PDF Democracy Rights and Rhetoric in Southeast Asia Avery Poole Ebook Full Chapter

Democracy Rights and Rhetoric in
Southeast Asia Avery Poole

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/democracy-rights-and-rhetoric-in-southeast-asia-aver
y-poole/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Regionalizing Global Human Rights Norms in Southeast

Asia Dwi Ardhanariswari Sundrijo
https://textbookfull.com/product/regionalizing-global-human-
rights-norms-in-southeast-asia-dwi-ardhanariswari-sundrijo/
The Postcolonial Moment in South and Southeast Asia

Gyan Prakash
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-postcolonial-moment-in-
south-and-southeast-asia-gyan-prakash/
Climate Change in Southeast Asia and Surrounding Areas

Song Yang
https://textbookfull.com/product/climate-change-in-southeast-
asia-and-surrounding-areas-song-yang/
Populism in Southeast Asia 1st Edition Paul D. Kenny
https://textbookfull.com/product/populism-in-southeast-asia-1st-
edition-paul-d-kenny/
Environmental Resources Use and Challenges in
Contemporary Southeast Asia Mario Ivan Lopez
https://textbookfull.com/product/environmental-resources-use-and-
challenges-in-contemporary-southeast-asia-mario-ivan-lopez/
Southeast Asia and the ASEAN Economic Community

Roderick Macdonald
https://textbookfull.com/product/southeast-asia-and-the-asean-
economic-community-roderick-macdonald/
Popular Music in Southeast Asia Banal Beats Muted

Histories Bart Barendregt
https://textbookfull.com/product/popular-music-in-southeast-asia-
banal-beats-muted-histories-bart-barendregt/
Cultural and Civilisational Links between India and

Southeast Asia Shyam Saran
https://textbookfull.com/product/cultural-and-civilisational-
links-between-india-and-southeast-asia-shyam-saran/
Development of Tourism and the Hospitality Industry in

Southeast Asia 1st Edition Purnendu Mandal
https://textbookfull.com/product/development-of-tourism-and-the-
hospitality-industry-in-southeast-asia-1st-edition-purnendu-
mandal/
THE THEORIES, CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES OF DEMOCRACY
SERIES EDITORS: JEAN-PAUL GAGNON · MARK CHOU
Democracy,
Rights and Rhetoric
in Southeast Asia
av e ry p o ol e
The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy
Series Editors
Jean-Paul Gagnon
University of Canberra
Canberra, VIC, Australia
Mark Chou
Australian Catholic University
Fitzroy, VIC, Australia
There are many types of democracies and many types of democrats.
Though contemporary Western scholars and practitioners of democracy
have tended to repeat a particular set of narratives and discourses, recent
research shows us that there are in fact hundreds of different adjec-
tives of democracy. What one theorist, political leader or nation invokes
as democracy, others may label as something altogether different. Part
of this has to do with the political nature of democracy. As a practice
and concept, it is always contested. Yet instead of exploring these dif-
ferences and ambiguities, many democrats today retreat to the well-
worn definitions and practices made popular by Western powers in the
twentieth-century.
The aim of this book series is to engage and explore democracy’s
many articulations. It seeks contributions which critically define, analyse
and organise the many theories, concepts and practices that encompass
democracy in all its forms. Both theoretical and empirical treatments of
democracy, particularly when told from less conventional or more mar-
ginal perspectives, are especially encouraged.
More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14410
Avery Poole
Democracy, Rights
and Rhetoric
in Southeast Asia
Avery Poole
Australia and New Zealand School
of Government (ANZSOG)
Carlton, VIC, Australia
The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy

ISBN 978-3-030-15521-6 ISBN 978-3-030-15522-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15522-3
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Edan and Aren.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Associate Professor Mark Chou and Dr. Jean-Paul
Gagnon, editors of the Palgrave Studies in the Theories, Concepts and
Practices in Democracy series, and Ambra Finotello and Anne-Kathrin
Birchley-Brun at Palgrave Macmillan, for the opportunity to write this
book. I am grateful to various colleagues and mentors for their advice,
feedback, encouragement and good company. There are too many to
name but I would like to single out Professor Janine O’Flynn, Professor
Helen Sullivan, Professor Brian Job, Associate Professor Catherine
Althaus, Dr. Lesley Pruitt, Dr. Sara Bice, Dr. Kate Neely and (almost
Dr.!) Colette Einfeld.
I also thank the Melbourne School of Government at The University of
Melbourne for the financial support to complete the book, and—crucially—
Georgina Dimopoulos, for being an amazingly meticulous, astute and cheer-
ful research assistant. My new colleagues at the Australia and New Zealand
School of Government (ANZSOG) have been so welcoming and encour-
aging during the final stages. And as always, thank you to Riley Fitzpatrick,
Pamela Whiting, Hilary Skidmore and Diana Poole. I couldn’t do any of
this without your support.
vii
Contents
1 Conceptions of Democracy and Human Rights in

Southeast Asia 1
2 Democracy in Rhetoric and Reality 19
3 Human Rights and Regional Institutions 45
4 Conclusions: Liberal Norms and the Role of Regional

Organisations 67
Index 79
ix
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Categorisation of regimes in Southeast Asian states 25

Table 3.1 Measuring human rights in Southeast Asia 48
xi
CHAPTER 1
Conceptions of Democracy and Human

Rights in Southeast Asia
Abstract Southeast Asia is a vast, populous and diverse region. The

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) aims to provide
regional order and a basis for economic and security cooperation. It pro-
motes democracy and human rights as central to this order. However,
most ASEAN members are not democratic and have poor or question-
able human rights records. Moreover, ASEAN has traditionally treated
democracy and human rights as sensitive issues to be omitted from
regional dialogue. This chapter introduces the key question of why and
how political elites—member state representatives—in a regional insti-
tutional context construct a particular rhetoric around democracy and
human rights. It explores this rhetoric in the context of the objectives
of ASEAN regionalism and the domestic political contexts of individual
member states.
Keywords Southeast Asia · ASEAN · Democracy · Human rights ·

Regionalism
In September 2007, as ASEAN was drafting its first Charter, thousands

of Buddhist monks and members of the public marched in downtown
Yangon in a show of opposition to Myanmar’s ruling military junta. The
crackdown was swift and brutal; monks were beaten and detained, mon-
asteries were raided, and riot police used tear gas and live ammunition on
© The Author(s) 2019 1

A. Poole, Democracy, Rights and Rhetoric in Southeast
Asia, The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15522-3_1
2 A. POOLE
the crowds. The official death toll was fifteen, but many observers believe
that far more were killed. International condemnation followed, and
many observers criticised ASEAN for not doing more about the political
situation in its problematic member state (e.g. Davies 2012).
ASEAN had been reluctant during the previous decade (following
Myanmar’s admission as a member in 1997) to exert more pressure on
the junta to ease its repressive tactics. However, following the September
2007 incident, ASEAN leaders were uncharacteristically outspoken.
Then ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong acknowledged that
‘[t]he world is outraged after the shooting of monks by soldiers’ (quoted
in De Clercq 2007). George Yeo, then Foreign Minister of Singapore
(which was the ASEAN Chair that year), claimed that he and the other
ASEAN foreign ministers felt ‘revulsion’ and were ‘appalled’ at reports
of automatic weapons being used against demonstrators (Ministry of
Foreign Affairs 2007). This was significant; by being openly critical, the
Foreign Ministers challenged the ASEAN norm of ‘non-interference
in the internal affairs of one another’ (ASEAN 1976, art. 2(c)). Two
months later, in November 2007, the ASEAN Charter was adopted.
It included multiple references to democracy and human rights as core
principles and purposes of the organisation, and stated that ASEAN
would create a regional human rights commission. This was despite the
fact that most member states are not democratic, and only half have
national human rights commissions.
This book traces the processes through which the ten ASEAN mem-
ber countries (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,
Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) agreed
to promote the liberal norms of democracy and human rights. These
norms have now become standard references in ASEAN rhetoric. The
book argues that the leaders of these ten countries are particularly con-
cerned about appearances—about the way ASEAN is perceived by the
outside world. Some countries, such as Indonesia and Singapore, seek to
project the image of liberal democracies and good global citizens—and
they want ASEAN, as a regional organisation which represents them, to
embody this image.
More broadly, the book argues that regional norms are shaped by
competing perceptions of legitimacy. Legitimacy refers here to the social
judgments of an entity as appropriate, proper or desirable, within a par-
ticular institutional environment (Coleman 2007, 21; Suchman 1995,
574). ASEAN rhetoric is shaped by political elites’ perceptions of how
1 CONCEPTIONS OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA 3
those outside the region (including states and interstate organisations)

view the legitimacy of the regional organisation and its norms; the book
refers to this as external regional legitimacy (ERL). Thus, for example,
the international outrage over Myanmar’s crackdown on protesting
monks brought ASEAN’s concerns about ERL into sharp relief, as indi-
cated by Yeo’s statement above. These concerns influenced the member
states’ decision to establish a regional human rights body, which they
believed would be an important mechanism to improve the legitimacy of
ASEAN and its norms, as perceived by extra-regional actors.
ASEAN member states agreed to democracy and human rights as key
regional principles. But their acceptance of this rhetoric is not necessarily
evidence of the internalisation of democracy and human rights norms;
rather, it is driven by their perceptions of legitimacy, and concerns about
the reputation, credibility and image of ASEAN. State leaders have var-
ying understandings of the meanings of democracy and human rights,
and discussion about these meanings is assiduously avoided in ASEAN
dialogue. The references to democracy and human rights in ASEAN
statements and key documents such as the Charter are construed
broadly—as agreed-upon aspirations or objectives. This makes it easier to
achieve consensus (which is required in ASEAN decision-making) about
the need to employ this rhetoric.
It also enables member states to participate in the institutionalisa-
tion of human rights. ASEAN members have agreed to several human
rights initiatives since the adoption of the Charter; they established the
ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights in 2009
and the ASEAN Commission on the Rights of Women and Children in
2010. They also adopted the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and
Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers in 2007, and the ASEAN
Human Rights Declaration in 2012. However, the norm of deci-
sion-making by consensus means that member states are able to agree
to the institutionalisation of human rights at the regional level, without
making any particular promises to undertake domestic reform, or being
concerned that their human rights records will be closely scrutinised.
Thus, the extent to which these liberal norms of democracy and
human rights reflect the realities of domestic politics and societies is open
to question. Myanmar is certainly not the only ASEAN member state
with a poor human rights record—in fact, most members have been crit-
icised in regard to human rights by international organisations such as
Human Rights Watch and Freedom House, and by governments of states
4 A. POOLE
outside the region. Moreover, democracy is absent or struggling in most

Southeast Asian states; there is much evidence of backsliding (retreating
from or eliminating democratic rule: Bermeo 2016) in the region. The
academic literature on democratisation tends to assume that democracy
spreads and has universal appeal, and that once a democratic transition
occurs, a state will make linear progress towards consolidated democracy
(e.g. Diamond 1999; Linz and Stepan 1996). However, the Southeast
Asian experience challenges these assumptions, making it a fascinating
case study for exploring the appearance of the adoption of liberal norms.
The adoption of democracy and human rights as key principles
of ASEAN presents a critical puzzle. Liberal rhetoric in ASEAN raises
questions about the centrality of language to reputation, legitimacy
and public acceptance of regimes. This book interrogates that rhetoric,
and critically analyses the implications for our understanding of politics
and regionalism in Southeast Asia and other parts of the world. The
fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of ASEAN in 2017 renewed
interest in the debate about what ASEAN has achieved, and the role
it plays as a representative of its member states and as an international
actor. There is a clear tension between ASEAN’s aspirational language
in regard to democracy and human rights, and the backsliding of both
democracy and human rights in the region.
Regional organisations are commonly seen as focused on facilitating
integration among their member states. ASEAN is an interesting case in
that it was motivated by policy coordination in the interests of stability and
economic prosperity, but not necessarily integration. As such, it was con-
sciously designed in a manner distinct from the European Union (EU), the
most highly institutionalised and legalised regional organisation, and also
the most extensively studied by regionalism scholars. The integration pro-
ject conceptualised in post-war Europe required far more common ground
in regard to domestic governance. As such, the so-called Copenhagen
Criteria for admission to EU membership require states to be liberal
democracies with market economies and good human rights records.
In contrast, ASEAN’s membership criteria do not refer to any particu-
lar regime type; they refer only to the need to be located in Southeast
Asia and to accept the obligations of membership as set out in the
ASEAN Charter. The norm of non-interference traditionally entails that
member states refrain from criticising, or even publicly commenting on,
each other’s domestic affairs; this reflects the motivation at the time of
ASEAN’s founding (in 1967) to stay out of each other’s state-building
projects. The locus of decision-making resides with the individual mem-

ber states, particularly their foreign ministries. ASEAN is a forum for
consultation and negotiation more than a collective actor.
In more recent years, the non-interference norm has been challenged,
particularly by humanitarian crises (e.g. the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar),
which have provoked international criticism of ASEAN’s role vis-à-
vis its member states. ASEAN has also been forming plans to become
a ‘rules-based’ organisation, and thus (ostensibly) more institutionalised
(Goldstein et al. 2000, 387). Some scholars argue that ‘rhetoric-action
gaps’ are typical of ASEAN (e.g. Collins 2013); the question thus arises
whether ASEAN really is moving towards increased scrutiny of members’
domestic affairs. Even where regional declarations and statements may
appear to lack weight, might the gap between rhetoric and action narrow
over time?
Analytical Framework: Norms and Legitimacy

ASEAN’s low levels of institutionalisation make it a fascinating case
for the study of regional cooperation. Institutionalisation refers to the
degree to which rules regulate (or attempt to regulate) the behaviour
of actors. ASEAN has traditionally emphasised norms rather than rules,
in accordance with the conscious decision of the founding member
states (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand)
to eschew the formal style of regional organisation represented by the
EU and other ‘legalistic’ organisations (Kahler 2000, 549). Norms—
expectations of behaviour for actors with a given identity (Finnemore
and Sikkink 1998, 891)—are complex objects of study. They are con-
tested and dynamic, evolving over time. The study of norms thus poses a
methodological challenge; a significant body of scholarship explores diffi-
cult questions such as how does one identify norms, how do they evolve,
and which norms ‘matter’ (e.g. Acharya 2004; Finnemore and Sikkink
1998; Legro 1997)?
In order to examine the empirical puzzle of the adoption of rheto-
ric related to liberal norms, this book refers to normative statements:
the rhetorical adoption of norms in official texts. Member states
may agree to make a normative statement even if the relevant norm
(e.g. democracy) has not been ‘internalised’. In contrast, the term nor-
mative standard is used to refer to the aforementioned common under-
standing of a norm in international relations scholarship: a standard
6 A. POOLE
or expectation of behaviour for actors with a given identity. This

framework allows us to take into account the gradation of norms. As
Acharya (2006, 99) notes, normative change is likely to be ‘an incre-
mental, evolutionary dynamic’ rather than a ‘dramatic, revolutionary
transformation’.
While cases of significant or fundamental normative change are
appealing to study (e.g. Price 1997; Tannenwald 2007), we should also
examine a broader range of types of normative change. This contrib-
utes to part of the theoretical story; as Legro (1997, 34) notes, ‘why
norms did not emerge or were not consequential is as important as why
they did or were’. This book argues that a useful framework for studying
ASEAN is yet more nuanced; the concepts of normative statements and
normative standards help us to identify and analyse a range of outcomes.
This is particularly appropriate for ASEAN, which is characterised by
gradual institutional change, reflecting the ‘ASEAN Way’, which ‘stresses
patience, evolution, informality, pragmatism, and consensus’ (Capie and
Evans 2007, 9). The ASEAN Way norms include consensus, consultation
and ‘moving at a pace comfortable to all’, which means ‘advancing as
fast, or as slowly, as the most reluctant or least confident member allows’
(Severino 2006, 18). Traditionally, member states have preferred caution
and gradualism; this explains the ‘relative rarity of legally binding agree-
ments in ASEAN’ (Severino 2006, 18).
It is difficult to fathom how progress could be made in regard to
adopting norms of democracy and human rights in a regional organi-
sation which emphasises gradualism and incremental change ‘at a pace
comfortable to all’. The empirical puzzle in regard to ASEAN provides
a case study of the emergence and evolution of norms in a regional insti-
tutional context. The fact that democracy and human rights became
‘standard reference[s] in ASEAN rhetoric’ (Emmerson 2005, 180) indi-
cates that this empirical case is worthy of analysis. Even if these princi-
ples do not amount initially to more than normative statements, this is
still potentially an interesting and important finding, in part because of
the possible trajectory. For example, the central argument of Thomas’s
(2001, 3) book is that
repressive states agree to be bound by human rights norms in the belief

that they can gain international legitimacy without substantial compliance,
and that this “empty” commitment nonetheless promotes local, transna-
tional, and interstate processes that undermine continued repression.
The processes through which ideas are proposed, advanced, adopted

and/or internalised must therefore be carefully examined, and the
researcher open to a range of possible outcomes and theoretical and
empirical implications.
This book seeks to keep agency in the framework. Rather than devis-
ing grand hypotheses about structural conditions (e.g. that democratic
rule in a member state leads to that state’s promotion of democracy as
a regional norm), it highlights that key individuals, decisions and events
are crucial in the shaping of regional norms. As Finnemore and Sikkink
(1998, 896) point out: ‘Norms do not appear out of thin air. They are
actively built by agents having strong notions about appropriate or desir-
able behavior in their community’. These agents, or norm entrepreneurs,
propose and advance an idea, to which member states may eventually
refer in a normative statement. This may be motivated by changes in the
domestic political context of a member state or states which lead its rep-
resentatives to advance certain ideas in official dialogue, and (possibly)
to the formulation of a new normative statement by the regional organ-
isation. Another possibility is that external criticism and/or pressure in
regard to a particular issue, such as human rights, motivates an organi-
sation to make a normative statement. This book will examine empirical
evidence to test these hypotheses.
When a regional organisation makes a normative statement, a change
in behaviour may occur which indicates that the idea has become a nor-
mative standard. For example, a normative statement may represent an
aspirational goal which is later achieved, that is, there is internalisation
of a particular norm or standard of behaviour. However, a change in
behaviour may not follow a normative statement; the significance of the
normative statement is thus an empirical question. For example, why did
ASEAN members agree to adopt normative statements about democracy
and human rights, and what are the implications of doing so? Critically
analysing the context in which normative statements are made—the pro-
cesses through which they are advanced, negotiated and agreed upon—is
an important step towards developing better theoretical accounts of the
emergence and evolution of norms.
Legitimacy is a particularly useful concept in this exercise. As noted,
in this book, legitimacy refers to social judgments of particular entities
as appropriate, proper or desirable (Coleman 2007, 21; Suchman 1995,
574). This book emphasises the importance of perceptions of actors both
within and, in particular, outside a regional organisation. It argues that
8 A. POOLE
ERL—member states’ interpretations of the legitimacy of ASEAN and

its norms, as perceived by those outside the region—has been crucial
in shaping the decisions to adopt particular rhetoric around democracy
and human rights. ERL is the degree to which member states believe the
regional organisation is seen by outsiders (e.g. other states, state repre-
sentatives, transnational non-governmental organisations) as a proper
and appropriate representative of its member states and as a participant
in the so-called international community. As Ba (2013, 139) notes, the
external validation conferred by ‘materially capable and normatively pow-
erful’ states and organisations is the key source of external legitimacy for
‘non-core’ regional organisations such as ASEAN. Of key concern here
is how this external validation is perceived by ASEAN member states and
their representatives.
Member states generally want regional organisations to appear legit-
imate to actors outside the region because they want to engage with
materially significant external actors (e.g. in trade agreements and secu-
rity arrangements) and to wield influence beyond the regional context.
The external states and organisations which shape ASEAN perceptions of
ERL include ASEAN’s key economic and/or security partners, such as
the United States (US), the EU, the International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank. ASEAN officials are aware of the dominant discourse
on liberal democracy, and the potential material benefits that come
from engaging with this discourse. ASEAN member states make norma-
tive statements because they want to appear to be advancing democracy
and human rights norms—but they do not necessarily want to advance
democracy and human rights as normative standards.
Examining legitimacy helps us to understand this complex environ-
ment of normative contestation. There are tensions between and among
interpretations of norms by members of a given community—particularly
as new ideas are advanced, debated and negotiated. Normative contesta-
tion is particularly likely in a situation of political, cultural and historical
diversity, such as ASEAN. As Finnemore and Sikkink (1998, 897) point
out, ‘new norms never enter a normative vacuum but instead emerge in
a highly contested normative space where they must compete with other
norms and perceptions of interest’. These other norms and perceptions
of interest exist among any group of states because, as Thomas (2001,
14) observes, ‘every state … has multiple identities, and is beholden to
multiple standards of appropriate behaviour’. States in Southeast Asia
are particularly diverse, and certainly can be described as having multiple

identities. Legitimacy is thus a useful concept in the analysis of empirical
evidence in a crowded normative space.
Moreover, legitimacy is a particularly useful concept in a thinly insti-
tutionalised environment such as ASEAN because perceptions and beliefs
of relevant actors—here, member states—are particularly important
given the lack of formal, explicit rules. Studying legitimacy allows us to
gain a more complex understanding of member states’ perceptions of
the importance of the regional organisation vis-à-vis their own domestic
political circumstances, and their visions of the organisation’s role in the
future. Moreover, this book argues that ERL is the key to understanding
democracy and human rights in ASEAN. As Ba (2013, 139) points out,
‘non-core regional organizations tend to be much more aware that com-
munities exist outside their memberships and moreover the judgements
of these communities affect both their material and normative standing
in world politics’. External recognition, criticism and expectations are
key to ASEAN’s sense of itself. This has been particularly the case since
the Asian economic crisis of 1997–1998, which ‘created the international
perception that ASEAN, and its member states, were economically weak,
disunited, and politically unreliable’ (Narine 2018, 48). Perceptions of
ERL have been shaped by criticism of ASEAN from outside the region.
It will be evident that the approach of this book—exploring the pro-
cesses of the social construction of norms—is influenced by constructivist
approaches to international relations scholarship. However, it also recog-
nises the relevance of both neoliberal institutionalist and English School
insights for this project. For constructivists, taking a more sociological
perspective, international organisations may represent the convergence of
norms and values through interaction among states and other actors over
time (e.g. Wendt 1999; Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). Neoliberal insti-
tutionalist approaches tend to focus more on the role of international
organisations in facilitating, and lowering the transaction costs of, coop-
eration which is designed to enable the pursuit of positive-sum gains for
states (e.g. Keohane 1988).
Undertaking a study of the interaction of states in a regional insti-
tutional context presupposes that international organisations—here,
regional organisations—matter. Rather than existing solely to reduce the
transaction costs of cooperation, such organisations can ‘create senses
10 A. POOLE
of community and belonging beyond the nation state’ (Checkel 2007,

vii). However, the convergence of norms and values in a regional organ-
isation should not be assumed; it is an empirical question. From the
perspective of English School scholars with a thin conception of interna-
tional society, a ‘deep normative consensus is extremely unlikely among
the diverse and often deeply divided states of contemporary international
society’ (Coleman 2007, 33). Regional organisations will not necessar-
ily fulfil ‘the obligation to go beyond the limitations of each member
state … to bring about a culture of mutually recognised values and
rules … [and] to rise above states’ narrow and self-interested outlook’
(Coicaud 2001, 523).
While organisations may be motivated to establish rules and agree-
ments to facilitate interaction, this book argues that they do not nec-
essarily become bigger than the sum of their parts, or more significant
actors in their own right, over time. Scholars should ask causal ques-
tions about whether organisations do promote norms. This debate is
particularly interesting in regard to the notion of regional organisations
playing a key role in advancing liberal norms—democracy and human
rights—across the world (e.g. Pevehouse 2005). We know that there are
significant differences between and among the major intergovernmen-
tal regional entities—ASEAN, the EU, the Organisational of American
States, the African Union and the League of Arab States—in terms of
institutional design and mandates. The degree of diversity of member-
ship also varies, in part by design (e.g. the aforementioned differences
between the EU’s and ASEAN’s admission criteria). As such, it is very
difficult to make general statements about the propensity and/or capac-
ity of regional organisations to play an important role in advancing lib-
eral norms.
The inclusion of new principles and objectives in the official state-
ments of a regional organisation seems a prima facie indication that
new standards of appropriate behaviour—normative standards—have
emerged. However, the particular meaning, content, and behavioural
and procedural implications of such standards remain empirical ques-
tions to be explored, rather than assumed. Further, and importantly, the
answers to these questions evolve over time. This book now explores
the emergence and evolution of ASEAN norms in more depth, and
the empirical puzzle that arises in this context in regard to democracy
(Chapter 2) and human rights (Chapter 3).
The Emergence and Evolution of ASEAN Norms

ASEAN was established in 1967 upon the signing of the Bangkok
Declaration by five states (Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, the
Philippines and Thailand) keen to protect sovereignty and support
mutual state-building efforts. These states wanted to pursue regional sta-
bility following several bilateral disagreements, most notably Konfrontasi
(Confrontation), a coercive strategy adopted by Indonesia’s President
Sukarno against the newly independent Malaysian state between 1963
and 1966. The subsequent Suharto regime’s termination of Konfrontasi
served as a model for a regional order based on the principle of non-
use of force (Acharya 2009, 58). The founding members of ASEAN
were also concerned about internal stability; they were newly independ-
ent (with the exception of Thailand, which had not been colonised) and
faced ethnic secessionist demands and communist insurgencies, threaten-
ing territorial integrity and regime security (Collins 2003, 128). As such,
they had mutual interests in nation-building, and agreed to respect each
other’s independence and sovereignty, and to refrain from ‘interfering’
in each other’s internal affairs. Domestic governance was not to be dis-
cussed, at least in official ASEAN dialogue.
The founding member states were also motivated by the poten-
tial benefits from regional economic cooperation, and by their concern
about the role of the so-called Great Powers (particularly China, the US
and the Soviet Union) in the region. Regionalism was seen as a way to
coordinate policy in the pursuit of security and prosperity (e.g. Acharya
2009, 62–64). Notwithstanding differences in perspectives on how best
to engage the Great Powers, the ASEAN members established the foun-
dations of a normative framework—one that was focused on fostering a
sense of regional resilience, and perhaps even regional identity.
ASEAN’s key norms, which provide a code of conduct for member
states, can be classified as constitutive and procedural. ASEAN’s constitu-
tive norms—which ‘create new actors, interests, or categories of action’
(Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, 891)—include respect for sovereignty
and territorial integrity; equality; non-interference; peaceful settlement
of disputes; the non-use of force; and inclusion. These norms are set
out in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), which was signed
at the First ASEAN Summit in 1976 (ASEAN 1976), and reflect the
Westphalian principles articulated by the United Nations (UN) Charter
12 A. POOLE
(UN 1945). They have since been reiterated in core ASEAN documents,
including the 2007 ASEAN Charter.
The norms of sovereignty and territorial integrity reflect ASEAN
member states’ agreement to respect each other’s borders and to treat
each other as sovereign states, each with exclusive rule over a delim-
ited territory. The members are self-governing political communities.
These norms, and the norm of non-interference in the internal affairs
of one another, are particularly relevant to debates about democracy and
human rights in ASEAN. ‘Non-interference’ for ASEAN entails that
domestic governance is excluded as a criterion of membership, and as a
topic for (official) dialogue. It also means that member states tradition-
ally have refrained from publicly criticising one another (Haacke 2005,
189; Katsumata 2004, 243). Acharya (2009, 72) describes the non-in-
terference principle as an agreement to refrain from
criticising the actions of a member government towards its own people,

including violation of human rights, and from making the domestic politi-
cal system of states and the political styles of governments a basis for decid-
ing their membership in ASEAN.
This reflects the founding states’ prioritisation of internal order and

regime security. Moreover, it refers to efforts, or a desire, to ‘[limit] the
drivers of domestic political change to events and actors inside state bor-
ders’ (Emmerson 2008, 24).
ASEAN’s procedural or regulative norms—which ‘order and con-
strain behaviour’ (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, 891) and regulate
decision-making—include the ASEAN Way norms of decision-making by
consensus; informality and non-binding commitments; pragmatism; and
moving at ‘a pace comfortable to all’. Member states traditionally have
rejected what they see as an overly formal style of Western institutional
structures, and instead favour a private and informal political culture
embodied by small elite networks. Members are spared the embarrass-
ment of dissent, through closed-door dialogue that precedes formal
meetings (Acharya 2009, 82–83). The ASEAN Way provides a code of
conduct for member states; they focus on accommodation and consulta-
tion, and prefer ‘non-binding commitments rather than legalistic formu-
lae and codified rules’ (Capie and Evans 2007, 11). These norms allow
ASEAN, whose members have significant political diversity, to ‘hang
together’ (Ruggie 1998).
Final decisions are officially made by consensus—although it should

be noted that ‘consensus’ in ASEAN decision-making is not the same
as unanimity (Capie and Evans 2007, 14). The late Ali Alatas, former
Foreign Minister of Indonesia, described consensus as finding a way of
‘moving forward by establishing what seems to have been broad sup-
port’ (quoted in Acharya 1997, 331). Not all member states may agree
entirely with a particular measure, but they ‘agree to disagree’ with the
other members and, importantly, to keep their dissent private. This
is sometimes referred to as the ‘Ten minus X’ (or ‘ASEAN minus X’)
formula, or ‘flexible consensus’ (which is generally understood as to be
used only in relation to economic matters, and not fundamental secu-
rity or political decisions) (Capie and Evans 2007, 132). The idea is that
if a member state does not agree with a particular decision, but is not
affected by it, the member should refrain from voting against it, and
should instead abstain from voting.
The Ten minus X formula is relevant to the analysis of the adoption
of references to democracy and human rights. Any discussion or debate
about whether ASEAN should adopt these references, and the implica-
tions of doing so, has been conducted privately. Member states presented
a united front in their assertion in the 2007 Charter that one of the pur-
poses of ASEAN is
To strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law,

and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms,
with due regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Member States of
ASEAN. (ASEAN 2007, art. 1(7))
However, as Gomez and Ramcharan (2014, 4) note, there is ‘discord

within ASEAN over the pursuit of the liberal democratic form of govern-
ance’ and ‘over the substantive content of fundamental human rights’.
There is a gap between rhetoric and reality of divergent visions for
ASEAN’s role (Poole 2009).
Why do ASEAN leaders engage in rhetoric about democracy and
human rights? One could argue that, at the time that the Charter was
signed (in November 2007), there was reason to be cautiously optimistic
about democratic change in at least some countries in the region. These
developments seemed to ‘bode well for the advancement of the rule
of law and fundamental human rights’ (Gomez and Ramcharan 2014,
5). However, while regime transitions in the 1980s and 1990s spurred
14 A. POOLE
optimism about a potential ‘wave’ of democratisation in Southeast Asia,

this has been undermined in more recent years. Questions are being
raised about the promises of democracy, in Southeast Asia and else-
where. For example, the reforms in Myanmar which began in 2010
raised hopes about effective recognition of the National League for
Democracy (NLD’s) 1990 election victory and improved political, social
and economic conditions for the people of Myanmar. While much has
indeed changed, the military retains a significant influence in Myanmar
politics, and the NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi has, for many, failed to
adequately address human rights violations (particularly in regard to the
Rohingya Muslims and other persecuted minority groups).
In the Philippines—widely seen as one of the more democratic states
in Southeast Asia—President Rodrigo Duterte’s brutal ‘war on drugs’
is raising the spectre of a return to ‘strong man’ rule. And in Thailand,
democratic transition in 1991–1992 was followed by intermittent insta-
bility and multiple coups, and at the time of writing, the country is
under martial law. Even in Indonesia—frequently referred to as the ‘most
democratic’ state in Southeast Asia—President Jokowi has claimed that
democracy ‘has gone too far’ (quoted in Fitri and Halim 2017), and
threats to democracy (such as violence driven by religious intolerance)
appear to be on the rise.
Thus, democratic and human rights rhetoric is quite different to polit-
ical reality. The meaning of democracy, and the interpretation and fram-
ing of what it means to live in a democratic society, vary significantly.
Leaders and officials can frame democracy in different ways, and state-
ments made by Southeast Asian leaders do not necessarily reflect their
positions in ASEAN dialogue. Chapter 2 engages more deeply with this
debate by critically analysing ASEAN’s references to democracy, and the
tension between ASEAN’s aspirational language in regard to democ-
racy and the backsliding in several of its member states. Chapter 3 then
explores ASEAN’s adoption of references to human rights, and in par-
ticular the contentious decision to establish an ASEAN human rights
body. Chapter 4 concludes and considers what the case of ASEAN tells
us about relations among diverse states in a regional organisation, and
the implications of adopting liberal rhetoric for their political futures.
This book draws on evidence from a range of sources to support
the argument that member states are motivated to promote a collec-
tive ASEAN identity as a legitimate organisation in the international
community. This evidence includes interviews conducted by the author
with officials from foreign ministries in ASEAN member states; indi-

viduals from research institutes, think tanks and universities in the
region; ASEAN Secretariat officials; and other diplomats, bureaucrats
and researchers. The book also draws on ASEAN statements, declara-
tions and press releases, which are available on its website; articles from
newspapers in ASEAN member states; analyses and commentaries from
research institutes; and academic journal articles and books.
The case of ASEAN is important because it challenges the assump-
tions that democracy is an ideal type towards which regimes will often
move after an initial democratic transition. The inclusion of democracy
in standard ASEAN rhetoric may lead us to assume progress among
Southeast Asian states towards the ostensibly desirable endpoint of lib-
eral democracy—despite the empirical evidence of backsliding among
democratising states and/or the persistence of undemocratic regimes.
Recognition of this assumption is important in the examination of the
context in which member states of a regional organisation agree to
adopt the rhetoric of democracy and human rights at the regional level.
Regional institutional change may shape state behaviour (Pevehouse
2005), but it cannot be assumed that states are more likely to embrace
liberal democratic principles because of the adoption of regional norms.
References
Acharya, Amitav. 1997. “Ideas, Identity, and Institution-Building: From the
ASEAN Way to the Asia-Pacific Way?” Pacific Review 10, no. 3: 319–346.
Acharya, Amitav. 2004. “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm
Localization and International Change in Asian Regionalism.” International
Organization 58, no. 2 (Spring): 239–275.
Acharya, Amitav. 2006. “Multilateralism, Sovereignty and Normative Change
in World Politics.” In Multilateralism Under Challenge? Power, International
Order, and Structural Change, edited by Edward Newman, Ramesh Thakur,
and John Tirman, 95–118. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Acharya, Amitav. 2009. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia:
ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge.
ASEAN. 1976. Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. Bali,
Indonesia, February 24, 1976. http://asean.org/treaty-amity-cooperation-
southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976/.
ASEAN. 2007. Charter of the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations.
Singapore, November 20, 2007. http://www.aseansec.org/21069.pdf.
16 A. POOLE
Ba, Alice D. 2013. “The Association of Southeast Asian Nations: Between

Internal and External Legitimacy.” In Legitimating International
Organizations, edited by Dominik Zaum, 132–161. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bermeo, Nancy. 2016. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy 27,
no. 1 (January): 5–19.
Capie, David, and Paul Evans. 2007. The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon.
Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 2007. International Institutions and Socialization in Europe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coicaud, Jean-Marc. 2001. “Conclusion: International Organizations, the
Evolution of International Politics, and Legitimacy.” In The Legitimacy of
International Organizations, edited by Jean-Marc Coicaud and Veijo Aulis
Heishanen, 519–552. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Coleman, Katharina. 2007. International Organisations and Peace Enforcement:
The Politics of International Legitimacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Collins, Alan. 2003. Security and Southeast Asia: Domestic, Regional, and Global
Issues. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Collins, Alan. 2013. Building a People-Oriented Security Community the ASEAN
Way. London: Routledge.
Davies, Mathew. 2012. “The Perils of Incoherence: ASEAN, Myanmar and the
Avoidable Failures of Human Rights Socialization?” Contemporary Southeast
Asia 34, no. 1 (April): 1–22.
De Clercq, Geert. 2007. “Myanmar Set to Sign ASEAN Rights Charter.”
Reuters, November 17, 2007. https://www.reuters.com/article/
us-asean-myanmar-idUSSIN624520071117.
Diamond, Larry. 1999. Developing Democracy: Towards Consolidation. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Emmerson, Donald K. 2005. “Security, Community, and Democracy in
Southeast Asia: Analyzing ASEAN.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 6,
no. 2 (August): 165–185.
Emmerson, Donald K. 2008. “Critical Terms: Security, Democracy and
Regionalism in Southeast Asia.” In Hard Choices: Security, Democracy
and Regionalism in Southeast Asia, edited by Donald K. Emmerson, 3–58.
Stanford, CA: Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.
Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics
and Political Change.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (Autumn):
887–917.
Fitri, Nurul, and Haeril Halim. 2017. “Democracy ‘Gone Too Far’: Jokowi.”
The Jakarta Post, June 7, 2017. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/
2017/02/23/democracy-gone-too-far-jokowi.html.
Goldstein, Judith, Miles Kahler, Robert O. Keohane, and Anne-Marie Slaughter.

2000. “Introduction: Legalization and World Politics.” International
Organization 54, no. 3 (Summer): 385–399.
Gomez, James, and Robin Ramcharan. 2014. “Introduction: Democracy and
Human Rights in Southeast Asia.” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs
33, no. 3: 3–17.
Haacke, Jürgen. 2005. “‘Enhanced Interaction’ with Myanmar and the
Project of a Security Community: Is ASEAN Refining or Breaking with Its
Diplomatic and Security Culture?” Contemporary Southeast Asia 27, no. 2
(August): 188–216.
Kahler, Miles. 2000. “Legalization as Strategy: The Asia-Pacific Case.”
International Organization 54, no. 3 (Summer): 549–571.
Katsumata, Hiro. 2004. “Why Is ASEAN Diplomacy Changing? From ‘Non-
interference’ to ‘Open and Frank Discussions’.” Asian Survey 44, no. 2
(March/April): 237–254.
Keohane, Robert O. 1988. “International Institutions—Two Approaches.”
International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (December): 379–396.
Legro, Jeffrey W. 1997. “Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the ‘Failure’ of
Internationalism.” International Organization 51, no. 1 (Winter): 31–63.
Linz, Juan, and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and
Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and Post-communist Europe.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore. 2007. “Statement by ASEAN Chair,
Singapore’s Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo in New York.” September
27, 2007. https://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/overseasmission/washing-
ton/newsroom/press_statements/2007/200709/press_200709_03.html.
Narine, Shaun. 2018. The New ASEAN in Asia Pacific and Beyond. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner.
Pevehouse, Jon C. 2005. Democracy from Above: Regional Organizations and
Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Poole, Avery D. H. 2009. “Visions and Realities: ASEAN’s Efforts to
Institutionalize Cooperation.” In Collaboration Under Anarchy: Functional
Regionalism and the Security of East Asia, edited by See Seng Tan, 63–75.
RSIS Monograph No. 15. Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies.
Price, Richard M. 1997. The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1998. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-
Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge.” International
Organization 52, no. 4 (Autumn): 855–885.
Severino, Rodolfo C. 2006. Southeast Asia in Search of a Community. Singapore:
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
18 A. POOLE
Suchman, Mark C. 1995. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional

Approaches.” Academy of Management Review 20, no. 3 (July): 571–610.
Tannenwald, Nina. 2007. The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-use
of Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, Daniel C. 2001. The Helsinki Effect: International Norms, Human
Rights, and the Demise of Communism. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press.
United Nations. 1945. Charter of the United Nations. San Francisco, June 26,
1945. 1 UNTS XVI (Entered into Force on October 24, 1945). http://
www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml.
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
CHAPTER 2
Democracy in Rhetoric and Reality
Abstract Why have references to democracy become standard in the

rhetoric of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)? This
chapter explores the development of references to democracy in ASEAN,
and the positions of member states in the context of their domestic
political circumstances. It argues that ASEAN statements on democ-

racy are not underpinned by a uniform approach to, or understanding
of, democracy. Rather, there are many diverse views. Some member
state representatives want to see a regional role for ASEAN in regard to
democracy, while others are concerned about the potential challenges to
sovereignty and non-interference norms. However, even non-democratic
regimes recognise the legitimacy conferred by the term ‘democracy’ as a
rhetorical tool.
Keywords ASEAN · Democracy · Rhetoric · Legitimacy
In the immediate post-Cold War period, many observers believed that

regional organisations would facilitate the ‘spread’ of democracy across
the globe (e.g. Pevehouse 2005). The collapse of communism in Eastern
Europe in 1989–1991 was seen as the continuation of the regional
‘waves’ (Huntington 1991) of democratic transition which had moved
through Southeast Europe in the 1970s and Latin America in the 1980s.
The beginning of an apparent East Asian wave was marked by transitions
© The Author(s) 2019 19

A. Poole, Democracy, Rights and Rhetoric in Southeast
Asia, The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15522-3_2
20 A. POOLE
in the Philippines (in 1986), South Korea (1987), Taiwan (between

1987 and 1996) and Thailand (1991–1992). Democratisation seemed
to gather momentum in Southeast Asia, particularly with the fall of
Suharto’s New Order regime in Indonesia in 1998. More recently, elec-
tions in Myanmar in 2010 heralded the beginning of a transition in per-
haps the most repressive state in contemporary Southeast Asia.
However, in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),
discussion about domestic governance and regime type in member
states has traditionally been considered off-limits in official dialogue.
Admission to ASEAN does not require democratic rule, and there are
no grounds for suspension or expulsion of a member state due to domes-
tic political circumstances (such as unconstitutional changes of govern-
ment). Further, the norm of non-interference means that the politically
diverse member states have traditionally refrained from criticising each
other’s internal affairs. Why then does ASEAN now routinely refer to the
importance of strengthening and promoting democracy?
This chapter explores the origins of references to democracy in
ASEAN, beginning with the plans to establish an ASEAN Community
in the 2003 Bali Concord II. This initiative was advanced in particular
by Indonesia’s ‘democracy agenda’—which prominent Indonesian diplo-
mat and analyst Rizal Sukma (2008, 138) describes as breaking ‘new and
controversial ground’ for ASEAN. After initial resistance by some mem-
ber states, references to democracy were included in the 2007 ASEAN
Charter, and have since been reaffirmed in key ASEAN declarations
and plans, such as the ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint
(ASEAN 2009). This chapter argues that, despite the appearances of
unity—underpinned by the norm of consensus decision-making—there is
significant diversity among the views of member states about democracy
within ASEAN. As a result, debate regarding the meaning of ‘democ-
racy’, and the implications for member states of its use in official dis-
course, have been largely avoided by ASEAN. Member states effectively
agreed to avoid addressing the definition of (strengthening and promot-
ing) democracy.
This chapter examines the positions of member states in regard to
ASEAN’s references to democracy, in the context of their domestic polit-
ical circumstances. It argues that ASEAN rhetoric on democracy does
not mean that there is a uniform ‘ASEAN approach’ to democracy—
on the contrary, there are many diverse views of democracy in ASEAN.
However, even non-democratic regimes recognise the legitimacy
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
leaves, and in being tetrandrous. Of the plant from Abyssinia I have
seen only two expanded flowers, one of which is decidedly
pentandrous, the other apparently tetrandrous. Mr. Salt, however,
from an examination of recent specimens, states it to be
pentandrous. It is probably, therefore, not different from C. farinosa
of Forskal, whose specimens M. De Candolle has not seen. And as
the form of leaves is variable in the specimens from Senegal, and
not elliptical, but between oval and oblong, in those of Abyssinia, C.
dubia is probably identical with, or a variety merely of farinosa, as M.
De Candolle himself seems to suspect.
Crateva Adansonii (De Cand. prodr. 1. p. 243) is in the
collection from Bornou. This species is established by M. De
Candolle upon a specimen in M. de Jussieu’s herbarium, found in
Senegal by Adanson, and is supposed to differ from all the other
species in having its foliola equal at the base. I have examined the
specimen in M. de Jussieu’s herbarium, in which, however, the
leaves not being fully developed, I was unable to satisfy myself
respecting their form. But in a specimen, also from Senegal, which I
received from M. Desfontaines, the lateral foliola, though having
manifestly unequal sides, are but slightly unequal at the base, and
the inequality consists in a somewhat greater decurrence of the
lamina on the anterior or inner margin of the footstalk. As well as can
be determined, in very young leaves, this is also the case in the
specimen from Bornou; and it is manifestly so in my specimen of C.
læta, which appears to belong to the same species.
Crateva læta was founded by M. De Candolle on a plant from
Senegal, communicated by M. Gay, from whom I also received a
specimen in 1824, with the remark, that it was not different from C.
Adansonii. In that specimen the flowers are male with an imperfect
pistillum; in the plant from Bornou they are hermaphrodite, with
elongated filaments; and in the specimen received from M.
Desfontaines they are also hermaphrodite, but the stamina, though
apparently perfect, are fewer in number and shorter than the stipes
of the ovarium. I have observed, however, the flowers to be in like
manner polygamous in some other species of Crateva, belonging
both to India and America, a fact which materially lessens the
dependence to be placed on characters taken from the number and
length of the stamina in this genus.
Crateva Adansonii, it would appear, then, is the only known
species of the African continent, for C. fragrans does not belong to
the genus. And it will be difficult to distinguish this African Crateva
from a plant which seems to be the most general species of India;
except that in the latter, as in all the other species of the genus, the
inequality of the lateral foliola, which is also more marked, consists in
the greater decurrence of the lamina being on the outer or posterior
margin of the footstalk. This Indian species, which may be named C.
Roxburghii, is the Capparis trifoliata of Dr. Roxburgh’s manuscripts,
but not Niirvala of Hortus Malabaricus (vol. 3. p. 49. t. 42), as he
considers it. I have little doubt of its being also the plant described as
C. Tapia, by Vahl, (symb. 3. p. 61.) his specific character well
according with it, and not applying, as far as relates to the petals, to
any known species of America. But as this character is adopted by
Sir James Smith (in Rees’s Cyclop.), it may likewise be C. Tapia of
the Linnæan herbarium; a conjecture the more probable as Linnæus
has distinguished his Tapia by its ovate petals from gynandra, in
which they are said to be lanceolate (Sp. pl. ed. 2. p. 637). This
celebrated herbarium, however, is here of no authority, for Linnæus
was never in possession of sufficient materials to enable him to
understand either the structure and limits of the genus Crateva, or
the distinctions of its species; and the specific name in question,
under which he originally included all the species of the genus, ought
surely to be applied to an American plant, at least, and if possible to
that of Piso, with whom it originated. It is hardly to be supposed that
the plant intended by Piso can now with certainty be determined; the
only species from Brazil, however, with which I am acquainted, well
accords with his figure and short description. This Brazilian species
is readily distinguishable both from C. Adansonii and Roxburghii, by
the form of its petals, which, as in all the other American species, are
narrow-oblong or lanceolate; and from C. gynandra by the shortness
of its stipes genitalium, or torus.
Crateva Tapia so constituted, is, on the authority of a fragment
communicated by Professor Schrader, the Cleome arborea of that
author, (in Gœtt. Anzeig. 1821, p. 707. De Cand. Prodr. 1. p. 242.);
nor is there any thing in the character of C. acuminata of De
Candolle (Prodr. 1. p. 243) which does not well apply to our plant.
C. Tapia, as given by M. De Candolle (op. cit.), is characterized
chiefly on the authority of Plumier’s figure, in the accuracy of which,
either as to the number or length of stamina, it is difficult to believe,
especially when we find it also representing the petals inserted by
pairs on the two upper sinuses of the calyx.
The genus Crateva agrees, as I have already stated, in the
remarkable æstivation of its flower with Cleome Gymnogonia, by
which character, along with that of its fruit, it is readily distinguished
from every other genus of the order. Although this character of its
æstivation has never before been remarked, yet all the species,
referred to Crateva by M. De Candolle, really belong to it, except C.
fragrans, which, with some other plants from the same continent,
forms a very distinct genus, that I shall name Ritchiea, in memory
of the African traveller, whose botanical merits have been already
noticed.
Capparis sodada nob. Sodada decidua, Forsk. Arab. p. 81.
Delile, Flore d’Egypte, p. 74. tab. 26. De Cand. Prodr. 1. p. 245.
The specimen in the herbarium is marked by Dr. Oudney as
belonging to a tree common on the boundaries of Bornou. It is
probably the Suag, mentioned in his journal, observed first at
Aghedem, and said to be “a tetrandrous plant having a small drupa,
which is in great request in Bornou and Soudan, for removing sterility
in females: it is sweetish and hot to the taste, approaching to
Sisymbrium Nasturtium;” and that “in passing the plant a heavy
narcotic smell is always perceived.”
I have here united Sodada with Capparis, not being able to find
differences sufficient to authorise its separation even from the first
section of that genus, as given by De Candolle.
Forskal describes his plant as octandrous, and M. De Candolle
has adopted this number in his generic character. M. Delile (op. cit.),
however, admits that the stamina vary from eight to fifteen; and, in
the specimen which I received from M. Jomard, I have found from
fourteen to sixteen. But were the number of stamina even constantly
eight, this alone would not justify its separation from Capparis,
several octandrous species of which, belonging to the same section,
are already known.
Another species of Capparis, also from Bornou, exists in the
herbarium. It appears to be undescribed, and to belong to M. De
Candolle’s first section of the genus; but the specimen is too
imperfect to be satisfactorily determined.
Both these species have aculei stipulares, and it may here be
remarked that all the plants belonging either to Capparis, or to any of
the genera of the order whose fruit is a berry, in which these aculei
are found, are indigenous either to Asia, Africa, or Europe; while all
the aculeated Cleomes, with the exception of perhaps a single
African species, are natives of equinoxial America.
Mærua rigida. This plant, of which flowering specimens were
collected at Aghedem, certainly belongs to Forskal’s genus Mærua,
adopted by Vahl and De Candolle; and I believe it to be a species
distinct from the three already published. It is very nearly related,
however, to a fourth species (M. Senegalensis nob.), of which I
received a specimen from M. Desfontaines. M. De Candolle has
placed the genus Mærua at the end of Capparideæ, between which
and Passifloreæ he considers it intermediate. This view of its relation
to these two orders I cannot adopt. To me it appears truly a
Capparidea, having very little affinity with Passifloreæ, to which it
seems to approach in one point only, namely, the corona of the
calyx. But of a similar corona rudiments exist in several other African
Capparideæ, and from some of these the genus Mærua is with
difficulty distinguished[97].
Resedaceæ. The herbarium contains two species of Reseda.
The specimens of one of these are too imperfect to be determined.
The other is probably undescribed, though very nearly related to R.
suffruticulosa, and undata of Linnæus. This supposed new species
(Reseda propinqua) was found near Tripoli by Mr. Ritchie, and
between Tripoli and Mourzuk by Dr. Oudney. It is remarkable in
having the ungues of all the petals simple; that is, neither dilated,
thickened, nor having any process or appendage at the point of
union with the trifid lamina, into which they gradually pass. We have
here therefore a species of Reseda with petals not different in any
respect from those of many other families of plants; and, although
this is an exception to their usual structure in the genus, I shall
endeavour to show that all the deviations existing, however complex
in appearance, are reducible to this more simple state of the organ.
Resedaceæ, consisting of Reseda, divisible into sections or
subgenera, and Ochradenus, which may perhaps be regarded as
only one of these subdivisions, I consider very nearly related to
Capparideæ, and as forming part of the same natural class. It differs,
in the variable number of the parts of its floral envelopes, from the
other orders of the class, in which the quaternary or binary division is
without exception; and it is especially remarkable in having the
ovarium open even in its earliest state. From Cruciferæ and
Capparideæ, the two families of the class to which they most nearly
approach, Resedaceæ also differ in the apparent relation of the
stigmata to the placentæ. The stigmata in this order terminate the
lobes of the pistillum, and as these lobes are open sterile portions of
the modified leaves, from the union of which in the undivided part I
suppose the compound ovarium to originate, they necessarily
alternate with the placentæ. I have generally found, however, the
upper part of each placenta covered by a fleshy or fungous process,
which is connected with the margins of the lobes, and therefore with
the stigmata, and is probably essential to the fecundation of the
ovula. The singular apparent transposition of the placentæ in
Sesamoides of Tournefort, so well described by M. Tristan in his
ingenious Memoir on the Affinities of Reseda[98], appears to me
necessarily connected with the extreme shortness of the undivided
base of the ovarium; for in supposing this base to be elongated, the
placentæ would become parietal, and the ovula, which are actually
resupinate, would assume the direction usual in the order.
M. De Jussieu, in his Genera Plantarum, has included Reseda in
Capparideæ, and to this determination I believe he still adheres. M.
Tristan, in the memoir referred to, is inclined to separate it as a
family intermediate between Passifloreæ and Cistineæ, but more
nearly approaching to the latter. M. De Candolle, who first
distinguished Reseda as an order under the name here adopted, in
1819[99] placed it between Polygaleæ and Droseraceæ, and
consequently at no great distance from Capparideæ. He must, since,
however, have materially altered his opinion respecting it; for the
order Resedaceæ is not included in the first or second part of his
Prodromus, and I can find no observation respecting it in these two
volumes. It is probable, therefore, that he may either intend to place
it near Passifloreæ, as suggested by M. Tristan, or, which is more
likely, that he has adopted the hypothesis lately advanced, and
ingeniously supported, by Mr. Lindley, respecting its structure and
affinities[100].
According to this hypothesis, in Reseda the calyx of authors is an
involucrum, its petals neutral flowers, and the disk or nectary
becomes the calyx of a fertile floret in the centre: and, as a deduction
from this view of its structure, the genus has been placed near
Euphorbiaceæ.
The points in the structure of Reseda, which appear to have led
Mr. Lindley to this hypothesis, are the presence and appearance of
the hypogynous disk, the anomalous structure of the petals, and the
singular æstivation of the flower; but it is no slight confirmation of the
correctness of M. de Jussieu’s opinion, that all these anomalies
occur in a greater or less degree in Capparideæ, and have been
found united in no other family of plants. The remarkable æstivation
of Reseda equally exists in Crateva, and in more than one
subdivision of the genus Cleome; the hypogynous disk is developed
in as great a degree in several Capparideæ; and an approximation to
the same kind of irregularity in the petals occurs in two sections of
Cleome.
The analogical argument alone then might, perhaps, be regarded
as conclusive against the hypothesis. But the question, as far as
relates to the petals, and consequently to the supposed composition
of the flower, may be decided still more satisfactorily on other
grounds. Both M.M. Tristan and Lindley regard the upper divided
membranaceous part of the petal as an appendage to the lower,
which is generally fleshy. On the other hand, I consider the anomaly
to consist in the thickening, dilatation, and inner process of the lower
portion, and that all these deviations from ordinary structure are
changes which take place after the original formation of the petal. To
establish these points, and consequently to prove that the parts in
question are simple petals, and neither made up of two cohering
envelopes, as M. Tristan supposes, nor of a calyx and abortive
stamina, according to M. Lindley’s hypothesis, I shall describe their
gradual development, as I have observed it in the common
Mignonette; a plant in which all the anomalies that have led to this
hypothesis exist in a very great degree.
The flower-bud of Reseda odorata, when it first becomes visible,
has the divisions of its calyx slightly imbricate and entirely enclosing
the other parts. In this stage the unguis of each of the two upper
petals is extremely short, not broader than the base of the lamina,
and is perfectly simple; there being no rudiment of the inner process
so remarkable in the fully expanded flower. The lamina at the same
period may be termed palmato-pinnatifid, its divisions are all in the
same plane, the terminating or middle segment is whitish or opake,
and several times longer than the lateral segments, which are
semitransparent.
Of the remaining four petals, the two middle are dimidiato-
pinnatifid, their lateral segments existing only on the upper side; and
the two lower are undivided, being reduced to the middle segment or
simple lamina. All the petals are erect, and do not cover the stamina
in the slightest degree, either in this or in any other stage. The disk is
hardly visible. The Antheræ are longer than their filaments, of a pale-
green colour; those on the upper or posterior side of the flower being
manifestly larger, and slightly tinged with brown. The Pistillum is very
minute and open at the top. In the next stage, the calyx is no longer
imbricate, but open: the petals have their segments in nearly the
same relative proportions; the interior margin of the unguis is just
visible; but the transition from unguis to lamina is still imperceptible;
the apex of the former not being broader than the base of the latter.
It is unnecessary to follow the development through the more
advanced stages of the flower, the facts already stated being, in my
opinion, absolutely conclusive as to the real nature of the parts in
question: and I may remark, that similar observations on certain
genera of Caryophylleæ, especially Dianthus, Lychnis and Silene,
clearly establish the analogy between their petals and those of
Reseda.
I am aware that it has lately been proposed to include Datisca in
Resedaceæ, to which it is nearly similar in the structure of its
ovarium, as M. de Jussieu has long since remarked. But this is the
only point of resemblance between them; for the calyx of Datisca is
certainly adherent, and in most of its other characters it differs widely
both from Reseda, and from every other genus yet published.
Among the numerous discoveries made by Dr. Horsfield in Java,
there is a genus, (Tetrameles nob.) however, manifestly related to
Datisca, and remarkable in the regular quaternary division of every
part of its diœcious flowers. These two genera form an order very
different from every other yet established, and which may be named
Datisceæ.
Caryophylleæ. Five species only of this family were collected
near Tripoli, none of which are new.
Of Zygophylleæ, six species exist in Dr. Oudney’s herbarium,
namely, Tribulus terrestris, found in Bornou; Fagonia cretica, from
Tripoli to Benioleed; Fagonia arabica, at Aghedem; Fagonia Oudneyi
nob. with Zygophyllum simplex in Fezzan; and Zygophyllum album
every where in the desert.
This family, so distinct in habit from Diosmeæ or Rutaceæ, with
which it was formerly united, is not easily characterized by any very
obvious or constant peculiarities in its parts of fructification.
The distinguishing characters in its vegetation or habit are the
leaves being constantly opposite with lateral or intermediate stipulæ,
being generally compound, and always destitute of the pellucid
glands, which universally exist in true Diosmeæ, though not in all
Rutaceæ properly so called.
M. Adrien de Jussieu, in his late very excellent Memoir on the
great order or class Rutaceæ, in distinguishing Zygophylleæ from
the other subdivisions of that class in which he has included it,
depends chiefly on the endocarp, or inner lamina of the pericarp, not
separating from the outer lamina or united epicarp and sarcocarp,
and on the texture of the albumen. His first section of Zygophylleæ,
however, is characterised by the want of albumen; and in his second
section I find exceptions to the remaining character, especially in
Fagonia Mysorensis, in which the two laminæ of the ripe capsule
separate as completely as in Diosmeæ. Another plant, in my opinion
referrible to the same order, and which, in memory of a very
meritorious African traveller, I have named Seetzenia africana, has in
its ripe capsule the epicarp, or united epicarp and sarcocarp,
confined to the dorsal carina of each cell, the endocarp being the
only membrane existing on the sides, which are exposed long before
the bursting of the fruit. The plant in question has indeed many other
peculiarities, some of which may, perhaps, be considered sufficient
to authorise its separation from the order to which I have referred it;
for the æstivation of its calyx is valvular, it has no petals, its five
styles are distinct to the base, and the cells of its ovarium appear to
me to be monospermous. It completely retains, however, the
characters of vegetation on which I chiefly depend in distinguishing
Zygophylleæ; and I have no doubt of its being Zygophyllum lanatum
of Willdenow[101], by whom it is stated to be a native of Sierra Leone;
I suppose, however, on insufficient authority, for the specimens in the
Banksian Herbarium, from which I have made my observations, were
found in South Africa, near Olifant’s River, by Francis Masson.
In all the species of Fagonia, and in the two species of
Zygophyllum in Dr. Oudney’s collection, a character in the
fructification still remains, which is not found in Diosmeæ or
Rutaceæ, and which, were it general in Zygophylleæ, would
satisfactorily distinguish this order from all the families it has usually
been compared with. This character consists in the direction of the
embryo with relation to the insertion of the funiculus, its radicle being
seated at the opposite extremity of the seed, or to express, in the
unimpregnated ovarium, the infallible indication of this position, the
direction of the inner membrane and nucleus of the ovulum
corresponds with that of its testa.
But this character, in general very uniform in natural families, and
which, equally existing in Cistineæ, so well defines the limits of that
order, as I have long since remarked[102], would seem to be of less
importance in Zygophylleæ.
M. Adrien de Jussieu, who, in his memoir already cited, admits its
existence in Fagonia, and in both our species of Zygophyllum,
considers it as an exception to the general structure of the latter
genus, in the definition of which he retains the character of “radicula
hilo proxima.” I believe, however, that in all the species of
Zygophyllum, except Fabago, which possesses, also, other
distinguishing characters, this opposition of the radicle to the
external hilum will be found; for in addition to the two species
contained in the herbarium, in both of which it is very manifest, I
have observed it in Z. coccineum, and in all the species of South
Africa that I have had an opportunity of examining. In some of these
species, indeed, it is much less obvious, partly from the greater
breadth of the funiculus, and also from its being closely applied, or
even slightly adhering, to the testa of the seed. But hence it is
possible to reconcile the structure of these species with that of
Fabago itself, in which the raphe seems to me to be external: and if
this be really the case, Fabago differs from those Zygophylla of
South Africa alluded to, merely in the more intimate union of the
funiculus with the surface of the testa. Whether this observation
might be extended to the other genera of the order, I have not yet
attempted to ascertain.
Balanites Ægyptiaca, though not belonging to Zygophylleæ,
may be here mentioned. The specimen is from Bornou, but like all
the other plants of that country, has no particular place of growth
indicated, nor is there any observation respecting it. For a very full
and interesting history of this plant, I may refer to M. Delile’s Flore
d’Egypte (p. 77. tab. 28).
Of Cistineæ, three species were observed between Tripoli and
Mourzuk.
The Geraniaceæ of the collection consist of four species of
Erodium, all of which were found on the same journey.
Of Malvaceæ, considered as a class, there are twelve species in
the herbarium. Only two of these are particularly deserving of notice.
The first, Adansonia digitata, found in Soudan, where the tree is
called Kouka, is described by Captain Clapperton; the second,
Melhania Denhamii, a new and remarkable species of the genus,
differing from all the others in having its bracteæ regularly
verticillated, and, at the same time, longer and much broader than
the divisions of the calyx.
A single species of Vitis is in the collection, from Bornou.
Neurada prostrata, generally referred to Rosaceæ, was found
in Wady Ghrurbi.
Tamariscineæ. A species of Tamarix, apparently not different
from T. gallica, is the Attil, common in Fezzan, where, according to
Dr. Oudney, it is the only shady tree.
Lorantheæ. A species of Loranthus, parasitical on the Acacia
nilotica, was observed very commonly from Fezzan to Bornou.
Leguminosæ. Of this class the herbarium contains thirty-three
species, among which there are hardly more than two undescribed,
and these belonging to a well-established genus.
Of the order or tribe Mimoseæ only three species occur, namely,
Acacia nilotica, Mimosa Habbas, and Inga biglobosa, or a species
very nearly related to it. Of this last named plant, I judge merely from
ripe fruits adhering to the singular club-shaped receptacle, or axis of
the spike. The specimens were collected in Soudan, and belong to a
tree of considerable importance to the inhabitants of that country, by
whom it is called Doura. According to Captain Clapperton, “The
seeds are roasted as we roast coffee, then bruised, and allowed to
ferment in water; when they begin to become putrid, they are well
washed and pounded; the powder made into cakes, somewhat in the
fashion of our chocolate; they form an excellent sauce for all kinds of
food. The farinaceous matter surrounding the seeds is made into a
pleasant drink, and they also make it into a sweetmeat.” The Doura
of Captain Clapperton is probably not specifically different from the
Nitta mentioned by Park, in his First Journey; nor from Inga
biglobosa of the Flore d’Oware of M. de Beauvois, according to
whom it is the Nety of Senegal; and he also well remarks, that Inga
biglobosa, described by Jacquin as a native of Martinico, has
probably been introduced into that island by the Negroes, as he
himself found it to have been in St. Domingo.
Inga Senegalensis of M. De Candolle (Prodr. 2. p. 442) may also
belong to the same species.
It is possible, however, that some of the plants here mentioned,
though very nearly related to each other, and having all the same
remarkable club-shaped spike, may be specifically distinct; for it
appears from specimens collected at Sierra Leone by Professor
Afzelius, that two plants having this form of spike are known in that
colony; and two species, with similar inflorescence, probably distinct
from those of Africa, are described in the manuscript Flora Indica of
Dr. Roxburgh. All these plants possess characters fully sufficient to
distinguish them from Inga, to which they have hitherto been
referred. The new genus which they form, one of the most striking
and beautiful in equinoxial Africa, I have named Parkia[103], as a
tribute of respect to the memory of the celebrated traveller, by whom
the fruit of this genus was observed in his first journey, and who,
among other services rendered to botany, ascertained that the plant
producing Gum Kino is a species of Pterocarpus[104]. I have formerly
endeavoured to distinguish Mimoseæ from Cæsalpineæ, by the
valvular æstivation of both its floral envelopes, and by the
hypogynous insertion of its stamina. Instances of perigynous
insertion of stamina have since been noticed by MM. Kunth and
Auguste de St. Hilaire; but no exception has been yet pointed out to
the valvular æstivation of their calyx and corolla. Parkia, however,
differs from other Mimoseæ not only in its æstivation, which is
imbricate, but in the very manifest irregularity of its calyx, and in the
inequality of its petals, which, though less obvious, is still observable.
Erythrophleum, another genus indigenous to equinoxial Africa,
which I have elsewhere[105] had occasion to notice, and then
referred to Cæsalpineæ, more properly belongs to Mimoseæ,
although its stamina are perigynous. In this genus, both calyx and
corolla are perfectly regular, and their æstivation, if not strictly
valvular, is at least not manifestly imbricate, though the flower-buds
are neither acute nor angular. In Erythrophleum and Parkia,
therefore, exceptions to all the assumed characters of Mimoseæ are
found, and there is some approach in both genera to the habit of
Cæsalpineæ. It is still possible, however, to distinguish, and it will
certainly be expedient to preserve, these two tribes or orders.
Abandoning divisions strictly natural, and so extensive as the tribes
in question, merely because we may not be able to define them with
precision, while it would imply, what is far from being the case, that
our analysis of their structure is complete, would, at the same time,
be fatal to many natural families of plants at present admitted, and
among others to the universally received class to which these tribes
belong. No clear character, at least, is pointed out in the late
elaborate work of M. De Candolle[106], by which Leguminosæ may
be distinguished from Terebintaceæ and Rosaceæ, the orders
supposed to be the most nearly related to it. It is possible, however,
that such characters, though hitherto overlooked, may really exist;
and I shall endeavour to show that Leguminosæ, independent of the
important but minute differences in the original structure and
developement of its ovulum, may still be distinguished at least from
Rosaceæ.
In the character of Polygaleæ, which I published in 1814[107], I
marked the relation of the parts of the floral envelopes to the axis of
the spike, or to the subtending bractea. I introduced this
circumstance chiefly to contrast Polygaleæ with Leguminosæ, and to
prove, as I conceived, that Securidaca, which had generally been
referred to the latter family, really belonged to the former.
M. de Jussieu, who soon after published a character of
Polygaleæ, entirely omitted this consideration, and continued to refer
Securidaca to Leguminosæ. M. De Candolle, however, in the first
volume of his Prodromus, has adopted both the character and limits
of Polygaleæ, which I had proposed, though apparently not
altogether satisfied with the description he himself has given of the
divisions of the calyx and corolla.
The disposition of the parts of the floral envelopes, with reference
to the axis of the spike, in Polygaleæ, namely, the fifth segment of
the calyx being posterior or superior and the fifth petal anterior or
inferior, is the usual relation in families the division of whose flower is
quinary. This relation is in some cases inverted; one example of
which I have formerly pointed out in Lobeliaceæ[108], as I proposed
to limit it, and a similar inversion exists in Leguminosæ. But this
class also deviates from the more general arrangement of the parts
of the flower with regard to each other. That arrangement consists,
as I have long since remarked[109], in the regular alternation of the
divisions of the proximate organs of the complete flower. To this
arrangement, indeed, many exceptions are well known; and M. De
Candolle has given a table of all the possible deviations, but without
stating how many of these have actually been observed[110].
In Leguminosæ the deviation from the assumed regular
arrangement consists in the single pistillum being placed opposite to
the lower or anterior segment of the calyx.
In these two characters, namely, the relation of the calyx and
corolla both to the simple pistillum and to the axis of the spike or to
the bractea, Leguminosæ differ from Rosaceæ, in which the more
usual arrangements are found.
But in those Rosaceæ, in which the pistillum is solitary and placed
within the anterior petal, its relation to the axis of the spike is the
same as that of Leguminosæ, in which it is within the anterior
division of the calyx. And in all families, whether dicotyledonous or
monocotyledonous, this, I believe, is uniformly the position of the
simple solitary pistillum with regard to the spike or bractea.
The frequent reduction of Pistilla, in plants having the other parts
of the flower complete in number, must have been generally
remarked. But the order in which these abstractions of pistilla take
place, or the relations of the reduced series to the other parts of the
flower, have, as far as I know, never yet been particularly attended
to. It will probably appear singular, that the observation of these
relations in the reduced series of pistilla should have suggested the
opinion, that in a complete flower, whose parts are definite, the
number of stamina and also of pistilla is equal to that of the divisions
of the calyx and corolla united in Dicotyledones, and of both series of
the perianthium in Monocotyledones.
This assumed complete number of stamina is actually the
prevailing number in Monocotyledones; and though in Dicotyledones
less frequent than what may be termed the symmetrical number, or
that in which all the series are equal, is still found in decandrous and
octandrous genera, and in the greater part of Leguminosæ. The
tendency to the production of the complete number, where the
symmetrical really exists, is manifested in genera belonging or
related to those pentandrous families in which the stamina are
opposite to the divisions of the corolla, as by Samolus related to
Primulaceæ, and by Bæobotrys, having an analogous relation to
Myrsineæ; for in both these genera, five additional imperfect stamina
are found alternating with the fertile, and consequently occupying the
place of the only stamina existing in most pentandrous families.
Indications of this number may also be said to exist in the divisions
of the hypogynous disk of many pentandrous orders.
With respect to the Pistilla, the complete number is equally rare in
both the primary divisions of phænogamous plants. In
Monocotyledones, the symmetrical number is very general, while it is
much less frequent in Dicotyledones, in which there is commonly a
still farther reduction.
Where the number of Pistilla in Dicotyledones is reduced to two,
in a flower in which both calyx and corolla are present and their
division quinary, one of these pistilla is placed within a division of the
calyx, the other opposite to a petal or segment of the corolla. In other
words, the addition to the solitary pistillum, (which is constantly
anterior or exterior), is posterior or interior. This is the general
position of the component parts of a bilocular ovarium, or an ovarium
having two parietal placentæ; and in flowers whose division is
quinary, I can recollect no other exceptions to it, than in some genera
of Dilleniaceæ.
It is particularly deserving of notice, that the common position of
the cells of the bilocular pericarpium with relation to the axis of the
spike was well known to Cæsalpinus, who expressly distinguished
Cruciferæ from all other bilocular families by their peculiarity in this
respect, the loculi in that family being placed right and left, instead of
being anterior and posterior[111].
On the subject of the position of the Pistilla in the other degrees of
reduction from the symmetrical number, I shall not at present enter.
But in reference to Leguminosæ, I may remark, that it would be of
importance to ascertain the position of the Pistilla in the pentagynous
Mimosea, stated to have been found in Brazil by M. Auguste de St.
Hilaire[112]. Are these Pistilla placed opposite to the divisions of the
calyx, as might probably be inferred from the position of the solitary
Legumen in this class? Or are we to expect to find them opposite to
the petals, which is the more usual relation, and their actual place in
Cnestis, though the single ovarium of Connarus, a genus belonging
to the same family, is seated within the anterior division of the calyx?
In the very few Leguminosæ in which the division of the flower is
quaternary, namely, in certain species of Mimosa, the ovarium is still
placed within one of the divisions of the calyx.
As to Moringa, which was originally referred to this class from a
mistaken notion of its absolutely belonging to Guilandina, it is surely
sufficiently different from all Leguminosæ, not only in its compound
unilocular ovarium with three parietal placentæ, but also in its simple
unilocular antheræ; and it appears to me to be an insulated genus,
or family (Moringeæ), whose place in the natural series has not yet
been determined.
Cæsalpineæ. Of this tribe, four species only occur in the
collection. One of these is Bauhinia rufescens of Lamarck (Illustr.
329, f. 2.); another is Cassia (Senna) obovata, which, according to
Dr. Oudney, grows wild in small quantities in Wady Ghrurbi.
Papilionaceæ. Twenty-six species of this tribe are contained in
the herbarium, none of which form new genera, and the only two
species that appear to be unpublished belong to Indigofera.
Alhagi Maurorum, or Agoul, is abundant in Fezzan, where it forms
excellent food for camels.
Compositæ. Of this class, thirty-six species exist in the collection.
The far greater part of these were found in the vicinity of Tripoli and
in the Desert. All of them appear to belong to established genera,
and very few species are undescribed.
Rubiaceæ. The herbarium contains only six species of this family,
five of which, belonging to Spermacoce and Hedyotis, were found in
Bornou and Soudan; the sixth, a species of Galium, near Tripoli.
Of Asclepiadeæ only three plants occur. One of these is a new
species of Oxystelma, exactly resembling in its flowers O.
esculentum of India, from which it differs in the form of its leaves,
and in that of its fruit[113]. A species of Dœmia was found in the
Desert; but the specimens are too imperfect to be ascertained.
Of Apocineæ, strictly so called, there is no plant whatever in the
collection; and of Gentianeæ, a single species only of Erythræa.
Sesameæ. An imperfect specimen of Sesamum pterospermum, of
the catalogue of Mr. Salt’s Abyssinian plants[114], is in the collection
from Bornou.
Sapoteæ. The only plant of this family in the herbarium is the
Micadania, or Butter Tree of Soudan, particularly noticed by Captain
Clapperton. The specimen, however, is very imperfect, consisting of
detached leaves, an incomplete fruit, and a single ripe seed. On
comparing these leaves with the specimen of Park’s Shea Tree[115],
in the Banksian Herbarium, I have little doubt that they both belong
to one and the same species. Whether this plant is really a Bassia, is
not equally certain; and the seed at least agrees better with Vitellaria
paradoxa of the younger Gærtner, (Carpol. tab. 205.) than with that
of Bassia, figured by his father, (de Fruct. et Sem. Pl. tab. 104.)
That the woody shell in the nuts of all Sapoteæ is really formed of
the testa or outer membrane of the seed, as I have elsewhere
stated[116], and not of a portion of the substance of the pericarpium,
according to the late M. Richard and the younger Gærtner, is proved
not only by the aperture or micropyle being still visible on its surface,
as M. Turpin has already shown in one case, (Ann. du Mus. d’Hist.
Nat. 7, tab. 11, f. 3.); but also by the course and termination of the
raphe, as exhibited in the younger Gærtner’s figures of Calvaria and
Sideroxylum, (Carpol. tabb. 200, 201, et 202.) and by the origin and
ramification of the internal vessels.
Scrophularinæ. Only six species of this family occur, none of
which are unpublished.
Orobanche compacta of Viviani was observed between Fezzan
and Bornou.
Of Convolvulaceæ there are five species, four of which belong
to Bornou; the fifth is an aquatic Ipomœa, found creeping on the
borders of a small lake near Tintuma. Possibly this plant may be
Ipomœa aquatica of Forskal, and consequently Convolvulus repens
of Vahl, (symb. 1, p. 17.) It is not, however, the plant so called by
Linnæus, which proves, as I have elsewhere stated, (Prodr. Fl. Nov.
Holl. 1, p. 483.) to be Calystegia sepium; nor does it belong to either
of his synonymes. Our plant differs also from Vahl’s description of his
Convolvulus repens, in having constantly single-flowered peduncles,
and leaves whose posterior lobes are rather acute than obtuse, and
are quite entire. It is probably, therefore, distinct; and I have named it
Ipomœa Clappertoni[117].
Among the few Labiatæ, there is a species of Lavandula, possibly
distinct from but very nearly related to L. multifida. It was found on
the mountains of Tarhona.
Of Boragineæ, the herbarium includes eleven species, the
greater part of which were collected near Tripoli, and all of them
belong to well established genera.
Primulaceæ. Of this family two species of Anagallis occur in the
collection, and of these A. cærulea was observed both near Tripoli
and in Bornou.
Samolus Valerandi was also found near Tripoli, in Wady
Sardalis in Fezzan, and in Bornou.
Of Dicotyledonous, or even of all phænogamous plants, S.
valerandi is perhaps the most widely diffused. It is a very general
plant in Europe, has been found in several parts of North Africa, in
Dr. Oudney’s herbarium it is from Bornou, I have myself observed it
at the Cape of Good Hope and in New South Wales, and it is also
indigenous to North America.
The geographical distribution of the genus Samolus is equally
remarkable. At present eight species are known, of which S.
Valerandi is the only one indigenous to Europe, or which, indeed,
has been found in the northern hemisphere, except the nearly
related S. ebracteatus of Cuba. All the other species belong to the
southern hemisphere, where S. Valerandi has also a very extensive
range.
Of Plumbagineæ, there are three species of Statice Taxanthema;
for the latter name may be preserved as belonging to a section,
though hardly as that of a genus, so far at least as depends on
inflorescence, which in both subdivisions of Statice is essentially
similar; that of Statice Armeria being only more condensed. Of the
three species in the herbarium, one appears to be unpublished.
Among the plants of the Apetalous orders in the collection, there
are very few remarkable, and hardly any new species.
Gymnocarpus decandrum was observed by Dr. Oudney very
commonly in gravelly deserts, on the route from Tripoli to Fezzan;
and Cornulaca monacantha of M. Delile is said to be widely
extended from Tripoli to Bornou, and to be excellent food for camels.
Monocotyledones. The number of species belonging to this
primary division contained in the herbarium is altogether seventy. But
Gramineæ and Cyperaceæ being excluded, thirteen only remain,
namely, three species of Juncus, a single Commelina, three
Melanthaceæ, three Asphodeleæ, one species of Iris, and two
Aroideæ, of which Pistia Stratiotes is one.
Of these thirteen plants, two appear to be unpublished, both of
them belonging to Melanthaceae. The first, a congener of
Melanthium punctatum, which is also in the collection, was found in
Fezzan.
The second is a species of Colchicum, very different from any
hitherto described; and which yet, by Mr. Ritchie, who first observed
it, is said to be common in the desert near Tripoli, where it was also
found by Dr. Oudney.
This species, which I have named Colchicum Ritchii, is easily
distinguished from all its congeners by having two cristæ or
membranous processes which are generally fimbriated, at the base
of each segment of the perianthium, parallel to each other, and to the
intermediate filament. But this character, though excellent as a
specific difference, is neither of generic importance, nor sufficient to
authorise the formation of a separate section[118].
Bulbocodium and Merendera, however, which, following Mr.
Ker[119], I consider as belonging to Colchicum, appear to me
decidedly to form subgenera or sections; and in this opinion I am
confirmed by having found a fourth section of the same genus. This
fourth subgenus is established on Hypoxis fascicularis, a plant
which has been seen by very few botanists, and which Linnæus
introduced into his Species Plantarum, and referred to Hypoxis,
solely on the authority of the figure published in Dr. Russell’s History
of Aleppo. In the Banksian Herbarium I have examined part of the
original specimen of this species, found by Dr. Alexander Russell,
and figured by Ehret in the work referred to, as well as more perfect
specimens collected by Dr. Patrick Russell; and am satisfied that its
ovarium is not in any degree adherent to the tube of the perianthium.
I find, also, that Hypoxis fascicularis differs from Colchicum merely in
having a simple unilocular ovarium with a single parietal placenta
and an undivided style, instead of the compound trilocular ovarium
with distinct or partially united styles, common to all the other
sections of that genus.
A reduction, as in this case, to the solitary simple pistillum[120],
though existing in all Gramineæ and in certain genera of several
other families of Monocotyledones, is yet comparatively rare in that
primary division of phænogamous plants, and in the great class

PDF Democracy Rights and Rhetoric in Southeast Asia Avery Poole Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PDF Democracy Rights and Rhetoric in Southeast Asia Avery Poole Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Democracy Rights and Rhetoric in Southeast Asia Avery Poole Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Democracy Rights and Rhetoric in

Southeast Asia Avery Poole

Regionalizing Global Human Rights Norms in Southeast

The Postcolonial Moment in South and Southeast Asia

Climate Change in Southeast Asia and Surrounding Areas

Populism in Southeast Asia 1st Edition Paul D. Kenny

Southeast Asia and the ASEAN Economic Community

Popular Music in Southeast Asia Banal Beats Muted

Cultural and Civilisational Links between India and

Development of Tourism and the Hospitality Industry in

More information about this series at

The Theories, Concepts and Practices of Democracy

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

1 Conceptions of Democracy and Human Rights in

2 Democracy in Rhetoric and Reality 19

3 Human Rights and Regional Institutions 45

4 Conclusions: Liberal Norms and the Role of Regional

Table 2.1 Categorisation of regimes in Southeast Asian states 25

Conceptions of Democracy and Human

Abstract Southeast Asia is a vast, populous and diverse region. The

Keywords Southeast Asia · ASEAN · Democracy · Human rights ·

In September 2007, as ASEAN was drafting its first Charter, thousands

© The Author(s) 2019 1

those outside the region (including states and interstate organisations)

outside the region. Moreover, democracy is absent or struggling in most

projects. The locus of decision-making resides with the individual mem-

Analytical Framework: Norms and Legitimacy

or expectation of behaviour for actors with a given identity. This

repressive states agree to be bound by human rights norms in the belief

The processes through which ideas are proposed, advanced, adopted

ERL—member states’ interpretations of the legitimacy of ASEAN and

are particularly diverse, and certainly can be described as having multiple

of community and belonging beyond the nation state’ (Checkel 2007,

The Emergence and Evolution of ASEAN Norms

criticising the actions of a member government towards its own people,

This reflects the founding states’ prioritisation of internal order and

Final decisions are officially made by consensus—although it should

To strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law,

However, as Gomez and Ramcharan (2014, 4) note, there is ‘discord

optimism about a potential ‘wave’ of democratisation in Southeast Asia,

with officials from foreign ministries in ASEAN member states; indi-

Ba, Alice D. 2013. “The Association of Southeast Asian Nations: Between

Goldstein, Judith, Miles Kahler, Robert O. Keohane, and Anne-Marie Slaughter.

Suchman, Mark C. 1995. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional

Democracy in Rhetoric and Reality

Abstract Why have references to democracy become standard in the

Keywords ASEAN · Democracy · Rhetoric · Legitimacy

In the immediate post-Cold War period, many observers believed that

© The Author(s) 2019 19

in the Philippines (in 1986), South Korea (1987), Taiwan (between

You might also like

Analytical Framework: Norms and Legitimacy

The Emergence and Evolution of ASEAN Norms