ABSTRACT
This chapter questions the applicability of ‘post-political’ ideologies that have been borne of Western theorising to the Asian context, where quasi-democratic and authoritarian regimes are commonplace. Theorists of the post-political—such as Erik Swyngedouw, Chantal Mouffe, Jacque Rancière, and Slavoj Žižek—find that politics has become a limited series of compromises within an overarching framework whose key assumptions remain unchallenged. More specifically, it is assumed that a consultative capitalism is the necessary third way between the left and the right, and that a logic of consensus is more appropriate than a logic of dissensus. Believing that this post-political condition produces and reinforces deep injustices, these theorists propose a ‘return to the political’ that involves contestation and dissent. But the problem is that this approach necessitates the presence of liberal democratic norms and institutions allowing for freedom of speech and assembly, as well as the presence of democratic values instilled in the citizenry. This chapter argues that liberal democracy is an integral component in dispelling post-political conditions and in enabling contentious democracy, and subsequently questions how a ‘return’ to the political is possible in Southeast Asia, where the implementation of post-political ideologies has gone hand in hand with quasi-democratic or authoritarian rule. The specific nature of post-politics in quasi-democratic and authoritarian regimes must be explored in order to provide solutions for civil society groups in such polities.
