In Search of a New Model of Political Governance in Southeast Asia; Democracy's Decline, Populism's Rise, and Globalization's Retreat


This article examines the challenges facing democracy in Southeast Asia, including the decline of the liberal democratic model, the rise of populism, and the retreat of globalization. It identifies five key trends that have led to the deterioration of the democratic ethos in the region and highlight the emergence of strong populist leaders who promise change through radical reforms. The article argues that it is necessary to explore the emergence of new political governance models that are uniquely Asian and lie outside the perceived colonial shadows of North America and Western Europe. This study focuses on four emerging market countries in Southeast Asia. It uses qualitative research methods to examine how these countries are coping with the decline of liberal democratic principles and institutions in the region. The study aims to provide an overview of the possible outcomes of new political governance models as the area moves forward. The review highlights that while the decline of liberal democratic principles and institutions in Southeast Asia has hurt social and economic progress in the region, emerging market countries in the region have taken steps to address the decline by strengthening democratic institutions, increasing investment and trade, and strengthening vital economic sectors such as tourism and information technology. In addition, the review also discusses the potential for a new political governance model to emerge that is distinctly Asian and in keeping with the culture and history of each country in the region.

Keywords: globalization, political governance model, democratic decline, representative democracy. How

[1] AlternAtive Worlds a publication of the National Intelligence Council. (n.d.).

[2] Auliya IN, Zulfah P. Demokratisasi Selama Pandemi COVID-19: Studi Kasus Rasisme di Amerika Serikat. J Integrat Relat 2021;6(2):1–16.

[3] Bhasin S, Kumar B. ASEAN—The geopolitical factors and its impact on growth of the region. In Cultural entrepreneurship (pp. 67–74). Springer Nature Singapore; 2022.

[4] Byrne M, Norris M. Housing market financialization, neoliberalism and everyday retrenchment of social housing. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 2022;54(1):182–198.

[5] climate2030_southeast_asia_pacific_islands. (n.d.).

[6] Corry O. Concluding discussion: The planetary is not the end of the international (pp. 337–352). 2020.

[7] Croissant A. Comparing governments and political institutions in Southeast Asia (pp. 443–489). 2022.

[8] Dewi Setiyaningsih. Demokrasi Radikal sebagai Alternatif Tatanan Politik Global dalam Konteks Multikulturalisme. Politeia: Jurnal Ilmu Politik. 2022;14(1):32–41.

[9] DUGAS JC. The emergence of Neopopulism in Colombia? The case of A´lvaro Uribe. Third World Quarterly. 2003;24(6):1117–1136.

[10] Laclau E. Populism and the mirror of democracy. Populism and the Mirror of Democracy. 2005. empire_terror-web.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y#page=104

[11] Forrest R, Hirayama Y. The uneven impact of neoliberalism on housing opportunities. Int J Urban Region Res. 2009;33(4):998–1013. 2427.2009.00903.x

[12] Hadiz VR. On Islamic Populism in Indonesia and the Middle East. (n.d.).

[13] Haque MS. Reforming public administration in Southeast Asia: Trends and impacts. Public Org Rev. 2004;4(4):361–371.

[14] Hau CS. Tales of the unexpected, or the art of border-raiding in a time of uncertainty. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. 2020;21(1):127–144.

[15] Hutchcroft PD, Rocamora J. Strong demands and weak institutions: The origins and evolution of the democratic deficit in the Philippines. J East Asian Stud. 2003;3(2):259–292.

[16] IMF Staff. Globalization: Threat or opportunity? 2000.

[17] Jacobs K, Akkerman , Zaslove A. The voice of populist people? Referendum preferences, practices and populist attitudes. Acta Politica. 2018;53(4):517–541.

[18] Karimi M, Osuli Odlu Q. Iran’s foreign policy toward Tajikistan; exploring the effective factors. J Eurasian Stud. 2022;187936652211368.

[19] Kleinfeld R. Five strategies to support U.S. Democracy.

[20] Mauk M. Stable support for democracy in East and Southeast Asia? Examining Citizens’ Trust in Democratic Institutions. East Asia. 39(3):239–257.

[21] Abramowitz MJ. Freedom in the World 2018 democracy in crisis. Freedom House. 2020.

[22] Mietzner M. Populist anti-scientism, religious polarisation, and institutionalised corruption: How Indonesia’s democratic decline shaped its COVID-19 response. J Curr Southeast Asian Aff. 2020;39(2):227–249.

[23] Mietzner M. Democratic deconsolidation in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press. 2021.

[24] Neher CD. International relations in Southeast Asia: The struggle for autonomy. By Donald E. Weatherbee. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. xix, 303 pp. £75.00 (cloth);$27.95 (paper). J Asian Stud. 2006;65(2).

[25] Pietsch J, Miller M, Karp JA. Public support for democracy in transitional regimes. J Elect Public Opin Parties. 2015;25(1):1–9.

[26] Pye LW, Weatherbee DE. International relations in Southeast Asia: The struggle for autonomy. Foreign Affairs. 2005;84(6).

[27] Wike R, Castillo A, Silver L. Many across the globe are dissatisfied with how democracy is working discontent is tied to concerns about the economy, individual rights and out-of-touch elites. 2019.

[28] Weather and climate extremes in Asia killed thousands, displaced millions and cost billions in 2020. World Meteorological Organization. 2020.

[29] Weatherbee DE. International relations in Southeast Asia: The struggle for autonomy. Rowman & Littlefield. 2014. https:// PR5&dq=Democracy+in+Southeast+Asia+faces+challenges+from+various+ geopolitical,+economic,+technological,+and+socio-cultural+factors+&ots= kwOo_9Bc_O&sig=ti3UIWDaKd36_YQtjV0a4DI8OIY&redir_e REFERENCES