Conflict Type,Institutionalization Of Political Parties And Governance Models In Southeast Asia

Since the 1980s,governance studies have received more and more attention in the field of social sciences.Among the explanations affecting governance,one type of studies starts from the institutional level and focuses on the decisive role of the construction of economic and political institutions on governance.But the effect of system on governance is indirect,conditional,and has strong endogeneity.The other type of research analyzes the influence of the initial conditions of the establishment of a country on governance.This kind of research cannot answer why two countries with similar historical background and social structure have different governance levels.For developing countries,strong political parties play an important role in promoting economic growth,maintaining political order and improving people’s well-being.In recent years,domestic researches begin to use the institutionalization level of ruling parties to explain the differences among countries on the above issues,but few people trace the reasons for the differences in the institutionalization level of political parties.This paper attempts to trace the reasons for the differences in the level of institutionalization of political parties forward,and ask the impact of institutionalization on governance backward,so as to form a complete chain of explanation.In the explanatory framework proposed in this paper,conflict type is the independent variable,governance model is the dependent variable,and party institutionalization is an important intermediary variable.This paper holds that differences in the types of major conflicts faced by ruling parties and the ways of resolving conflicts in the early stage of their establishment will lead to differences in the ways and contents of institutionalization of ruling parties.Such differences make ruling parties adopt different ways to govern society,which also leads to differences in governance models and governance performance.This role path has been more clearly presented in three countries.In the early days of Singapore’s independence,the People’s Action Party(PAP)was confronted with the elite conflict from the left party and the class conflict from the lower class at the same time.Under such circumstances,the PAP on the one hand strengthened intra-party unity,on the other hand,developed grassroots organizations and trade unions,and accelerated the institutionalization of the Party.In the policy of diversity and integration of racial policy,through the party branch and people’s association and other grass-roots organizations to serve the voters.Malaysia had a border conflict with Indonesia in the early days of independence,which was eventually settled peacefully.The United Malays National Organization(UMNO)faces elite conflict from Communist Party of Malaysia and other ethnic parties,and at the lower level a society prone to ethnic conflict.So the Malay elite formed coalitions of ethnic parties to mobilize voters through ethnic groups.In terms of policies,the UMNO takes into account the interests of other ethnic groups while safeguarding the privileges of Malays,reduces the income gap between ethnic groups and promotes social equity through redistribution policies.The Cambodian People’s Party(CPP)was formed during the Vietnam War,which saw frequent armed clashes among the elite.After the formation of the new government,Hun Sen incorporated the opposition elite into the CPP’s patronage network through non-institutionalized means such as co-optation and coercion,and organized the lower masses through working groups.The biggest beneficiaries of Cambodia’s patronage network are the top People’s Party and military leaders and business tycoons,with little improvement at the bottom.