Some Consideration of Governance and Statecraft in Southeast Asia (Part of “Positive Governance”)
The recent notion of Thai people, particularly the “semi-reformation” period, witnessed of post 2014 coup and the post transitioning of the monarch from King Rama IX to King Rama X, it paves the true “polarization” in the country, one favors the coup, but the other not. Although, the post military-led government of Prayuth administration, seems to reconcile by allow election led government like Phue Thai to form the government, but the “scar” seem deeply in the society, one may quarrel deeper than we see it superficially, and this schism seems to prevails for decades after this.
One may lead to think about what the most appropriate “governance” of the country, the one in democratic norms, fervent with corruption, political quarrel, protest and chaotic; or another one under militaristic regime dubbed the father knows best sharply tamed the “disrupted” civic part. Mostly they tend to compare Thailand with Myanmar for good reason, from both ideological perspectives, with or without some “element” both countries had legacy given the similar geolocation, culture (Buddhism) and population size. But those seems to ignore the more similar comparative study which are Myanmar and Vietnam. Why one fail short, but one seems to thrive despite both woe during colonial and cold war period morbid with several war and internal minority conflict or even civil war.
Traditional knowledge, such as the World Bank’s governance theory, tends to rely on “surface” parameters like GDP, corruption levels, educational attainment, and trade statistics to predict the level of governance. However, when comparing Vietnam and Myanmar, it becomes clear that these metrics alone are insufficient. Both countries, during the Cold War period, exhibited similar economic and social challenges, yet their post-war paths diverged significantly due to deeper, more nuanced factors not captured by these surface parameters. This underscores the inadequacy of traditional theories and highlights the need to delve deeper into the “core” fundamentals of statecraft. Ensuring and enduring a long horizon of governance trajectory requires a more comprehensive understanding that goes beyond matrices-based business and economic models.
On the surface, both Vietnam and Myanmar have limited-democratic governance and have only recently begun to engage more fully in the global trade environment. Relying solely on traditional World Bank-style metrics can indicate some aspects of societal potential for vibrant evolution, but it cannot fully explain why one country thrives while another falters, despite seemingly similar historical backgrounds, geolocation, culture, demographics, and minority management challenges.
Vietnam and Myanmar, despite their similar historical contexts, have diverged significantly in their developmental trajectories. Both countries were colonized — Vietnam by France and Myanmar by Britain — and both experienced severe conflicts and internal strife during the Cold War period. Yet, Vietnam has emerged as a more stable and economically thriving nation compared to Myanmar, which continues to struggle with political instability and economic underdevelopment.
The colonial experiences of Vietnam and Myanmar left different legacies that influenced their post-independence trajectories. The French colonial rule in Vietnam was marked by economic exploitation and limited educational opportunities, which primarily benefited the French and a small local elite. However, this exploitation also fostered strong nationalist sentiments, leading to the rise of movements like the Viet Minh, which played a crucial role in Vietnam’s fight for independence and subsequent unification under a communist regime.
In contrast, British colonial rule in Myanmar dismantled traditional structures, including the monarchy and religious institutions, leading to significant social disruption. The British governance model in Burma relied heavily on direct control and military administration, which did not invest sufficiently in local bureaucratic development. This created a power vacuum and left Burma with a weak administrative foundation post-independence.
Post-independence, the governance structures in Vietnam and Myanmar further diverged. Vietnam, under the Communist Party, established a centralized governance system that focused on building a strong bureaucratic infrastructure. The Đổi Mới economic reforms in 1986 were pivotal, transitioning Vietnam to a market-oriented economy while maintaining political stability. This allowed Vietnam to integrate into the global economy, attract foreign investment, and achieve substantial economic growth. The Vietnamese government also made significant investments in education and healthcare, contributing to the development of human capital.
Myanmar, on the other hand, experienced frequent military coups and political instability post-independence. The military’s dominance in politics led to inconsistent policies and a lack of cohesive long-term vision for development. The Burmese Socialist Programme Party’s policies under General Ne Win, which aimed at economic self-sufficiency, resulted in economic isolation and stagnation. The lack of investment in education and healthcare, coupled with ongoing ethnic conflicts, further hindered Myanmar’s development.
The role of international relations also played a crucial part in the divergent paths of Vietnam and Myanmar. Vietnam’s strategic engagement with the international community, joining organizations like ASEAN and entering into trade agreements, facilitated its integration into the global economy. In contrast, Myanmar’s international relations have been marred by human rights abuses and military rule, leading to sanctions and reduced foreign investment.
Thus, the lagged development of bureaucratic infrastructure in Myanmar compared to Vietnam and Malaysia was a core issue that influenced their different trajectories. Vietnam’s strong political vision, consistent policy implementation, and investment in human capital and bureaucratic efficiency laid the foundation for its economic success. Myanmar’s fragmented governance, military dominance, and lack of effective bureaucratic infrastructure led to its ongoing struggles with political instability and economic underdevelopment.
In conclusion, the comparative analysis of Vietnam and Myanmar highlights the critical role of governance and bureaucratic infrastructure in determining a country’s development trajectory. Vietnam’s ability to build a strong, centralized bureaucratic system with a clear strategic vision enabled it to achieve stability and growth. Myanmar’s fragmented and weak bureaucratic infrastructure, exacerbated by military dominance and ethnic conflicts, has hindered its development, illustrating the profound impact of governance on national progress.
