to military interests in the struggle of power. them are military men. The King himself was a Specifically, the law in question is Martial Law former soldier that served in Royal Thai Army 1914 which gives power to the military to censor (Thepgumpanat & Tanakasempipat, 2017). the media, ban assembly, and even dissolve the As of 2019, Thailand became the only sitting government (, country in Southeast Asia that was still under a 2017). In addition, a very important factor is praetorian regime with the military as how the military maintains relations with the the highest authority in government. Although monarchy as the main source of legitimacy in since 1932 there have been several changes Thailand. Chambers and Waitoolkiat (2016) of government leaders from the military describe this practice as monarchised military and civilian groups, de facto the military has where asymmetrical nexus between monarchy, had a large influence on Thailand’s internal elite group and a military leadership is formed. government to the present. The practice of Cooperation between them is intended to create praetorianism in Thailand is systematically and maintain a palace-centered political order perpetuated by military efforts to limit public from which the military obtains its legitimacy. participation in the political process in a This order has protected and extended the broad country that historically only provided a place interests of the Monarch, the Privy Council of for bureaucratic, monarchic, and military elites Thailand and military leaders. To assert their in government. Although several strategic power and legitimacy, the military depends on positions in the government have been held by their royalism by positioning themselves as many elite civilian bureaucrats, systematically the King’s and as a means to secure the military group will place its personnel as the interests of the kingdom in all its actions. the top position in the civil administration This example can be seen in General Prayut’s of the country which gives power to the statement as the dreamer of the coup stating military to supervise the performance of the that in this coup the national peacekeeping civilian apparatus (Kongkirati, 2018). The committee [NCPO] will worship and safeguard low awareness of Thai people in general the monarchy. The processes of monarchised after the 1932 coup made the military seem military have successfully reproduced the to have no significant competition other than royalist discourse over time, continuously

Global South Review 19 Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. bestowing monarchical legitimacy upon monarchy in 1932 allowed the military to take the military while guaranteeing military power through a coup that ended the absolute guardianship for the monarch. monarchy of the Kingdom of Thailand. Political turmoil that occurred at the Conclusion beginning of the modernization era of each Praetorianism arises from the weakness country was then compounded by economic of political institutions and the low political factors that delegitimized the civilian culture of the people in these three specific government as a policy maker so as to provide countries in Southeast Asia. As illustrated by a gap for the military rule to take power. The the initial phase of the modernization process economic crisis in the early 60s in Indonesia, of their respective countries. The military, the controversial policies carried out by which no longer has a flurry of activity against Burmese leaders in the early 60s, and the royal external threats, has begun to shift its focus to treasury emptiness experienced by Thailand managing domestic political affairs. were evidence that economic factors could However, in a number of cases, such also be a factor that delegitimized the civilian as in Indonesia and Myanmar, the military did government in these countries. not immediately gain the power after the end of The power of the praetorian regime the Second World War and the independence in Indonesia, Myanmar, and Thailand were of these countries. They must compete with characterized by interference towards charismatic civil forces who also share an government and domestic political affairs, important role in independence through non- for example by limiting access to important military political channels. During the civil positions in government specifically for administration the military maneuvered military personnel, or from sympathetic groups, by building strength and strengthening its or at least not antagonistic, to the military. To legitimacy before the people to prepare to take further strengthen its position, the Military power. The military has the opportunity to systematically influences constitutional take over the peak of power when the civilian changes and utilizes legal loopholes provided government experiences a crisis of legitimacy by the constitution such as the use of martial due to social, political and economic crises that law to launch emergency situations that occur in their respective countries. Through provide opportunities to take power according certain maneuvers as well as coups, the military to their wishes. In Indonesia, for example, group established itself as the highest authority dual policy puts the military not only as a in the country. In Indonesia and Myanmar, this guardian of national security from domestic happened in the 1960s when a political and and international threats, but also as a pillar of security crisis culminated in acts of separatism economic and socio-cultural development so and insurgency as well as an economic crisis that with this policy active military personnel that hit the wider community. In Thailand the are often established in important government crisis of legitimacy experienced by the absolute positions. In Myanmar important positions in

20 Global South Review Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. the government were also occupied by senior is still carried out to this day after in 2014 the military and military retirees. Not only that, military junta staged a coup under the pretext the ruling military junta totally changed the of restoring national stability. constitution in such a way that it benefited Eradicating the practice of praetorianism them, supported certain political parties to gain requires stronger effort and comprehensive control of parliament and repeatedly engineered participation from all elements of society in elections. In Thailand the praetorian regime the democratization process. This must be systematically limited political access from the accompanied by a commitment from the elite to wider community and often intervened in the submit to the democratic process in the interests running of government by repeatedly staging of the nation rather than its own interests. a coup. They also use their position as the Indonesia can be used as an example of how guardian of the monarchy as the main source of the process of democratization is considered legitimacy in the socio-political life of the Thai successful after the end of the praetorian regime. people to perpetuate their power. Overall community participation as outlined in Although it was indicated to be corrupt democratic elections can be the main capital in and proven to have the potential to violate supporting the democratization process. the human rights of the people, eliminating At present, each country is undergoing a praetorianism in Southeast Asia and replacing process of modernization and democratization it with democratic governance is not easy. respectively. In this case, Indonesia can be And that did not rule out the possibility of said to be the most advanced in this process re-emergence of praetorianism or praetorian where democracy and elections can be carried regimes in the future. The consolidation of out properly through elections every five political power that has been carried out for years. However, each country has its own years by the praetorian regime made their difficulties in the process, which makes it grip on the domestic politics of the countries difficult for a country to escape the praetorian in Southeast Asia. In Indonesia, for example, realm. Myanmar for example even though the if there was no economic crisis in 1997- 1998 government is officially held by civilians, but that destroyed the national economy which in parliament for example 25 percent of the had been the main claim for the success of the total seats are still allocated to the military and praetorian regime. In Myanmar, the economic their representatives are chosen by the Defense downturn and international pressure are the Services’ Commander-in-Chief (Seekins, main backgrounds of democratization and the 2017). While in Thailand, after the signing of end of the practice of praetorianism which the 2017 constitution, 250 seats in the upper lasted for almost 50 years. Even that might not house of Thailand parliament were elected by have happened if Cyclone Nargis did not occur the military, thereby strengthening the military’s in 2008, which played a role as a catalyst for position in Thai politics (Bemma, 2019). It the process of democratization in the country. is feared that this condition will continue for In Thailand, even the practice of praetorianism a long time. As long as the government and

Global South Review 21 Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. the public are neither committed nor have the 1930s Depression. Leiden: KITLV power to oppose the practice of praetorianism Press and Singapore: Institute of in their country (for example as Indonesia did Southeast Asian Studies. in the 1998 reforms) the military will continue Myint-U, T. (2007). The river of lost footsteps: to try to maintain its power in the country’s histories of Burma: Farrar, Straus domestic politics. and Giroux. Myoe, M. A. (2009). Building the : References Myanmar armed forces since 1948 Books (Vol. 352): Institute of Southeast Aspinall, E., & Mietzner, M. (2008). From Asian Studies. Silkworms to Bungled Bailout: Rapoport, D. C. (1960). Praetorianism: International Influences on the government without consensus: 1998 Regime Change in Indonesia: University of California, Berkeley. CDDRL. Ricklefs, M. C. (1981). A History of Modern Bunbongkarn, S. (2004). The Military and Indonesia: c. 1300 to the Present: Democracy in Asia and the Pacific Macmillan Basingstoke. (R. J. May & V. Selochan Eds.): Seekins, D. M. (2017). Historical Dictionary ANU press. of Burma (Myanmar). Rowman & Crouch, H. (2007). The army and politics in Littlefield. Indonesia: Equinox Publishing. Steinberg, D. I. (2001). Burma: the state of Elson, R. E. (2001). Suharto: a Political Myanmar: Georgetown University Biography: Cambridge University Press. Press. Stowe, J. A. (1991). Siam becomes Thailand: Handley, P. M. (2006). The king never smiles: a A story of intrigue: C. Hurst & Co. biography of Thailand’s Bhumibol Publishers. Adulyadej: Yale University Press. Suryadinata, L., & Emmerson, D. K. (1989). Houtman, G. (1999). Mental Culture in Military Ascendancy and Political Burmese Crisis Politics: Aung San Culture: A Study of Indonesia Suu Kyi and the National League Golkar. Ohio: University Center for Democracy: Ilcaa. for International Studies. Kwok, J.-C. (2010). Explaining civil- Win, S. (1959). The split story: an account of military relations in Southeast recent political upheaval in Burma: Asia. Massachusetts Institute of with emphasis on AFPFL: The Technology. Guardian. Manarungsan, S. (2000). The rice economy of Thailand in the 1930s depression. Report Weathering the Storm: The Amnesty International. (2017). Thailand. Economies of Southeast Asia in the Retrieved from https://www.

22 Global South Review Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand.

refworld.org/pdfid/58de19e04.pdf Huntington, S. P. (1965). Political development Karabelias, G. (1998). Civil- Military Relations: and political decay. World politics, A Comparative Analysis of the 17(3), 386-430. Role of the Military in the Political Hlaing, K. Y. (2007). Aung San Suu Kyi of Transformation of Post- War Myanmar: a review of the lady’s Turkey and : 1980-1995. biographies. Contemporary Retrieved from https://www.nato. Southeast Asia, 359-376. int/acad/fellow/96-98/karabeli.pdf Kongkirati, P. (2018). Haunted Past, Uncertain Martin, M. F. (2016). Burma’s 2015 Future: The Fragile Transition Parliamentary Elections: Issues for to Military-Guided Semi- Congress. Congressional Research in Thailand. Service, 44436. Southeast Asian Affairs, 363-376. Maung, M. (1964). Socialism and economic Journal Articles development of Burma. Asian Bunbongkarn, S. (1988). The Thai military’s Survey, 1182-1190. effort to institutionalise its political Mietzner, M. (2012). Ideology, money and role. The Pacific Review, 1(4), dynastic leadership: the Indonesian 400-411. Democratic Party of Struggle, Bünte, M., & Dosch, J. (2015). Myanmar: 1998–2012. South East Asia Political reforms and the Research, 20(4), 511-531. recalibration of external relations. Noperi, N. (2018). Strategi Politik Masyumi Journal of Current Southeast Asian di Yogyakarta 1952-1955 dalam Affairs, 34(2), 3-19. menghadapi Pemilu 1955. Ilmu Chambers, P., & Waitoolkiat, N. (2016). Sejarah-S1, 3(6). The resilience of monarchised Ockey, J. (2007). Thailand’s’ Professional military in Thailand. Journal of Soldiers’ and Coup-making: Contemporary Asia, 46(3), 425- The Coup of 2006. Crossroads: 444. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Devi, K. S. (2014). Myanmar under the military Southeast Asian Studies, 95-127. rule 1962-1988. International Perlmutter, A. (1969). The praetorian state Research Journal of Social and the praetorian army: Toward a Sciences, 3(10), 46-50. taxonomy of civil-military relations Edeh, H. C., & Ugwueze, M. I. (2014). Military in developing polities. Comparative and Politics: Understanding the Politics, 1(3), 382-404. Theoretical Underpinnings of Shimy, Y.M (2008). A Model of Praetorian Military Incursion in Third World States (Middle East Working Paper Politics. Mediterranean Journal of 2016-01), Retrieved from Middle Social Sciences, 5(20), 2047. East Initiative, Belfer Center,

Global South Review 23 Muhammad Indrawan Jatmika Rethinking the Emergence and the Practice of Three Praetorian States in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand.

Harvard Kennedy, School, website: https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/ default/files/files/publication/2016- 01-MEI_RFWP_ElShimy_0.pdf

Electronic source Bemma, A. (2019). Thailand’s Parliament Meets, but Military Retains Upper Hand. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/ news/2019/05/thailands-parliament- meets-military-retains-upper- hand-190523081322369.html Thepgumpanat, P., & Tanakasempipat, P. (2017). Three years after coup, junta is deeply embedded in Thai life. Retrieved from https://www.reuters. com/article/us-thailand-military/ three-years-after-coup-junta-is- deeply-embedded-in-thai-life- idUSKCN18G0ZJ

24 Global South Review