This article addresses the underexplored question of why some state violence cases in Asia are not followed by transitional justice even during a democratic transition. It explicates the two factors that obstruct or delay seeking truth and accountability and thus bring impunity for perpetrators. One is the context in which the violence took place, and the other is longevity of the violent regime. If the violence occurs during a period of conflation of state construction and regime building, and if the perpetrators’ power persists long enough to be institutionalized, transitional justice is least likely to take place. Five cases of violence violence which were committed by anticommunist regimes during the Cold War in four Asian countries are explored.

Did the Arab Spring effect democratic transition in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries? What are the implications for institutional transformation? This article focuses on legislative autonomy vis-à-vis the executive branch. The authoritarian regimes have continued their strategy of resistance amidst a modicum of reform, within the twin policies of institutional restructuring and security control, which reveals four trends: institutional preservation, status quo concessions, stalled power-sharing, and repressive countermeasures. There has been a growing sectarian dimension to the opposition. Frustrated and disillusioned, the younger generation has infused energy into the protest movement both in the streets and in cyberspace. With a firm hold on the security services by rulers, incremental policy shifts in the social realm will outpace institutional transformation in the political arena.