Joint Research(Type Ⅳ）
Politics of Exile－Comparative Studies on the International Legitimacy/Powerbase
of Political Leaders
Project Leader: AIZAWA, Nobuhiro, Institute of Developing Economies
（Term：2011 - 2012）
- Joint Seminars in 2011 Fiscal Year
- Outline of Joint Research
- This project aims to make a comparative and historical analysis of National
leaders and monarchs who were exiled in times of drastic political transition.
The main scope of the research is on Southeast Asia from the colonial period
until present, and will supplement with a comparative study on cases outside
Southeast Asia, mainly from Middle East, South Asia and East Asia. Through
this analysis, we seek to understand the role of international legitimacy/powerbase
of national leaders and monarchs, and the cleavages between the leaders
and the nation that surface in the final days of their power.
- Purpose of Joint Research
-
The post power life of post-war dictators, especially in Southeast Asia
has various patterns. Most of them enjoy a comfortable life in luxury like
Suharto did, some were held in de facto custody like Sukarno and Pol Pot
and few were assassinated like Ngo Dinh Diem. As they all died in the soil
they once was the leader of, there are other groups of people who ended
their political lives differently by running away.In other words, through
seeking exile. In Southeast Asia, Phibun, Pridi and Marcos would be the
best known cases of exiled leaders who fled and died in a foreign country.
Thaksin also is now in what many call “self-exile” avoiding jail following
the Thai court ruling and trying to attempt “remote governance”. So why
the different choices in their final days in power among these leaders?
And why exiled to particular country? (Why Phibul went to Japan (Via Cambodia)
and Pridi went to China (and then to France)? Why Thaksin in Dubai?)
- Through a comparative study of these leaders, we aim to understand the
international network and the international political platforms of the
national leaders. Most nation in Southeast Asia actually required acknowledgement
and money from foreign countries such as US, Soviet Union, Japan, In gaining
power and in cementing its power, foreign power were indeed useful and
necessary but it differed by leaders to what extent did these foreign support
meant in saving its power and ultimately saving their life.
- Extensive research has been carried out on exiles of anti-regimes, anti-royal monarchs and dissidents. Biographies of Marcos, Phibun, Pridi are all well written, but we do not have a comparative study to portray the whole idea of the foreign basis/obstacles of these leaders’ power. We do not know what Suharto thought of exile, despite his record of brutality when he was president.
- Together with political scientists, historians, economists, we will conduct
an interdisciplinary research on why or why not they were exiled and try
to understand their political implications.
▲Top of This Page
|
