1、 Problem posing

Since the late 1980s, Southeast Asian countries have experienced a transition from military regimes to civilian governments, with increased legislative power, increased participation from the public and non-governmental organizations, and multi-party politics replacing authoritarian systems. Political change has become a key factor in the modernization development of Southeast Asia, influenced by multiple factors such as economic growth, urbanization, the disintegration of traditional power structures, the rise of emerging political entities, social division, and the deepening of government business relations. Economic globalization and financial crises after the Cold War have also intensified political changes. The academic community has conducted extensive research on the drivers of political change, but a comprehensive understanding of its complexity remains challenging. There are differences in the definition and understanding of political change, and formal institutional changes are not completely synchronized with changes in political elites and policies. The political changes in Southeast Asian countries are not closely related to their economic level or the nature of their political systems, but rather to economic growth and elite class as key factors. This article explores how to promote understanding of political changes in the development of modern Southeast Asian countries by analyzing behavioral variables such as the middle class, political elites, and bourgeoisie.

2、 Middle class

In the development of modern Southeast Asian countries, the middle class, as a group with culture, independent interests, and independent opinions, has been driven by its economic status to fight for political rights and tend to support market pluralism rather than authoritarian systems. The middle class exerted pressure on the government through elections and social organizations, but the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 epidemic led to its shrinking scale and increased instability. The relationship between the middle class in Southeast Asian countries and global capitalism, state power, technology, and socialism has undergone new changes. Research shows that economic growth does not promote political change, as state led growth makes the middle class dependent on the government and strengthens institutional legitimacy. The Malaysian middle class is politically neutral, but the Western educated intellectual elites are dissatisfied with the authoritarian system and demand more political discourse power. The middle class in the Philippines plays an important role in political change, but there are opposing views. The middle class in Thailand is not firm in their stance during political changes and sometimes supports coups. The political role of the middle class in Singapore is limited, but the government needs to meet their political demands. The characteristics of the middle class in Southeast Asia include dependence on authoritarian governments, opportunistic tendencies, and a focus on development efficiency over democratic equality. The role of the middle class in political change is controversial, related to different definitions of democracy.

3、 The bourgeoisie

In the process of modernization, the bourgeoisie has played an important role in Southeast Asian countries. The role of the bourgeoisie in economic modernization is gradually increasing, becoming a driving force for political change. After the 1990s, the Southeast Asian bourgeoisie, especially the Chinese bourgeoisie, received attention. Scholars such as Gary Rodin have studied the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the government from a Marxist perspective, and believe that the integration of the bourgeoisie and the ruling party promotes national development, but may also lead to policy rigidity. The support of the Southeast Asian bourgeoisie for the government is not static. With the deepening of economic community construction and international cooperation, local multinational enterprise groups have emerged, and the bourgeoisie has begun to seek political change. The Thai bourgeoisie expresses their opposition to the military regime under an authoritarian system, participates in the political system through economic networks, and promotes political change. After the downfall of the Marcos regime, the Philippine bourgeoisie became the main force of the new government. Barrington Moore proposed the view that "without the bourgeoisie, there can be no democracy", believing that emerging economic forces need democratic systems to protect property rights. Thomas Pepinski analyzed the different response measures and political changes of Indonesia and Malaysia to the Asian financial crisis, pointing out that the differences in the way capital exists lead to different attitudes of the national bourgeoisie towards political changes. Ma Guangzhao believed that the success of industrialization led by Southeast Asian governments was due to the bourgeoisie responding to government calls, promoting economic development, gaining political status and influence, and driving political change.

4、 Political elites

In the development of modern Southeast Asian countries, political elites play a crucial role in political changes. They monopolize the political power of the state by controlling government decision-making and guiding social and political processes. William Keith analyzed the differences in political systems among the five ASEAN countries through elite cohesion and the relationship between elites and the public. He pointed out that Singapore and Malaysia have high elite cohesion and maintain authoritarian systems, while other countries face political changes due to insufficient elite cohesion. In Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, political elites sought to eliminate potential threats during the early stages of national establishment, leading to the rise of "neo feudalism". The dilemma of political change in the Philippines stems from historical and political cultural factors, and requires the promotion of democracy through legal and cultural reforms. The political return of the Thai military group is due to the consensus reached by political elites, the revival of traditional political order by the conservative camp, and the public's demand for stability. The overall political changes in Myanmar are stable, but it faces challenges such as the construction of a nation-state and the transformation of the role of the military. The cohesion of political elites can be explained by government attributes, political elite relationships, and behavior, and different levels of political conflict and resistance affect the contract between elites and the regime. The emergence of new political parties is related to the ability to combine or shape social division structures. The degree of unity among political elites in dealing with economic crises affects policy-making and economic development. The measurement and motivation of political elite cohesion need further exploration, while considering the impact of the relationship between the public and political elites on political change.

5、 Conclusion

Significant progress has been made in the study of political changes in the development of modern Southeast Asian countries, but future research requires further refinement of theories. Research should focus on how the public drives political change, as well as the impact of factors such as political systems and economic structures on political change. The current research method classifies countries by comparing political science standards, but may overlook specific characteristics of countries. Research should consider whether democratic politics has formed and the roles of the bourgeoisie and political elites after political changes. The application of interdisciplinary theories and methodologies, as well as insights into public hopes, dissatisfaction, and worldviews, is crucial for deepening research. Researchers need to constantly explore to discover questionable research topics, important variables, and untested political, economic, and social models.