Posted on 9 December 2011 - 03:08am
EARLIER this week, I had the
opportunity to speak at a Malaysia-Australia dialogue at the Centre for
Dialogue, La Trobe University in Melbourne. This was the second of such
dialogues, the first of which took place in Penang two years ago. The
theme was Malaysia-Australia relations and a sub-theme of managing
plural societies was chosen, particularly relevant given that both
countries consist of communities with diverse ethnic and cultural
backgrounds.
The challenge of dealing with pluralism is obviously real in Malaysia, and we see evidence of this every day whether dealing with religious, educational or political affairs. What this challenge is grounded upon is the problem of identifying boundaries between different communities exercising their freedom. For example, to what extent can my rights be exercised such that it does not impinge upon the rights of someone else? And it is this negotiation of precisely what defines the “freedom” each community enjoys – both theoretically and realistically – that we in plural societies grapple with on a daily basis.
Civil society, for instance – the subject I chose to speak on – itself is not homogeneous in Malaysia, which is fragmented along the lines that have come to define society here, and as a result also represents the multiple demands they have of the country. Put simply, with each community envisioning different, and often polarising, ideals for Malaysia, the notion of a “common identity” and “common goal” for the sake of unity is sometimes considered fallacious.
But hold on a minute. We have presumed these divisions to be natural, inherent, in-built into our ethnic and cultural roots. Perhaps to a certain extent, yes, there will be a tendency for Muslims to want more mosques, Hindus and Buddhists their respective temples, Christians churches, and so on. This does require some give-and-take since land and economic resources are scarce.
The real problem, however, is centred upon a more systemic one, the country’s political structure. A “consociational democracy” can be defined as one in which a stable democracy is achieved through power-sharing or guaranteed group representation in societies that are differentiated by sharp cultural, social, religious, ethnic and political cleavages. The Barisan Nasional model is a good example, whose component parties satisfy these elements by having race-based parties representing each ethnic group.
All well and good, except that the conditions for such an arrangement to survive may no longer be existent today, more than 50 years after independence. The political scientist Lijphart proposed several favourable condi-tions, including segmental isolation of ethnic communities, where it must be possible to identify the segments into which society is divided.
Because the BN coalition has been so structured along ethnic lines, it has never been in its interest to cultivate a true commonly shared vision, beyond race or religion. In fact, such “segmental isolation” that is a pre-condition for a stable power-sharing agreement would be to an electoral advantage. This is to say that the problem lies within the very structure of political governance.
And so, even though modern trends of globalisation, the internet and the like ought to dictate the blurring of ethnic identities, in Malaysia we have seen the reverse. One would have imagined that by now, with inter-racial marriages, the concept of ethnicity would have ceased to be all that significant. (After all, it is not as simple as looking at physical traits these days as a differentiating factor – I have several times been mistaken as Malay especially when clad in a kebaya.) One would have also imagined that with technology, culture (albeit, and unfortunately so, Western) would cut across other societal differences.
Some of this has taken place, this is true, but it is my suspicion that if not for our ethnic-based political structure, and the very strong political incentive to keep society divided that way, Malaysia’s pluralism would be a much more flourishing one. In the sense that although ethnic and religious identities would remain, this would be so only for cultural and festive reasons. On issues that truly matter – democratic development, economic growth, social justice – it would be citizenship first and foremost that determines and informs our shared vision for Malaysia.
Where does this lead us? Well, back to square one, apparently, judging from remarks at the close of the general assembly of a certain political party. The very predictable retreat to the comfort zone of maintaining ethnic fears and insecurities about “the other”. It is my idealistic, naïve self that hopes against hope for alternative media, education and civil society efforts to undo the knots of a pluralism that keeps people apart instead of bringing them together. Can plural societies be managed successfully? Sure. It ought to be everyone’s responsibility. But in reality, so much of it has been taken into the hands of government, and so, the buck stops there.
Tricia Yeoh is director at a market research consultancy, having worked in the think-tank and public sectors previously. She writes on national and socio-economic issues.
The challenge of dealing with pluralism is obviously real in Malaysia, and we see evidence of this every day whether dealing with religious, educational or political affairs. What this challenge is grounded upon is the problem of identifying boundaries between different communities exercising their freedom. For example, to what extent can my rights be exercised such that it does not impinge upon the rights of someone else? And it is this negotiation of precisely what defines the “freedom” each community enjoys – both theoretically and realistically – that we in plural societies grapple with on a daily basis.
Civil society, for instance – the subject I chose to speak on – itself is not homogeneous in Malaysia, which is fragmented along the lines that have come to define society here, and as a result also represents the multiple demands they have of the country. Put simply, with each community envisioning different, and often polarising, ideals for Malaysia, the notion of a “common identity” and “common goal” for the sake of unity is sometimes considered fallacious.
But hold on a minute. We have presumed these divisions to be natural, inherent, in-built into our ethnic and cultural roots. Perhaps to a certain extent, yes, there will be a tendency for Muslims to want more mosques, Hindus and Buddhists their respective temples, Christians churches, and so on. This does require some give-and-take since land and economic resources are scarce.
The real problem, however, is centred upon a more systemic one, the country’s political structure. A “consociational democracy” can be defined as one in which a stable democracy is achieved through power-sharing or guaranteed group representation in societies that are differentiated by sharp cultural, social, religious, ethnic and political cleavages. The Barisan Nasional model is a good example, whose component parties satisfy these elements by having race-based parties representing each ethnic group.
All well and good, except that the conditions for such an arrangement to survive may no longer be existent today, more than 50 years after independence. The political scientist Lijphart proposed several favourable condi-tions, including segmental isolation of ethnic communities, where it must be possible to identify the segments into which society is divided.
Because the BN coalition has been so structured along ethnic lines, it has never been in its interest to cultivate a true commonly shared vision, beyond race or religion. In fact, such “segmental isolation” that is a pre-condition for a stable power-sharing agreement would be to an electoral advantage. This is to say that the problem lies within the very structure of political governance.
And so, even though modern trends of globalisation, the internet and the like ought to dictate the blurring of ethnic identities, in Malaysia we have seen the reverse. One would have imagined that by now, with inter-racial marriages, the concept of ethnicity would have ceased to be all that significant. (After all, it is not as simple as looking at physical traits these days as a differentiating factor – I have several times been mistaken as Malay especially when clad in a kebaya.) One would have also imagined that with technology, culture (albeit, and unfortunately so, Western) would cut across other societal differences.
Some of this has taken place, this is true, but it is my suspicion that if not for our ethnic-based political structure, and the very strong political incentive to keep society divided that way, Malaysia’s pluralism would be a much more flourishing one. In the sense that although ethnic and religious identities would remain, this would be so only for cultural and festive reasons. On issues that truly matter – democratic development, economic growth, social justice – it would be citizenship first and foremost that determines and informs our shared vision for Malaysia.
Where does this lead us? Well, back to square one, apparently, judging from remarks at the close of the general assembly of a certain political party. The very predictable retreat to the comfort zone of maintaining ethnic fears and insecurities about “the other”. It is my idealistic, naïve self that hopes against hope for alternative media, education and civil society efforts to undo the knots of a pluralism that keeps people apart instead of bringing them together. Can plural societies be managed successfully? Sure. It ought to be everyone’s responsibility. But in reality, so much of it has been taken into the hands of government, and so, the buck stops there.
Tricia Yeoh is director at a market research consultancy, having worked in the think-tank and public sectors previously. She writes on national and socio-economic issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment