Some governments kept power for decades; others collapsed. Those that combined several sources of legitimacy lasted longest.
Judge outcomes by clear criteria: how long the government lasted, how stable it was, how widely it was accepted, and whether power passed on peacefully.
The PAP in Singapore and the Alliance and Barisan Nasional in Malaysia kept power throughout the period. They combined elections, performance and control of opposition.
Suharto lasted 32 years by combining the army, managed elections, economic growth, anti-communism and US support. He fell when the economy collapsed in 1997-1998.
Marcos lasted 20 years but fell in 1986. Economic crisis, the murder of opposition leader Benigno Aquino in 1983, a stolen election and army defections came together.
Burma's military kept power by force, but it lost legitimacy and much of the economy. Thailand's generals repeatedly took power but could not keep it against mass protest.
The lesson for essays is that no single source of power was enough. Rulers who relied on one source, such as force or charisma, were the most vulnerable.
- Criteria
- Duration, stability, acceptance, peaceful transfer.
- Long-lasting
- PAP, Barisan Nasional, Suharto.
- Collapsed
- Sukarno, Marcos, Suharto in 1998.
Worked example: Building a comparative judgement
How successful were governments in consolidating power?
- Most successful: Singapore and Malaysia, with several sources of legitimacy.
- Long but fragile: Suharto's Indonesia.
- Failed: Sukarno, Marcos and Thailand's generals at key moments.
- Power without legitimacy: Burma's military.
Watch out for this
A government that stayed in power for a long time had consolidated power successfully.
Length matters, but so does legitimacy. Burma's military stayed in power, but by force and without public acceptance.
Check your understanding
Which government combined several sources of legitimacy most successfully?
- The PAP in Singapore
- Sukarno's Guided Democracy
- Ne Win's Burma