EAI Fellows Program Working Paper Series No.10

요약문

Religious organizations have been largely left out of the studies of East Asian democratic transition and consolidation. This paper introduces a conceptual framework for the study of the role of religious organizations in the democratic consolidation of East Asian societies and provides case studies for consideration in Indonesia and Thailand, two countries with young and challenged democracies. The case studies concern how Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s two largest Muslim organizations, and the unorthodox Santi Asoke Buddhist organization in Thailand, under the lay leadership of former general Chamlong Srimuang, are possible agents for the preservation and deepening of democratic practices as these countries confront forces that threaten their democratic consolidation. Jacques E. C. Hymans is Assistant Professor of Government at Smith College in Massachusetts, USA. He is the author of The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions, and Foreign Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2006) and articles in the European Journal of International Relations, the Journal of East Asian Studies, Security Studies, and other publications. Hymans received his Ph.D. from the Harvard University Department of Government in 2001.

저자

Professor T. J. Cheng is Professor of Govenment Department at College of William and Mary. He has previously taught at University of California, San Diego, and has been a visiting scholar at University of Tsukuba, Japan and an associate visiting professor at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. His primary interests are in comparative political economy and East Asian development. He has published numerous journal articles and book chapters, co-authored Newly Industrializing East Asia in Transition and co-edited Political Change in Taiwan, Inherited Rivalry, The Security Environment in the Asia-Pacific, New Leadership and New Agenda, Religious Organizations and Democracy in Contemporary Asia, and China Under Hu Jintao. Professor Cheng was Editor-in-Chief of the American Asian Review, a major refereed quarterly on Asian affairs. He currently edits Taiwan Journal of Democracy and holds Class of 1935 Chair Professorship in Government Department of the College.

본 working paper는 미국 헨리루스재단의 지원을 받은 "EAI Fellows Program on Peace, Governance, and Development in East Asia"에 제출된 논문이며, 온라인 버전으로만 배포됩니다.

Religious organizations have been largely left out of the studies of East Asian democratic transition and consolidation. The literature concerning democratic change in Asia initially examined the role of the middle class in democratic fermentation, the interaction between the political opposition and the military or the ruling party, and the relevance of labor and capital to the transformation of the political arena. Scholarly attention subsequently has shifted toward institution building, constitutionalism and electoral rules, and economic conditions that may impinge on democratization. The current round of research is directed at how nonreligious social organizations inject issues such as social welfare, environmental protection, gender equity, and minority rights into normal democratic politics and how democratic values are internalized. This paper addresses the role of religious organizations in democratic consolidation in two countries of Southeast Asia, as part of a larger investigation that we are undertaking to introduce important information concerning the roles of religious organizations into the ongoing study of democratic development in East Asia.

Some religious organizations have been instrumental to the transition to democracy in parts of East Asia, while others have either stood in the way of or laid low during the process of democratic change. Our recent study2 advances three arguments to explain why some religious organizations stepped into while others eschewed the politics of democratic transition in Northeast and Southeast Asia. First, religious doctrines did not predetermine whether a religious organization would "go political," as religious doctrines could be and have been flexibly interpreted to permit political activism. Second, the legitimacy formula of an authoritarian regime was a good predictor for politicization of religious organizations in the process of democratic transition. Political suppression and coercion invariably prompted the persecuted religious organizations to embrace the cause of democratic change. In contrast, political cooptation and inclusion typically muted state-sanctified religious organizations in the political realm, an equilibrium that, however, could be upset as democratic opposition became too potent to contain. Third, corporate interests—maintaining the unity and institutional reputation of a religious organization—rather than leadership attributes shaped the choice between embracing or neglecting the cause of democratic transition. In our ten-case study, we found that the political opposition always initiated a united front with a religious organization, but the latter did not always respond. The decision to bless the political opposition and uphold the cause of democratic transition was less a reflection of a religious leader's beliefs and more an imperative of corporate interests.

The research that we are currently undertaking is a sequel to our previous study on religious organizations and democratic transition in East Asia. The new research addresses the roles of religious organizations in the consolidation of young democracies in the region. Only those religious organizations previously active in the process of democratic transition will be included in this larger study. They are Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah in Indonesia, the noninstitutional Santi Asoke Buddhist organization under the lay leadership of former general Chamlong Srimuang, in Thailand, the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines, the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, and prominent Christian churches in South Korea. (Soka Gakkai, a modern, lay Buddhist movement in Japan, also will be included in the broader study as a control case, as will religious organizations that were mute in the past during the process of democratic transition but are now active in normal democratic politics, for example, the Catholic Church in Taiwan.) During the push for democratic change, these religious organizations, at one point or another, were incubators, purveyors, and willing partners of prodemocracy political forces. Retrospectively, acting on behalf of prodemocratic forces was not a strenuous decision to make. When political authoritarianism still prevailed, "going political” and supporting democratic transition could easily be construed as the call of religious duty. Such a decision often could not wait, as the situational imperative for democratization mounted. As the authoritarian regimes have fallen by the wayside, however, the proper relationship between church, mosque, or temple and state inevitably has become a salient issue in the consolidation of East Asia’s fledgling democracies. For religious organizations involved in democratic transition, defining (or redefining) their roles in newly established democratic polities is the order of the day, an assignment that is operationally translated into a choice between "stay on" or "bow out," or as particularly apparent in Southeast Asia, something in between. This is not necessarily a pressing decision—although in Indonesia it has become increasingly so—but certainly the need to reach a resolution is a persistent concern, because if religious organizations do not address their ongoing roles in an established democracy, their political adversaries will...(Continued)