Southeast Asia's Leadership Crucibles: Past Visions, Present Struggles

Albert Camus once said, “In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer”, if “winter” represents hardship, “summer” represents joy– that, even during our darkest hours, we possess an inner resilience that can guide us through adversity. A testament to strength, showing that even in the face of unimaginable pain, it’s possible to strive for hope and resilience.

Leadership, similarly, is often shaped by such trials. Warren Bennis–a pioneer of Leadership studies, came up with the concept of the “crucible” –a trial that pushed them to reflect deeply on their identity and core beliefs^[1]. Ultimately, they emerged from these experiences stronger, more self-assured, and with a clearer sense of purpose—profoundly changed at their core. Leaders like Nelson Mandela, Steve Jobs, and Oprah Winfrey each experienced crucible moments that tested their character and reshaped their legacies. Mandela’s 27 years of imprisonment forged him into a leader capable of guiding South Africa through its democratic transition. Jobs, after being fired from Apple, returned with groundbreaking innovations that revolutionized industries. Winfrey transformed personal tragedy into advocacy, becoming a symbol of perseverance and a leader for social change.

Crucible Leadership in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia’s political landscape has been shaped by its own crucibles– including the authoritarian rule that has been a constant feature of Southeast Asian politics since the independence of many countries in the region in the mid-20th century^[2]. Despite adopting formal democratic structures, many Southeast Asian regimes have used persistent repression, manipulated elections, and elite agreements to maintain power.^[3] It has led to uncertainty about whether authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia have truly evolved or transformed–knowing the apparent continuity in its methods. Scholars like Morgenbesser describe this current Southeast Asia presences as retrograde and sophisticated authoritarian regimes^[4], evidenced by democratic declines and military coups in several countries^[5].

However, historically, it is interesting to look at Southeast Asian leaders envisioning a different trajectory for the region. Events like the Bandung Conference in 1955 and the subsequent journey of ASEAN illustrate the leadership values that once guided the region’s governance. These examples stand in stark contrast to contemporary leadership currently dominate across the countries.

Historical Leadership: The Bandung Conference and the ASEAN Journey

The Bandung Conference of 1955 was a crucible moment for many Asian and African nations. It united leaders from 29 Asian and African nations, newly independent nations under a common vision, including Indonesia’s Sukarno, India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, and Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser united to reject colonialism and the Cold War’s binary politics. Indeed, the conference was a defining moment laying the foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and South-South cooperation, mutual respect, and sovereignty^[6].

Sukarno’s opening speech at the conference acknowledged the sacrifices made by earlier generations and emphasized the need for economic and intellectual independence. It extended beyond the immediate political sphere, addressing the pressing need for national sovereignty in all forms. This was a crucible for these leaders—a transformative experience that tested their values, resilience, and commitment to creating a more just global order.

Sukarno’s opening speech at the Bandung Conference in 1955

“I recognize that we are gathered here today as a result of sacrifices. Sacrifices made by our forefathers and by the people of our own and younger generations.

For me, this hall is filled not only by the leaders of the nations of Asia and Africa; it also contains within its walls the undying, the indomitable, the invincible spirit of those who went before us. Their struggle and sacrifice paved the way for this meeting of the highest representatives of independent and sovereign nations from two of the biggest continents of the globe.

It is a new departure in the history of the world that leaders of Asian and African peoples can meet together in their own countries to discuss and deliberate upon matters of common concern. Only a few decades ago it was frequently necessary to travel to other countries and even other continents before the spokesmen of our peoples could confer.

I recall in this connection the Conference of the ‘League Against Imperialism and Colonialism’ which was held in Brussels almost thirty years ago. At that Conference many distinguished Delegates who are present here today met each other and found new strength in their fight for independence. But that was a meeting place thousands of miles away, amidst foreign people, in a foreign country, in a foreign continent. It was not assembled there by choice, but by necessity.

Today the contrast is great. Our nations and countries are colonies no more. Now we are free, sovereign and independent. We are again masters in our own house. We do not need to go to other continents to confer.”

Moving to another crucible leadership example is the ASEAN Journey. Founded in 1967, it has since grown into a key regional organization, promoting economic integration, security, and social progress. Its successes, such as resisting external pressures like Australia’s aviation policies in 1978 and managing internal conflicts like Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia, demonstrated ASEAN’s capacity for collective resilience and unity.

To elaborate, the aviation dispute with Australia in 1978 which had introduced the International Civil Aviation Policy (ICAP) showed ASEAN’s capacity for unity and resilience against external economic pressure. By standing together, ASEAN nations successfully countered Australia’s protectionist aviation policies at that time, reinforcing the importance of regional solidarity in safeguarding mutual interests^[7]. Similarly, ASEAN’s response to Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia from 1978 to 1991 demonstrated its evolution into a security-focused entity. Through diplomacy, ASEAN successfully managed internal disagreements within the region. These moments highlighted ASEAN’s growth from a loosely connected group of nations into a cohesive regional force capable of addressing both economic and security challenges, solidifying its long-term role in Southeast Asia’s stability and prosperity. The ability to navigate these situations cemented ASEAN’s leadership and resilience, proving the strength of collective action and cooperation in the face of adversity and in overcoming significant geopolitical challenges^[8].

Contemporary Leadership: Challenges and Contradictions

Fast forward to today, the current political landscape in Southeast Asia tells a different story and presents a more complex picture, which is often characterized by political repression, corruption, and authoritarian tendencies. Several leaders have faced criticism for enacting destructive approaches to public policy that often harm societal development, weaken governance structures, or exacerbate inequalities– does it show a good leadership example to the next generation?

In Thailand, the Lèse-Majesté law (Article 112 of the Thai Penal Code) remains one of the strictest in the world, and is able to criminalize any criticism of the monarchy^[9]^[10]. It has been increasingly invoked since mass protests in 2020—rooted in longstanding frustrations with the military-led government in power since 2014^[11]^[12]. Those convicted under Article 112 face long prison sentences, with some being sentenced for up to 15 years for critical comments made online or at public rallies. The law is criticized as it has stifled free speech, repressed political dissent, and created an environment of fear, where even peaceful calls for reform are met with severe legal consequences. It has also fueled mass protests and unrest, with young Thais demanding reforms in both the government and monarchy^[13].

Amid these challenges, the Former Prime Minister Candidate, 2023 Election winner of Thailand, Pita Limjaroenrat called for constitutional reform in the face of the current challenges–a hopeful shift toward greater transparency and democratic accountability in Thailand. Below is his statement on the removal of Srettha Thavisin.^[14]

“Yesterday’s ruling by the Constitutional Court highlights the significant role that the Court and other independent bodies play in interpreting ethical standards. It is important that these interpretations are applied consistently and fairly, ensuring that they serve the best interests of the nation. The case of Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in these processes.

As of now, Thailand has, both, no Prime Minister and no Leader of the Opposition simultaneously and the largest political party dissolved. There is no functioning democracy like this except in nations that have experienced a coup. I sincerely hope that all parties, particularly politicians, recognize the urgent need for constitutional reform and reconsider the scope of powers vested in the Constitutional Court and all independent bodies.”

Myanmar, in contrast, has faced a democratic backslide since the military coup in 2021, which ousted the democratically elected government and reinstated military rule. The junta’s policies have crushed democratic institutions, leading to severe human rights abuses and economic collapse^[15]. The public policy focus on military control has led to international sanctions targeting key areas like arms trade, financial assets, and industries directly tied to the military regime, such as the sale of aviation fuel, which has been crucial for the junta’s military operations. However, the sanctions alone have not been sufficient to push the military to reverse course^[16]— or serving more as political statements?^[17]^[18]. The persistent repression, combined with economic hardships and the collapse of essential services, continues to deepen the suffering of Myanmar’s people^[19]^[20]. The coup represents a destructive leadership model, reversing years of progress toward democracy and development.

In Indonesia, the President has faced criticism for weakening the country’s foremost anti-corruption agency, the KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission)^[21]^[22], and displaying authoritarian tendencies during his second term^[23]^[24]^[25]. It sparked widespread protests and was seen as a backward step in the fight against systemic corruption. Moreover, the co-opting of political rivals and suppression of dissent further highlighted the consolidation of power at the expense of democratic principles. This include criticism on power consolidation around family members mirrors traditional authoritarian regimes paving way for political dynasty^[26]^[27].

Other Southeast Asian nations like Malaysia, Cambodia, and the Philippines have also faced criticism over the politicization of legal frameworks that stifle dissent and weaken democratic institutions. In Malaysia, anti-corruption laws have been perceived to have been selectively enforced to target political opponents. “There is a culture of fear about disclosing corruption, and also a great hesitancy on the part of police and other law enforcement agencies to investigate people considered VVIPs^{^[28]}”, “Corruption remains widespread because of ineffective implementation, a culture of money politics based on mutually beneficial crony associations between political actors and business leaders, political interference to frustrate enforcement against corruption offenders, especially prominent personalities, and the mixed impact of corruption prevention measures. Concluding that the political and business culture and the nature of political leadership have eroded the political will to combat grand corruption in Malaysia^[29]”. While Cambodia’s restrictive laws have entrenched authoritarian rule under former Prime Minister Hun Sen^[30]. The Philippines’ Anti-Terrorism Act, has faced widespread criticism for allowing arbitrary arrests and detentions, particularly against activists and critics^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34].

The Erosion of Leadership Values: can we reflect and thrive?

The contrast between Southeast Asia’s visionary leadership of the past and the challenges of today is stark. Leaders of the Bandung Conference sought to unite their nations around principles of sovereignty, mutual respect, and collective action. ASEAN has historically demonstrated the strength of regional unity in the face of external and internal pressures. Yet, contemporary leaders have often prioritized political survival over modeling good leadership or the long-term prosperity of their nations.

The erosion of democratic practices across the region raises critical questions about leadership.The selective enforcement of laws, suppression of dissent, and manipulation of electoral processes have become common tools for controlling political narratives. In many cases, current leadership have leveraged these mechanisms to consolidate power and silence opposition, eroding trust in democratic institutions. This trend is particularly concerning in a region where economic development and social progress have historically relied on stable and transparent governance, yet many leaders today are failing to uphold these principles.

The region needs leaders committed to transparency, accountability, and the rule of law– a values-driven leadership in ensuring the long-term prosperity of their nations. The present challenge is truly a test, whether Southeast Asia can move toward a future where leadership is more defined by a commitment to justice, equality, and shared progress.

^[1] https://hbr.org/2002/09/crucibles-of-leadership

^[2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abs/rise-of-sophisticated-authoritarianism-in-southeast-asia/DD69532BF1B97F138A79368A5C941915

^[3] https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/jph/article/view/35380

^[4] https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/abs/rise-of-sophisticated-authoritarianism-in-southeast-asia/DD69532BF1B97F138A79368A5C941915

^[5] https://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/jph/article/view/35380

^[6] https://www.southcentre.int/question/revisiting-the-1955-bandung-asian-african-conference-and-its-legacy/

^[7] https://mothership.sg/2018/07/singapore-asean-australia-icap-dispute/

^[8] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-70533-0_3

^[9] https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/thailand-s-regressive-royal-insult-law

^[10] https://www.cfr.org/blog/thailands-draconian-112-lese-majeste-law-any-hope-change

^[11] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25149484

^[12] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27517591