A Comparative Survey of DEMOCRACY, GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT Working Paper Series: No. 119 Jointly Published by Liberals and Conservatives: Understanding Political Polarization in Southeast Asia Kai-Ping Huang Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, National Taiwan University, Taiwan Bridget Welsh Senior Research Associate, Center for East Asia Democratic Studies, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Asian Barometer A Comparative Survey of Democracy, Governance and Development Working Paper Series Jointly Published by Globalbarometer The Asian Barometer (ABS) is an applied research program on public opinion on political values, democracy, and governance around the region. The regional network encompasses research teams from thirteen East Asian political systems (Japan, Mongolia, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia), and five South Asian countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal). Together, this regional survey network covers virtually all major political systems in the region, systems that have experienced different trajectories of regime evolution and are currently at different stages of political transition. The ABS Working Paper Series is intended to make research result within the ABS network available to the academic community and other interested readers in preliminary form to encourage discussion and suggestions for revision before final publication. Scholars in the ABS network also devote their work to the Series with the hope that a timely dissemination of the findings of their surveys to the general public as well as the policy makers would help illuminate the public discourse on democratic reform and good governance. The topics covered in the Series range from country-specific assessment of values change and democratic development, region-wide comparative analysis of citizen participation, popular orientation toward democracy and evaluation of quality of governance, and discussion of survey methodology and data analysis strategies. The ABS Working Paper Series supercedes the existing East Asia Barometer Working Paper Series as the network is expanding to cover more countries in East and South Asia. Maintaining the same high standard of research methodology, the new series both incorporates the existing papers in the old series and offers newly written papers with a broader scope and more penetrating analyses. The ABS Working Paper Series is issued by the Asian Barometer Project Office, which is jointly sponsored by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences of National Taiwan University and the Institute of Political Science of Academia Sinica. Contact Information Asian Barometer Project Office Department of Political Science National Taiwan University No.1, Sec.4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei, 617, Taiwan, R.O.C. Tel: 886 2-3366 8456 Fax: 886-2-2365 7179 E-mail: asianbarometer@ntu.edu.tw Website: www.asianbarometer.org
Liberals and Conservatives: Understanding Political Polarization in Southeast Asia Kai-Ping Huang, Assistant Professor of Political Science, National Taiwan University Bridget Welsh, Senior Research Associate, Center for East Asia Democratic Studies, National Taiwan University
Research Questions 1) Are political values in Southeast Asia polarized? Examine distribution key ideological areas. 2) Who are the liberals and conservatives? Examine the profile of those on ideological poles 3) Does political values help us understand partisan political polarization in Southeast Asia?
Southeast Asian & Ideological Difference 1. Equality: How fair do you think income distribution is in the country? 2. Secularism: The government should consult religious authorities when interpreting the laws 3. Rule of law: When the country is facing a difficult situation, it is ok for the government to disregard the law in order to deal with the situation' 4. Corruption: How widespread do you think corruption and bribe-taking are in the national government? 5. Preference for democracy 5.1 Democracy is always preferable to any other kind of government 5.2 If you had to choose between democracy and economic development, which would you say is more important? 5.3 If you had to choose between reducing economic inequality and protecting political freedom, which would you say is more important? 6. Paternalism and Role of Government 6.1 Government leaders are like the head of a family; we should all follow their decisions 6.2 It is the responsibility of the government to reduce the differences between people with high income and those with low incomes 7. Anti-Globalization (Protectionism): Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "We should protect our farmers and workers by limiting the import of foreign goods
Findings: An Ideological Divide? 1. Equality: Some splits, but not consistently across countries 2. Secularism: Shocking lopsided support for non-secular government across the region. 3. Rule of law: More polarization over rule of law 4. Corruption: Similar polarization over corruption 5. Preference for democracy: Weight toward preference for democracy, only in Singapore and Philippines more split 6. Paternalism and Role of Government 6.1 Divisions in some countries, Philippines and Thailand, but not others Indonesia and Myanmar 6.2 Majorities support government interventions 7. Anti-Globalization (Protectionism): Region is highly protectionist, anti-globalization
Some splits, but not consistently across countries 55 45 35 25 15 5 Equality (Perception of Income Equality) 54 54 56 52 49 45 42 39 39 43 34 28 29 32 29 19 16 14 14 11 11 9 9 5 6 4 6 5 2 3 2 PH TH ID SG VN KH MY MM Very fair Fair Unfair Very Unfair
Worrying lopsided support for non-secular government across region Secularism 8 7 72 54 48 45 43 38 3937 28 25 24 22 24 21 21 19 21 18 15 16 15 12 7 8 9 9 8 5 1 ID TH SG KH PH VN MY MM Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Rule of Law More polarization over rule of law 55 45 35 25 15 5 55 46 44 43 31 36 36 34 29 29 29 25 27 24 24 22 19 21 16 16 17 11 11 13 15 12 7 8 2 PH TH ID SG VN KH MY MM Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Similar polarization over corruption Corruption in National Government 7 2 61 52 46 4847 46 42 39 39 34 35 28 24 24 19 15 15 9 11 3 5 6 1 1 PH TH ID SG KH MY MM 8 Hardly anyone Not a lot Most officials Almost everyone
Weight toward preference for democracy, only in Singapore and Philippines more split Preference for Democracy 8 7 47 51 69 7 7 72 74 PH SG TH MY VN ID MM KH
Divisions in some countries, Philippines and Thailand, but not others Indonesia and Myanmar 8 7 Paternalism (Leader as Head of Family) 7 46 46 47 43 36 37 33 35 32 26 27 35 23 24 17 18 22 18 15 15 14 11 12 8 11 11 6 1 PH TH ID SG VN KH MY MM Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Stronly agree
Majorities support government interventions 8 7 Reducing Inequality is Government s Responsibility 73 63 64 56 48 43 43 45 42 31 29 28 29 26 18 17 14 8 9 12 8 6 2 4 1 2 4 5 1 2 PH TH ID SG VN KH MY MM Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Stronly agree
Region is highly protectionist, anti-globalization Anti-Globalization (Protectionism) 32 54 51 35 27 29 48 55 27 49 41 4243 35 49 12 3 2 1 16 16 11 7 8 8 8 5 3 2 4 PH TH ID SG VN KH MY MM Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Who are Liberals and Conservatives? Analysis: Use of latent class analysis on ideological dimensions distinguishing traits of conservatives and liberals. Findings. Education: More educated are liberals, except Indonesia Age: Youth are not necessarily more liberal. More liberal youth only in Cambodia, Malaysia and Singapore Region: Urbanites, in general, more liberal, except Indonesia and Myanmar Income: Less affluent more liberal, exception in Vietnam and Philippines
Secularism by Education Level 44 42 43 37 32 32 29 47 46 11 23 24 26 39 49 22 18 31 8 17 24 14 24 22 PH TH SG VN KH MY MM ID Primary Secondary Tertiary
Rule of Law by Education 7 47 43 58 65 43 49 42 52 64 59 46 55 55 62 57 58 58 56 28 28 21 TH ID SG VN KH MM PH MY Primary Secondary Tertiary
Political Ideology and Partisan Political Polarization Expected Findings: Ideology Supporting the Partisan Divide Income Distribution: Opposition and those without party ID are more likely to perceive income distribution unfair, except in Thailand. Secularism: Supporters of the opposition and those without party ID are more likely to be pro-secularism, except Indonesia and Thailand. Rule of Law: Supporters of the opposition and those without party ID are more likely to support rule of law, except Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia. Corruption: Supporters of the opposition and those without party ID are more likely to think most government officials at the national level are corrupt, except Indonesia where there is no difference. Paternalism Identifiers of the ruling parties are more likely to support paternalism, except Thailand and the Philippines. Identifiers of the ruling parties are more likely to support government intervention, except Cambodia and the Philippines, where there is no difference. Anti-globalization: Identifiers of the ruling parties are more likely to support protectionism, except Singapore and the Philippines. Interesting findings: Evaluating the Questions in Their Contexts Preference for Democracy: There are no significant differences between people with different party IDs, except the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, where the supporters of the ruling parties are more likely to prefer democracy. But: Supporters of the opposition and those without party ID are more likely to prefer democracy to economic development, except Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand.
Perceived Unfairness Income Distribution by Party ID 9 8 7 31 45 46 35 44 76 52 62 58 51 62 69 72 82 VN SG MY KH ID TH PH MM Ruling Opposition and no party ID
Secularism by Party ID 21 33 31 23 24 26 29 42 34 39 41 48 53 51 MM MY VN KH ID PH SG TH Ruling Opposition and no party ID
Rule of Law by Party ID 8 7 64 57 53 48 56 65 69 58 59 72 68 39 34 VN KH SG TH MY MM PH ID Ruling Opposition and No party ID
Corruption by Party ID 9 8 7 48 49 37 47 81 67 65 62 64 64 64 26 26 12 SG MY TH MM PH KH ID Ruling Opposition and No party ID
Preference for Democracy by Party ID 9 8 7 51 51 54 45 72 72 73 73 74 73 7 72 64 58 82 65 SG PH MY ID MM KH TH VN Ruling Opposition and No party ID
45 35 25 15 5 Prefer Democracy to Economic Development by Party ID 44 35 36 36 33 31 26 24 24 22 23 19 12 8 ID MY KH PH SG MM VN TH Ruling Opposition and No party ID
Leader as Head of Family by Party ID 9 84 8 7 43 35 47 59 66 63 74 75 76 49 44 63 68 25 TH PH SG VN KH MY MM ID Ruling Opposition and No party ID
Reducing Inequality as Govt s Responsibility by Party ID 95 91 9 88 88 88 89 87 91 85 82 81 8 79 76 75 73 74 74 7 65 61 61 55 PH KH TH MY SG MM ID VN Ruling Opposition and No party ID
Protectionism by Party ID 95 9 8 79 8 76 78 83 87 86 86 78 8 89 89 9 7 54 61 SG MM TH PH VN MY KH ID Ruling Opposition and No party ID
Conclusion Ideological Polarization in some areas, but not all. Region-wide splits over corruption and rule of law. Inconsistent splits equality and preference to democracy. Conservative majorities over secularism, government intervention/paternalism, protectionism Liberals are tied to education and urbanization, to a less extent to age and income. Considerable reinforcement of party divides in areas such as equality, corruption, paternalism, anti-globalization. Different findings for preference for democracy. Values are indeed shaping political polarization in multiple, some unexpected, ways.