Archive of Learning

Writing

Arts

Academia

Postmodern Democracy

This paper was first delivered in a British Council sponsored seminar, organised by the Department of Government, in the University of Essex in April 2003.

Postmodern Democracy: How it could co-exist with a divided Malaysian society

Communal politics have existed within Malaysia since the demise of the Malayan Union and through the existence of various associations that look out for the interests of the ethnic groups coexisting within the Federation of Malaya. The first two major political parties involved, UMNO (United Malay National Organisation) and MCA (Malayan Chinese Association), began a trend towards communalism, as each was set up to look after communal interests. Even the alliance of both these parties is very much predicated towards the winning of votes from the groups they claim to represent. The Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), Malayan Indian Association and Straits Chinese British Associations, which were the minority parties during the transitional stage of the pre-Independence period did not have much political clout, having not as large a following as UMNO or MCA (nor the funds either).[1] At this juncture, one would say that the majority members of the community dominate and rule.

Independence of Malaya Party (IMP), which was helmed by Dato Onn after his break with UMNO, was viewed with suspicion by UMNO and MCA, due to the fact that they were not seen to uphold the interests of the former. They were seen as a threat to the Malay position as its liberal objectives espoused equality in political, social and economic rights for all communities. The latter’s apprehension in supporting IMP has more to do with racial sentiments, and the fear of dominance by the more politically conscious Indians. With the non-communal political platform of IMP, the MCA leaders would not have as much political influence as they could have with the Chinese community (Fernando 26). Ethnocentric politics are the mainstay of the pre-Independence, and has more to do with the precarious position inhabited by each racial component within the country. The UMNO-MCA Alliance seeks to neutralise radicalism by certain segments of the Malay and Chinese communities. The close ties of the pioneering leaders of both parties led to a smoother co-operation between the two parties. The original ideology of the Alliance is quite understandable, as they need to secure a sense of racial harmony, even if at a superficial level. But in the age of globalisation, it is time that the country moves away from the kind of nationalism built through indulging the demands of the majority races and to create a kind of democracy that reaches into the grassroots. We should distrust grandiose meta-narratives that promote division within a society according to racial roots, the meta-narratives, which according to Jean Francois-Lyotard, are “stories which purport to justify loyalty to, or breaks with, certain contemporary communities, but which are neither historical narratives about what these or other communities have done in the past nor scenarios about what they might do in the future”[2]; and that do not lead to the well being of the individuals existing within the majority groups, and that ignores the interest of the minorities. Instead, we should promote the overall health of every interest group; but yet do not forget the importance of ethics and universal values.

Postmodern democracy emphasises the enfranchisement of all interested and minority groups to ensure that their rights are not infringed upon and taken into consideration. Hence it is important to examine the kind of democracy practised by the Malaysian government before suggesting if postmodern politics exists or could exist within Malaysia. The nation’s founding fathers (the Alliance/National Front) favour parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. Having mostly been educated under the British system, it is obvious that they would prefer a system of government based on that of the Westminster model (Fernando 92). The prime minister has great legislative and executive powers, especially with the legislations being mostly passed in the House of Commons. However, Malaysia is moving towards what is constituted as right-wing authoritarianism, and provides a working example to the model developed by Juan Linz[3]; limited political pluralism, lack of any actual elaborate or guiding ideology, no extensive political mobilization and leaders who exercise power within ill-defined but predictable limits (which in the Malaysian case, is the liberal invocation of the ISA
(Internal Security Act) against most forms of opposition or what is construed as threat to the government ).

Despite the successful mobilisation of women in Malaysian history in anti-colonial and nationalist movements, the left and right wings are still organised along ethnic lines. This of course does not augur well for women advocacy, for it further marginalizes the cause of women, leaving them to be a minority within a group that is mostly patriarchal in their outlook. According to Lai in her paper, Kaum Ibu (renamed Wanita UMNO in 1971) has often used a passive approach in seeking changes for women. This approach involves passing resolutions, sending memoranda and personal lobbying by women leaders with the President of UMNO[4], but then they are dependent upon the vagaries of the main party, which are all men, and the success of any reforms that take place will depend on how open the main party is towards it, or of what political interest the matter is to them. Though Kaum Ibu is well organised, with a huge member base compared to the women’s sections in the other political parties, most of the women members accepted their traditional roles as supportive role in the party. However, some of these other women wings, like those in MCA and DAP (Democratic Action Party), have taken up on issues that concern women, such as sexual harassment in the workplace, with laws to recognise women as being equal in different spheres but then their roles are not autonomous and are subjected to the control of their parties (Lai 53). Women were and still are active in their struggles for their rights, not just in political parties, but also in unions, religious organisations and every area that affect the interest of the women. Perhaps it is high-time that women reorganise themselves along the lines that emphasis their strengths instead of following pre-determined patriarchal moulds. As King says in her paper, “The politics of Representation”

...women must develop a politics of representing which does not produce a lot more women creating the sort of images that men have made. Women could seek modes of image-making that are colloquial, giving their due to those represented and refusing exploitative methods. We could try to make images which give women full right to gaze, and try to empower generations of women to define their feminities against the representation of everything from advertisements to old masters.[5]

Hence women could and should use their gifts and rights that have been allotted to them, as “consumers, voters, theorists, representers, historians and critics” (King 139) to challenge the status quo and demand for a political clout in the way that they had fought hard for the social status of women in society.

It is undeniable that Malaysian politics are dominated by Malay, male, elites; followed closely by the Chinese, male, elite [they provide the backing in crony economics]. Most of the other races are relegated to subordinate roles, and that includes the supposedly aboriginal, albeit native inhabitants of the country. A certain amount of animosity does exist between the races, despite the harmonious façade. Hence, there are observers who view the long-term prospects for national integration in Malaysia with scepticism. Rupert Emerson of Harvard had predicted the collapse of the Malaysian multi-racial society since the early days of independence, especially after the elation of having achieved independence subsides.[6]. Though we have not start murdering each other out of ethnic hatred, the consciousness of ethnicity is deeply entrenched and shows little signs of receding. As early as 1989, the intensity of feelings amongst the Ibans of Sarawak and the Kadazans of Sabah had been increasing (Goh 17). This is not surprising given to the need for them to look out for their interest and to protect themselves from exploitation.

A way to promote national integration that need not infringe on the rights of the minorities and improve the quality of relationships not only between the ethnic groups but also between sexes, as well as protecting the rights of disenfranchised groups like homosexuals, sex-workers and transsexuals, would be to practise a kind of identity politics that begins at the bottom of the pyramid, very much inline with the way that grassroots and people’s politics work, and that does not mean just politics that would mostly cater to the majorities, but also that which takes into account the interests of the minorities. The discussion on the subject of democracy, is what Rorty would consider as

The political discourse of the democracies, as its best, is the exchange of what Wittgenstein called “reminders for a particular purpose”- anecdotes about the past effects of various practices and predictions of what will happen if, or unless, some of these are altered. (327)

Identity politics, as defined by Mary Bernstein, in her paper on “Identities and Politics toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian and Gay Movement”: -

Identity fits into social movements in multiple ways that go beyond whether or not movements rely on a fixed identity. Elsewhere I argue that the social movement literature conflates what I call identity for empowerment and identity as a goal and suggest a third use of the term identity—identity as strategy (Bernstein 1997a). In order to mobilize a constituency, a social movement must draw on an existing identity or construct a new collective identity, known as identity for empowerment. The Civil Rights movement drew on a black identity, whereas the labor movement had to create a worker's identity in order to mobilize (Calhoun 1993). Identity may also be a goal of social movements, as activists "challenge stigmatized identities, seek recognition for new identities, or deconstruct restrictive social categories" (Bernstein 1997a: 537). The labor movement may seek protection for the rights of "workers" (once a novel category), just as lesbian and gay activists may seek protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Identity is also a goal of "queer" activists as they seek to break down divisions between sexual categories (Gamson 1995; Epstein 1999).[7] [7]

The gay and lesbian movement within Malaysian is still very much an underground thing, driven beneath by religious and judicial persecutions that outlaw their sexual orientation.

In the West, the gay and lesbian movement would include “challenging dominant constructions of masculinity and femininity, homophobia, and the primacy of the gendered heterosexual nuclear family (heteronormativity). Political goals include changing laws and policies in order to gain new rights, benefits, and protections from harm. Although I use the concepts cultural and political, I underscore that activists seek both types of goals in both the civil and political spheres” (Bernstein 536). In Malaysia, acceptance and recognition for this community is still rather small. If in the West, lesbian movements are slowly breaking away from gay discourses to create their own ontology, Malaysia would take decades more to reach the normative acceptance of this community.

If one were to discourse on the political privilege of being sons of the soil, we could wonder when it would ever end, for what we see now is unequal treatment given to the various “sons and daughters of the soil”, with the dominant group hedging power from the rest of the minority “children of the soil”. If national unity was an elusive concept in the 1990s[8], it remains as elusive today due to the varying policies and politics pursued by the leadership of the country. As Oo concedes, any form of public policy characterized by “preferential treatment and tokenism, implemented in the name of affirmative action, is likely to remain controversial” (26). This is more to say when it benefits only the dominant race that has only been here in the 15 th century when Parameswara, Palembang’s (now part of Indonesia) prince ran away to what is now known as the State of Melaka. In which case, the title of sons of the soil should be given to the Straits Chinese and Gujerati merchants that came not long after. Soon there would be a need to rethink the meaning of the term “children of the soil”. If we take it to mean the aborigines who had lived here for thousands of years, then the Malays could be compared to the white settlers that took over Australia and North America. The boundaries drawn around the definition of the diasporic race is increasingly blurred as Malaysia sees an influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and other neighbouring countries.

I find the concept of ONE (Old, New, Emerging)-Problem Syndrome (OPS) as proposed by Oo to be interesting.

Old problems of national unity are those that are related to inter-racial conflict. And emerging problems of national unity comprise those that transcend inter-racial and intra-racial conflicts. They include a hybrid of class, interest-groups, and generational conflicts. (Oo 65)

Here is a summary of the problems faced by Malaysia

Old(O) – Confrontations that take place as each race express their hostility towards each other, through their political representation or vested interest. This situation is exacerbated by political representations and interests that depend on racial membership for their survival. While political parties and interest groups with multi-racial affinity and issue based interests are slowly making inroads, their growth had been tremendously slow and painful. At the end of the day, the “multi-racial parties” will always be dominated by one race. An example being Keadilan.

New (N)- Contradictions and confrontations within racial groups, based on each group response to the changes in its external environment. Extending beyond claims for political representations and economic control of productive sources, it includes issues such as factional leadership and support for conventional values such as Malay nationalism, Chinese chauvinism, Indian neutrality, Islamic revivalism, Malaysian identity, clan fidelity, and “roots” (native) patriotism.

Emerging (E)- this genre stems from the configuration of members of different racial groups with common or shared values that transcend racial identification and factional allegiance, but based on economic and socio-cultural sources. They consist of groups whose interests are influenced by their socio-economic class, their ideologies, their creeds, occupations or professional allegiance, principles, and interests. Examples would be the business class, the farming class, the unionists, conservationists and environmentalists. (68-87)

Striving towards a democracy that could provide ample opportunities for the improvement of any person regardless of their position in society, by taking into account their socio-economic and religious backgrounds, would be much more productive at the end of the day than promoting of any form of elitism or preferential treatment based on race.

Dato Onn was castigated during his time for introducing what was considered radical, a party that fights for an Independent country that sees all as equals, though we do know that such ideals could never be achieved despite the best of intentions. The Constitution has been formulated in such a way that gives precedence to the dominant race of this country, but it did little to take into account the other native minorities, like the various ethnic groups of Sabah and Sarawak, as well as the Orang Asli. There remains too the ambiguous status of the Straits Chinese. To further deconstruct such ethnic identities, we would say that most of the current generations are “sons (daughters) of the soil”, which would imply that the constitution should protect each and everyone of us, yet only the Malay race has been gazetted into the Constitution as the race especially favoured. Exceptionalism of the Malay race has led to an abrogation of hegemonic power by their elite. Perhaps, instead of identifying the social-strata of the society by race (and not to mention the complications of caste and class that are still inherently strong in societies), it would be better if we identify which particular social group is in dire need of financial assistant, regardless of its ethnicity, as emphasis on the latter (made glaringly obvious by newspaper headlines in Malaysia) serves little to improve ethnic ties within the society, for the new radicalism of the young now has driven wedges within an already divided society. As Professor Judith Nagata has aptly pointed out, in the identification along ethnic lines in the ‘plural’ state of Malaysia

One branch of the social structural school, although not conventionally labelled as such, would be which goes under the rubric of “pluralism.” Like many social structural approaches, the pluralist perspective is macro-oriented, in which the central elements of analysis are social institutions and their accompanying patterns of formal organization. For the pluralist, ethnic boundaries are often reinforced by institutional ones [as reified by the Constitution and government policies], which make the boundaries that much more rigid and the groups which they enclose mutually discrete. Plural societies are normally described in terms which make little allowance for a flow of personnel across ethnic lines or changes of individual identity. Moreover, the discreteness of the plural segments is said to be an expression of basic cultural differences, thus attributing to culture the primum mobile of ethnic differentiation and even conflict.[9]

The superficiality of this kind of “differance” is that it promotes the interest of the elites within the groups, and does little to rectify the sense of exploitation felt by those at the grassroots. It is of course heartening to note that there are NGOs that are committed to causes which emphasis the overall well-being of the nation, as oppose to those that promote the narrow interest of any particular ethnic group, especially that of the majority group. Due to the emphasis on the majority based on the Westminster model (which should be revised on account of its weakness in accruing powers to the coalition majority, despite it having a provision for a minority government), many groups had been sidelined in the past, but are now slowly getting their voices heard through lobby groups. The next step would be for them to get themselves politically initiated.

Religion is also another touchy issue that has often been banned from productive debates and discussions. While I would not go to the extreme of calling for an abandonment of all religious thoughts, I believe that religion should be something separated from the secular state, and be removed from having any political upper hand as it is something that could bring about clashes and further division within the society, as well as fuel religious fanaticism. Yet in this kind of postmodern democracy, the religious interests of each group are taken into account and provisions are made for them.

In postmoderm democracy, there should be a move towards decentralising the state and to deal with each issue as they affect specific groups. Centralising of power by the Federal government should be revised to provide more freedom for state and municipal governance, but then, there is also a need to revise the way which the state is governed so that the citizens would have the right to decide within reasonable limits, and with power of jurisdiction not only within the majority, but also within the minority constituents. Representations by proportions should be rethought, as it does not do justice to minority groups, for then the majority drowns out their voices. The views of each sectional group within the community should be given equal weight.

In conclusion, it is time to rethink the outmoded structuralism of the party politics practised in Malaysia and to practise the kind of democracy that allows more liberty and citizen empowerment and less state authoritarianism. Absolutism, exclusivity, exceptionalism and abrogation of hegemonic polity should not be part of postmodern politics. Only then could we see a more fruitful system working within a pluralist and multicultural society.

[1] Fernando, Joseph M. The Making of the Malayan Constitution. Kuala Lumpur: MABRAS, 2002. 43-44

[2] Rorty, Richard. “Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism.” Postmodernism: A Reader. Ed. Thomas Docherty. Essex: Longman, 1993. 325.

[3] Dickerson, Mark O. and Thomas Flanagan. An Introduction to Government and Politics. Fifth ed. Ontario: ITP Nelson, 1998. 256-57.

[4] Lai Suat Yuan. “The women’s movement in peninsular Malaysia.” Social Movement in Malaysia: From Moral Communities too NGOs. Eds. Meredith L. Weiss and Saliha Hassan. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. 52-3.

[5] King, Catherine. “The Politics of Representation”. Imagining Women. Eds Frances Bonner, Lizbeth Goodman, Richard Allen, Linda Janes and Catherine King. Polity Press: Cambridge, 1992. 139.

[6] Goh Cheng Teik. Racial Politics in Malaysia. Petaling Jaya: Fep International Sdn. Bhd. , 1989.17.

[7] Bernstein, Mary. Identities and Politics: Towards a historical Understanding of the Gay and Lesbian Movement. Social Science History 26.3 (2002).539.

[8] Yu Hock, Oo. Ethnic Chameleon: Multiracial politics in Malaysia. Pelanduk Publications:Malaysia and Australia, 1990. 26.

[9] Nagata, Judith. Malaysian Mosaic:Perspectives from a Poly-ethnic Society. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1979. 185.