The question of whether the leaders of Southeast Asia have served their nations well in the 19th and 20th century is arbitrary to say the least.
In all fairness to them, leading in a region which can’t make up its mind which type of government to run; authoritarian or civil can be unsettling (Neher 97). Since gaining independence they have struggled with this. They haven’t had the luxury of having long-standing stability neighboring them like the US, and most of Western Europe. Despite the roller coaster of politics, Southeast Asian leadership seems to be settling; nationalistic, revolutionary, conservative, authoritarian-developmental, and democratic are amongst the diverse leaders of the region.
Some of the attempts to govern have been more tumultuous than others. Cambodia’s Pol Pot’s campaign was criminal, setting back Cambodia in a comparable Nazi-Germany Holocaust fashion (Neher). The wiping away of a countries education, culture, and religious system is a bizarre crime that I am appalled wasn’t halted sooner. This, just thirty years after the Holocaust, and the West had not ended the atrocities? What’s also mind-boggling is that Pol Pot was only sentenced to house arrest (Neher).
As a friend of many who fled the Khmer Rouge torture, I can tell you that many survivors have amazingly built new lives for themselves in Long Beach, Ca. The city has more Cambodians than any other place in the world but Cambodia. I can tell you first hand that these people who were once wealthy elitists, have carved out a modest niche for themselves in Long Beach, owning shops, restaurants, and other successful businesses in a their own part of the city.
Many survivors of the Cambodian genocide have resettled in the United States. At the center of their story are the horrors of the destruction itself: an eruption of atrocity sustained by a virulent mix of racism and ideology, and a system of terror that leveled everything -- marriage, religion, education -- that undermined total obedience to the state (Greenspan).
Unfortunately, Cambodia hasn’t been able to fully prosper post-genocide. Today it is hampered with corruption, poverty, disease, and one of the weakest economies in the region but in much better shape than under the rule of Pol Pot.
Works Cited
Neher, Clark D. Southeast Asia Crossroads of the World. Dekalb: Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Nothern Iliinois University, 2004.
Greenspan, Henry, 1948-
Survivors: Cambodian Refugees in the United States (review)
Holocaust and Genocide Studies - Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 2006, pp. 143-146
Like all of life, this is a diffult question to answer. There have been instance of both.
ReplyDeleteLee Kuan Yew of Singapore has been seen as the most effective leader in SE Asia. When he took over, Singapore was backwards economically, socially, and poltically; it was an unstable country. He established the Federation of Malaysiawhich included Malays, Sabah, and Sarawak. He industrialized the nation, and join world capitalization. Ecomonic growth was rapid. With his efforts, foreign capital decided to invest in Indonesia. This could not have happened without Yew.
Cambodi, on the other hand, went through leaders of varios skills. Sihounak started out with leadership skills and a goal of a free and independent Cambodia, but his skills eventually deteriorated and led to Lon Nol who supported the US. Eventually, the US withdrew andd Pol Pot took over. He was a maxist-leninist who raided the cities for supporters for his armies. His goal was a one Cambodia state that lacked any differences in its people. In the end, nearly two million Cambodians died under his tutelage.
These are just two examples of effecgtive and noneffecgtive leadership.