Neo-authoritarian Peace in Timor-Leste

What is it about?

The birth of Timor-Leste as a country was midwifed by the ‘executive’ mandate of the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). This was a ‘hybrid’ form of governance. On the one hand, ‘western’ or ‘liberal’ ideas such as democracy and civil society were brought into the system, on the other, ‘indigenous’ or ‘authoritar- ian’ forms of governance were kept intact. The UN executive authority allowed little room for local voices. At the same time, Timorese leaders shared ‘indigenous’ authoritarian traits and some maintained a ‘resist- ance’ mentality. In fact, such traits and mentality were upheld by the very approach used by the neo-trusteeship missions of the UN, as Timorese leaders continued to resist the usurpation of their sovereignty by the UN. In other words, the autocratic methodology of post-conflict inter- national peacebuilding contributed the emergence of a neo-authoritarian regime in Timor-Leste.

Featured Image

Photo by James Tay on Unsplash

Photo by James Tay on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This book assesses the extent to which an emphasis on national security and prioritization of state interests has dominated governance policy-making in Northeast and Southeast Asia, at the expense of human security, human development, and human rights. The findings are that in many cases, there are embedded structural obstacles to achieving human-centered governance objectives in the region. These relate to the role of the military, historical authoritarian legacies, and new authoritarian trends. Contributors examine not only the most obvious instances of military domination of governance in the region (North Korea with its “Military First” philosophy, Thailand since the 2014 coup, and Myanmar with its long history of military rule), but also less well known examples of the influence of conflict legacies upon governance in Cambodia, Timor-Leste, and Laos, as well as the emergence of new reservoirs of power and resources for the forces of authoritarianism.

Perspectives