Nation-Building Cannot Begin from Irrational Premises
By Farish A. Noor ~ May 21st, 2009. Filed under: Syndicated Columns.
It has become ever-so-trendy of late to talk about nation-building in the most inclusive and open-ended of terms. After assuming office more than a month ago, the Prime Minister of Malaysia Najib Razak began speaking at length about the notion of a ‘United Malaysia’ – which was in turn claimed by opposition parties in the country as their idea as well. In Thailand a slew of parties have claimed monopoly over the concept of a singular, united Thailand. While in Burma since the 1960s the aims of nation-building have been the same as they are now: to bring together the disparate array of ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups under the same banner of a singular Burmese identity.
Now there is nothing wrong with nation-building per se (for indeed one cannot imagine any form of governance without some semblance of a nation-building project accompanying it), and there is nothing wrong with wanting to bring different communities together. What has to be questioned critically, however, is this: What is the final aim of such nation-building projects; what are the premises upon which they are based; and can such projects ever get to their appointed destinations if the premises upon which they are laid are somehow faulty themselves?
The call for national unity can be troubling at times, for often we come across cases where nation-building is nothing less than a polite euphemism for the hegemonic cultural dominance of the majority. A case in point would be the experiment in nation-building in Burma following the coup and military take-over in 1963. The military leaders of Burma then spoke at length about the need to bring the diverse nation together, but forgot to mention that practically the entire leadership of the government, army and civil service was dominated by the ethnic Burmans, while other communities like the Shans, Chin, Kachin, Karens etc were effectively left out. ‘Burmese nationalism’ was therefore nothing more than an attempt to impose the specific identity of the Burmese of the Irrawady delta on the rest of the country…
Likewise Thailand’s identity problem stems from the fact that the Thai community is just one of many. Until today, the plight of minorities in Thailand such as the Malay-Muslims of the south is seen as a marginal concern that does not figure very highly in the political considerations of the elite in Bangkok. But as long as the ethnic Thais do not accept the fact that there are many other ethnic, linguistic and religious communities that occupy the same geography as Thailand, how can there be any real progress in the creation of a multicultural Thailand that truly reflects its diversity?
Likewise in Malaysia national unity has been the bugbear of Malaysian politics since the 1960s. But attempts to forge a sense of national unity and national identity have faltered on the rocks of realpolitik for the simple reason that what we have seen thus far is the steady encroachment of the cultural, linguistic and increasingly religious dominance of one ethnic-cultural group in particular. To compound matters even further, the landscape of Malaysian politics has been dominated mostly by political parties that are communal in character and whose natural vote base come from their respective ethnic, linguistic and religious constituencies.
As long as Malaysian politics maintains the communal and sectarian tenor that it has preserved for half a century, how can there be any real progress in nation-building and the sense of a united yet diverse Malaysia? For if the notion of a ‘united Malaysia’ merely foregrounds one ethnic-religious community at the expense of others, one would not be surprised if the minorities in the country react by saying ‘No thanks, we will keep to our ethno-religious ghettoes and we don’t want to be absorbed by your cultural and religious majoritarianism…’
Nation-building therefore has to begin from rational, objective and universal premises – the first of which is the concept of universal and equal citizenship where every single citizen is regarded as equal to another. The state has to remain colour-blind, and blind to the distinctions of race, ethnicity, gender and religion; and adopt instead the role of the secular ‘honest broker’ that does not favour one community over another.
But can this ever happen in countries like Malaysia, Thailand, Burma or even India, Pakistan and Bangladesh one wonders? For too long the bane of post-colonial development has been the perpetuation of essentialised categories of race, ethnicity and religion. And for too long the reproduction of these essentialised categories has been maintained via an irrational, emotional and oft-time bellicose and confrontational discourse of narrow identity politics. Frankly, it is this adherence to the irrational logic of communalism that is one of the root causes of the failure of nation-building in so many parts of the developing world until today. At its most extreme it will take us to the point where the hardening of communal frontiers will render sensible, objective and critical dialogue on common national issues impossible.
But can the political elites of these countries make the changes that are necessary and over-due? Can the political parties of Malaysia, for instance, de-escalate the process of hardening the ethnic and religious boundaries between the communities; and come to the common agreement that the future of the country cannot be the responsibility of only one ethnic or religious group, but the nation as a whole? Can the politicians of Malaysia come to realise that Malaysia today is far more complex than it has ever been, and that to succeed on a national basis means having to abandon the sectarian politics of the past and adopting the inclusive democratic politics of the future?
The rationalist in me can see the problem, and even suggest a solution or two. But in the heated environment of Malaysian politics today, one wonders who will be the first to simply state the obvious: Malaysia will not get anywhere as long as the political parties of the country do not reject, once and for all, race and religion-based politics for the sake of the wider long-term goal of nation-building and democratisation. But being reasonable means being in the minority these days, and like all minority groups the world over, rationalists today are forced to watch the slow failure of nation-building thanks to the politics of unreason that has overcome us.
May 21st, 2009 at 16:57
Both the government and the opposition are plagued with their own major issues I’d like to call the 2Cs. The government are often blamed for corruptions and complacency due to possession of power for too long. With the opposition, it is always the consistency in principles and recently, corruptibility.
http://profesorserbatau.co.cc/
May 21st, 2009 at 17:29
Sad. We are still in race-based politics. The people in power is in no hurry to change that. I don’t think I will be able to see any changes in my lifetime. There is little hope in my tanah-tumpah-nya-darahku. I will die a second class citizen.
May 21st, 2009 at 18:06
yes. we are living in the age of the unthinkable where war against terrorism creates more terrorist and financial democratization brought about worldwide economic collapse. the book is a good read.
in the context of malaysia, on can never avoid conflicts if the people do not learn to accept and cherish the diversity. it starts from education. as with everything in malaysia, education cannot be changed without a change in the political scene.
what we need is to dislodge as many as possible the institutions in the country from political control. education is the most important one.
we cannot let everything fall under the total control of the few political warlords.
May 21st, 2009 at 19:08
Rationality itself is a concept that must necessarily have an irrational premise. Economic rationality, for example, is premised on the assumption that all individuals want to maximise their own wealth.
But in terms of the trend in developing countries for communalism, it must be said that we have had a shorter history of having highly organised national governments than the developed nations that have formed some form of national identity.
Thus, we were unfortunate enough to have been able to form our own nation-state after a time when cultural awareness was much stronger. If we had formed in the 1800s perhaps, we may have been able to achieve the same top-down imposed formation of a national identity such as those used by the “it is forbidden to spit on the floow and speak patois” policies the French government used to forge its own national self.
It is very hard to reduce the urge to view every matter in communal terms, since it is almost intrinscially human to do so. After all, the concept of a nation state itself, is an arbitrary delineation of human communities.
cheers
May 21st, 2009 at 19:25
“de-escalate the process of hardening the ethnic and religious boundaries between the communities;”" This can only happen with the complete demise of the present government. Even then there are lots more of the present norm of of a one sided affair in the allocation of scholarship, entry into the U, civil service, business contracts etc etc have to be dismantled.
Presently there is a call for a single school concept with Chinese and Indian language as an additional subject. Rationally speaking this concept cannot work if the above mentioned are not dismantled. When a child complete his secondary school, he will face the barriers mentioned and will be disillusioned and the racist feelings emerge and becomes more apparent when he ventures into the job market.
Malaysia is sick as long as you have the BN in power.
May 22nd, 2009 at 09:07
New software required for such a feat, however there aren’t any coders around
May 26th, 2009 at 08:53
Switzerland is an interesting country structurally and linguistically. It is also a country surrounded by mighty powers. However, it survived. I am more interested in it’s ‘european diversity’. Swiss are at least bi-lingual. How did they survive amidst the diversity and hardly tainted by ethnic wars? Can we learn from them? For thoughts….
May 29th, 2009 at 04:09
You know, this seems a lot like something Asia Chronicle (www.asiachroniclenews.com) would publish - they take scholarly and professional writing on Asian and world subjects and provide a forum for people to have their work noticed. You ought to check it out.
May 30th, 2009 at 21:09
I have travelled quite a bit and have been to Australia. India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand and several countries in Europe and the nearest best harmoniously integrated society that I have witnessed and lived with is that of Malaya/Malaysia and Singapore of the 40’ and 50’s up to 1962. It was in managing and leading such a society that prompted Tengku Abdul Rahman to speak out his heart to declare that he was the happiest Prime Minister in the world. It was so until Mahathir and his like-minded self proclaimed nationalists came on to the political scene to topple Tengku and wrest power playing the race card. Since then Malaysia has remained divisive with the majority and the minority being suspicious of each other.
Integration is one route to racial harmony. Will assimilation process solve the problem? The Malay/Muslim majority in Malaysia may want the Chinese, Indians and other minority groups to get assimilated in the like fashion of the Chinese in Indonesia and Thailand. This basically involves diluting, if not abdicating, their visceral and emotional attachment to their language and culture and absorb instead, the indigenous culture and language of the majority. They take up native names and probably in 2-3 generations they will change to true ‘natives’ themselves losing all traces of their original roots.
The assimilation process will work fine where the majority is overwhelming and the minority is miniscule like in Indonesia and Thailand. But where the gap between the indigenous majority and the immigrant group total is pretty close – like in Malaysia - to force integration through the assimilation process can spell danger.
The best option, in my mind, for Malaysia to succeed and prosper and shine as a model state is for it to revert to the British mandated system of the 40’s and 50’s encompassing two vital elements viz:
Language policy: Have English and Bahasa Malaysia as the compulsory twin language policy with English as the medium of instruction. The vernacular languages can be taught and learned optionally within the standard or extended school system. Such national schools will facilitate the various race group students to inter-mix and inter-act promoting the concept unity in diversity.
Ensuring the acceptance and importance of Bahasa Malaysia: Acquisition and mastering of English language may, over time, result in Bahasa Malaysia being used less and losing its important status. To stem this consider implementing the following steps.
1 All serving staff in the government service, government agencies and government linked companies should sit and pass an oral and written examination in Bahasa Malaysia (the standard level to be fixed by the examining body) for promotion to the next level
2 All applicants for trade and service licences and taxis must pass an oral and written test in Bahasa Malaysia to be eligible for the issue of these licences. Likewise they should be required to pass similar tests every 3-5 years to renew the licences.
I know I will receive brickbats from some quarters for my temerity for suggesting the above but I think there will be a lot of other Malaysians who will share my sentiments and viewpoints.
Majula Malaysia.
June 1st, 2009 at 19:03
Dear Dr A Farish Noor,
Point taken. I wonder if your suprise about the increase in Malay ‘intolerability’ in recent years, was a genuine one. In the 1820’s, Chinese groups went to London to demand that the administration of Straits Settlement of Penang be transferred from India to London. When the Chinese had problems in seeking concessions to extract tin through the proper channel in the 1860s right up to the dawn of 1930s, they went straight to the Malay Rulers, causing heated tensions with Malay power structures. However, the Chinese and Tamil Hindu immigrant NEVER openly questioned the Malay Rulers traditional ways, never question the religion of Islam, never questioned Malay lands, never questoned decisions made by Mohammedan courts, never questioned Islamic edicts passed by the Sultans and the list goes on. In the year 2002, all hell broke lose. The trust was betrayed. And so, was I suprised like you seem to be? No sir. I’m not suprised. When implied social contractual ethical issues are broken, the Malays, if my belief is correct, will bring the issues to their graves, and therefrom, from generations to generations. Tanah Melayu is such (another term (so far) agreed till this day by other racial components - The Malay States, or if you like - the States of Malaya). Any clue?