Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Democracy: Historical Lessons from South and Southeast Asia

Abstract

Divided societies have long been seen as terrible terrain for democracy. Yet some countries in South and Southeast Asia have managed to overcome ethnic and religious rifts and establish lasting democracy, as in India, while other countries in these regions have seen such deep divisions underpin durable authoritarianism, as in Malaysia. We trace these differences to divergent definitions of the nation that prevailed in struggles for independence and that continue to provide a political resource in ongoing political struggles. Where the national community was defined as inclusive in both ethnoreligious and popular terms, democracy has proven stronger. Alternatively, where the foundational national bargain was more exclusive with respect to salient identity cleavages and popular classes, authoritarianism has been reinforced. Founding types of nationalism not only help explain regime types in India and Malaysia but in countries across southern Asia, offering novel insight into how to understand ongoing battles to shape the nation and the people’s political position within it. In an era of rising nationalist fervor and eroding support for democracy, understanding the conditions under which nationalism either promotes democracy or bolsters authoritarianism is of critical importance to political scientists, activists, and policymakers alike.

Electoral Dynamics, Nationalist Ideology, and Party Positions on Syrian Refugees in Turkey

“…The former was more liberal and inclusive, whereas the latter was more exclusionary, illiberal, and prone to violence, authoritarianism, and social hierarchy (Miguel 2004;Tudor and Slater 2020;Bonikowski and Zhang 2020). Many studies find that ethnic nationalism is strongly associated with anti-immigrant and refugee attitudes (Major, Blodorn, and Blascovich 2016;Abrajano and Hajnal 2015;Zárate et al 2004).…”

Chinese Nationalism: Insights and Opportunities for Comparative Studies

“…Moreover, assessing the content of these legitimation claims affords nationalism scholars an opportunity to revisit assumptions about the nature of nationalism under authoritarian states. Many discussions surrounding the nature of authoritarian nationalism emphasize its compatibility with exclusive or ethnically based conceptions of national identity that contrast to more civic and inclusive invocations of the nation employed by liberal democratic actors (Clements 2018; Tudor and Slater 2021). In China, however, the CCP’s pursuit of legitimation through rhetorical appeals to citizens that both urge them to resist external threats to limit China’s rise and to join in the building of a multi-ethnic and inclusive Chinese national identity ( zhonghua minzu yishi ) blur the lines between civic and ethnic nationalisms, as well as the lines between populism, patriotism, and nationalism 16 .…”

Embracing the nation: Strategic deployment of sexuality, nation, and citizenship in Singapore

“…From the perspective of this Asian values discourse, the notion of liberal democracy is irrelevant in Singapore and human rights is a "Western imposition" (Leong, 2012;Tan, 2003). The state's Asian values discourse, as a modified version of "the founding narratives of the nation," has created a logic of citizenship that involves a hierarchical ranking of citizens and legitimization of inequalities (Tudor & Slater, 2020). The national discourse, on the one hand, elevates ethno-religious inclusivity through the formal promotion of "multiculturalism" (Chua, 2003) and, on the other, necessitates exclusive nationalism, particularly with regard to sexuality.…”

“…The Singapore government has long defined “the nation's glory in terms of development rather than democracy” (Tudor & Slater, 2020, p. 14) and justified its political authoritarianism with reference to the country's economic performance (Low, 1998; Yeung, 2000). As the government instituted neoliberal economic reforms following the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis and attempted to present itself as a cosmopolitan city open to global capital and labor (Ho, 2006; Yeoh, 2004), its regulation of sexual minorities came to consist less of explicit acts (e.g., police raids on gay establishments) and to favor “more negotiated actions” (Tan & Jin, 2007, p. 182) that balance conservative national values with the desire to court global capital (Leong, 2012).…”