| Capable and accountable public authority has proven elusive throughout the developing world, but not entirely unattainable. Southeast Asia exhibits as much if not more cross-case variation than any other region in terms of both state capacity and levels of democratic accountability. Why have some of this region's states proven so much more capable, particularly at mobilizing tax revenue, than others? And why have some of Southeast Asia's authoritarian regimes proven so much more durable than others? This comparative-historical analysis of seven countries locates the answer to both puzzles in the patterns of contentious politics (i.e. labor strikes, ethnic riots, and rural rebellions) that emerged between the end of Japan's occupation of Southeast Asia in 1945, and the inauguration of bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes throughout the region between the mid-1950s and the early 1970s.; Subtly divergent patterns of contentious politics produced striking divergence in contemporary political institutions. Where class and communal tensions intertwined and erupted into urban strife, as in Malaysia and Singapore, a wide range of elites and middle-class sectors coalesced into broad-based political parties, and political leaders enjoyed significant success both at building stronger central states and at consolidating authoritarian rule. By contrast, where class conflict was muted, exclusively rural, or did not exacerbate deep ethno-religious divisions---as in Thailand, the Philippines, and South Vietnam---elite groups remained highly factionalized, and provided more tepid and temporary support for authoritarian rulers' projects of state-building and regime maintenance. Burma and Indonesia followed variants of a third pattern, in which regional rebellions helped produce relatively cohesive and militarized states, ruled by authoritarian regimes that have enjoyed relatively little organized support from upper groups in society. In short, contemporary political institutions (parties, states, and regimes) have all been shaped by patterns of elite collective action, which arose in response to specific types of threats from below. |
