The Other Malaysia

Q and A for students of AS6011:

I’ve taken the liberty of cutting and pasting some of the questions that some of you have been sending me over the past two weeks and am going to address them here as best I can in stages. Here are some of the questions that Ive received so far, and perhaps we can discuss them in greater detail in the following classes too.

Q. Does this suggests that even irrational, primordial and non-factual mythologies can be used at the search for identity-construction and nation-building? - This is where I start to think about the comparison of what would be a natur(al) community vs imagined communities today. We see in Rwanda that natural divisions can have disastrous effects, while many nations today continue to live harmoniously today in ‘imagined communities’. I am not sure how important is my question - but it seems to me that world history has brought human race to this point of development that it is useless to think about what is imagined and what it should have been. The European Union prompted me to think of nation-building as a process. From being absolutely bellicose towards each other, to individual nations, to bi-polarism in cold war, to moving towards a ’super-federated’ Union - Europe could be the model of community evolution that we are witnessing. I think what drives the Europeans down this process: learning from conflicts and changing to survive (in the globalised world and balancing the power of US and China).

A. Firstly, be careful when you use terms like ‘natural’ communities etc. How and in what sense are they ‘natural’? The term natural, when applies in contexts such as ‘natural law’ or ‘natural justice’ has a teleological and essentialist ring to it that can be dangerous. After all, patriarchy has been described as ‘natural’ by some, and even apartheid was said to be ‘natural’ by its proponents and defenders. Using the term thus has the potentially dangerous effect of rendering essentalist and given something – esp social phenomena- that ought to be interrogated instead.

As to the question of ‘natural’ vs ‘imagined’ communities, this brings us back to our earlier lectures about how all nations are necessarily composite entities that involve some degree of wilfull and deliberate assembly/co-operation. But all communities are invented in the sense that there has to be some subjective/narrative component to it (history, a historical account of its genesis, etc.). The real question is whether the development of that common imaginary is a collective effort that is open to all, or an effort that involved the collaboration of a smaller, privileged elite.

Take the United States of America for instance: its genesis lies in the complex narrative of liberation from English colonial rule, but even at the outset it was a project confined to a small number of privileged landed elites. At the outset, the other narratives of other Americans (African slaves, native Americans, women, etc.) was not part of the national imaginary.

It was only with the societal-political developments of the 20th century (civil rights movement, womens rights movement, anti-war movement etc) that the discursive space of that national narrative was expanded to include these other constituencies.

So therefore remember that national narratives – though ‘imaginary’ and discursive in nature and content- can also be contested and should sometimes be contested if it opens the way for the social mobilisation and upward social movement of marginalised groups as well.

Q. The theme I had on my mind was the ‘chicken and egg’ situation that religious and ethnic cleavages have in the Malaysian society today. In creating consolidating power and position throughout history in Malaya and in today’s Malaysian politics, I have this feeling that politicians and Malaysian in general, continue to be stuck in the dilemma between (A) need to use religious and ethnic cleavages to gain and retain power and (B) need to separate religious and ethnic issues from political and policies in order to become Malaysian Malaysia. PM Najib seems to be an aspiring technocrat like his father - trying for 1Malaysia, yet he knows that his position and power to effect such a change is founded upon religious and ethnic cleavages. So does he free himself of those cleavages or does he use it to push for unity, despite the irony of the situation. And as you mentioned in class, is Malaysia too late for such a change - hence bringing me to ponder upon the ‘chicken and egg - which comes first’ in the attempt to separate religion, ethnic from politics and policies.

A. That is a good question and points to the dilemma of communitarian politics in general and Malaysian politics in particular. Note that throughout the history of Malaya/Malaysia almost all Malaysian leaders have, at some points in the respective careers, played the race/religion card as well. Even current Prime Minister Najib who now espouses the 1Malaysia idea was himself a ethno-nationalist in the 1980s (Don’t forget his role as UMNO Youth leader in 1987), and yet as soon as they come to power realise that nation-building and governance will mean having to adjust your political rhetoric and programmes to a wider, and more inclusive general national agenda. But as long as every Malaysian politician/political party starts from the divisive premise of divided communitarian politics, they will invariably begin from the premise of dividing the same society that they later wish to unite when they come to power. The ‘chicken and egg’ metaphor you use is therefore apt, for this is precisely the vicious cycle that affects all nation-states that indulge in, or go down the path of, sectarian ethnic/cultural/religious-based communal politics.

Q. Accepting the argument that UMNO simply adopted an Islamic image, especially with regards to its external/international portrayal, what about internally/domestically? How would one then differentiate between PAS and UMNO?

A. Well if we are to look at the state of political Islam in Malaysia today, and in particular the rise of the parallel Islamic/religious bureaucracy, then you will note that all of these developments were done by UMNO and not PAS. Institutions like JAIS, JAKIM, etc were built under the patronage and guidance of an UMNO-led government, and not PAS. It was UMNO that created the parallel religious bureaucracy in the country, and most of the controversies of late- including the controversy over the banning of books etc. – have involved the religious bureaucracy that was created under the patronage of the UMNO/BN controlled state apparatus.

In this respect the Islamisation race between UMNO and PAS has blurred the distinction between the two. In the 1980s PAS’s main critique of UMNO was that all the Islamisation moves/projects it made were cosmetic, and a matter of image-management rather than a commitment towards the full Islamisation of Malaysian society and politics.

Q. On a more general level, what will the difference be then, between ‘Islamist’ and ‘Islamic’?

A. The term ‘Islamist’ is used in political theory purely and mainly as a term of reference and classification, as many of those described as Islamists don’t use the term, or don’t like it. Basically it denotes any Muslim activist/politician who sees Islam as the basis of his/her political ideology, and seeks to instrumentalise Islam as the basis of a political project. Islam then serves as the basis of a political ideology to be enacted/practised. Not all Muslims are Islamists, as not all Muslims feel the need to have a politics based on Islam. Ie. You can be a Muslim who believes that a secular political system is good enough. This is the main difference between Islamists and normative Muslims.