In this article, I look at just how a consociational a democracy our country is, based on reflections of a dialogue session that I participated in at the Centre for Dialogue in Melbourne. A version of this was published in theSun on the 9th of December 2011.
Earlier this week, I had the opportunity of speaking 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 evidences of this everyday whether we are dealing with religious, educational or political affairs. What this challenge is grounded upon is the problem of identifying boundaries between the exercising of respective communities’ freedoms. For example, to what extent can my rights be exercised such that it does not impinge upon the rights of someone else’s? 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.
Take civil society, for instance, which is the subject I chose to speak on. Civil society 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 for 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 a power-sharing, or guaranteed group representation, solution, 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 a consociational arrangement to survive may no longer be existent today, more than 50 years after Malaysia’s independence. The political scientist Lijphart proposed several favourable conditions, including segmental isolation of ethnic communities, where it must be possible to identify the segments into which society is divided.
Because the Barisan coalition has been so structured along ethnic lines, it has never been in their 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 taking place. 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 sarong 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 the closing remarks of the recent 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.
