Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good alternative explanation to the type of state forms., April 6, 1999
By A Customer
Central Argument. The author attempts to explain how and why democracy persisted in some post-colonial states and give way to authoritarianism in others in spite that they both emerged as democratic post-colonial states. Alatas argued and show that factors such as level of economic development and mode of colonial administration cannot provide explanation of the different post-colonial state form of Malaysia and Indonesia. They provide an alternative explanation of the different state forms by comparing the interplay of three factors and show how these three factors led to two very different outcomes, that is, authoritarian and democratic post-colonial states. The three factors are elite cohesion, internal state strength and armed resistance. In Chapter 4, 5 and 6, the Alatas shows how the absence of armed resistance, the presence of an internally strong state and a high degree of elite cohesion led to a democratic Malaysia while the presence of armed resistance in the context of a weak state and elite factionalism lead to an authoritarian Indonesia. Chapter by Chapter Review. In Chapter 1, Alatas provides us with an introduction to the state structure of Malaysia and Indonesia. The Malaysian form of state is a federated constitutional monarchy while the Indonesian form of state is a presidential government. He also shows that the independence of judiciary in Indonesia tends to be restricted by political influences while the Malaysian State has a relative independence judiciary. By using structural comparisons such as judiciary system and government structure, between Malaysia and Indonesia, Alatas clearly explains that Malaysia is more democratic as compare to Indonesia. He also states that although democracy in Malaysia does not live up to the standards of western liberal democracies, nor does it aspire to, it is a system in which democratic procedures and institutions distinguish it quantitatively from the regime in Indonesia. In this chapter, Alatas provide us with reliable facts and good examples to show that Malaysia is indeed more democratic than Indonesia in which he is going to base his argument on. In Chapter 2, Alatas introduces us to the three types of approaches in which we can use to explain the formation of the type of states. They are the psychological, cultural and structural approaches. Here he also emphasizes that the approach use in this article is that of a structural approach. Alatas shows that the cultural theory, that focuses on the assumption that share values are a prerequisite to democracy, fail to explains the Indonesia-Malaysia context because studies show little variation between Indonesia and Malaysia in terms of cultural pluralism. In this chapter, Alatas give examples showing that the difference between Dutch and British forms of colonial administration, as far as the inculcation of democratic ideals is concerned, was not a factor leading to the different post-colonial outcomes in Malaysia and Indonesia. His presentation of theoretical perspectives on the state in third world was comprehensive. In this article he presented the deficiency of 6 theories in explaining the post-colonial state form with the exception of the elite theory. The 6 theories are the economic theory of democracy, dependency/world system theory, bureaucratic authoritarian model, elite theories of the state, post-colonial state theory and the non-capitalist path of development. Here he provides an alternative theoretical perspective focuses on the class composition of the state and the dominant elite. Here he also states that the method of comparison employs in this study is that of a historical comparison. In this chapter, he also gives the definition of armed resistance, elite cohesion and state strength. In his study, Alatas focuses on the three internal factors while foreign power support will be referred to as well. In Chapter 3, Alatas discusses the Muslim cultural identity of the Malay-Indonesia Archipelago hence providing explanation for its similarity in local worldviews and the notion of power and authority. Here, he gives an account of the pre-capitalist mode of production and the economy and society during the colonial period. This chapter provides a very good historical and sociological background for studying the emergence of the Malaysian and Indonesian post-colonial states discussed in chapters 4, 5 and 6. In Chapter 4, based on historical and sociological background he introduces in Chapter 3, Alatas discusses the peasants and workers movement, their potential for revolution and their resistance against the colonial and post-colonial states. Here he states that while peasants and workers uprisings were common against colonialist and indigenous leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia, what we do not find is widespread revolts amidst the breakdown of the colonial state. There is also no mass mobilization of peasants and workers in the post-colonial state building. Therefore, the result of an authoritarian Indonesia is not the result of mass opposition against the state. Here, Alatas also provides us with information of the Dutch and British policy towards communist insurgency and non-communist insurgency. The Dutch sponsored some of the separatist movements, such as the Free Aceh movement, while the British adopted a counter-insurgency policy. This clearly shows that the newly independent state of Malaysia did not inherit oppositional mass movements that might have led to the reactive establishment of authoritarian regimes, while the rise of an authoritarian state in Indonesia is to be explained in terms of the presence of oppositional mass movement. This chapter provides examples supporting his claim that the presence of armed rebellion led to an authoritarian Indonesia while the absence of it led to a democratic Malaysia. The presence of armed rebellion rationalizes the military role in politics of Indonesia and thus leading to an authoritarian Indonesia. In Chapter 5, Alatas discusses the principal causes behind the independence movements in British Malaya and Netherlands Indies as well as their democratic outcomes. Here, he also discusses the internal strength of the state as a factor in post- colonial state formation. Internal strength of state is being defined in terms of strong dominant internal class support. He also emphasizes that an understanding of the internal strength of the state will have to take into account both class and ethnic aspects of dominant class support for the state. Here, Alatas attempted to show that the presence of an strong Malaysian state, as a result of strong dominant class support, led to a democratic state formation while the absence of it led to a authoritarian Indonesia. The failure of the weak state in Indonesia to create political stability and economic prosperity created the rationalization for the military to play a dominant role in politics and hence leading to an authoritarian Indonesia. In Chapter 6, Alatas discusses about his third internal factor of elite cohesion. Here, we can see that there is an overlap between elite cohesion and the internal strength of a state. Alatas attempt to explain that the presence of the coalition of ethnic parties result in an internally strong state while factionalism in Indonesia result in a weak state. As mentioned in Chapter 5, the internal strength of a state is a factor to the kind of post-colonial state form as argued by Alatas. Therefore, we can conclude that the presence of elite cohesion led to a democratic Malaysia while the absence of it led to an authoritarian Indonesia. Alatas shows that the presence of elite cohesion also led to democratic stability while the absence of it led to instability and hence promoting politicized military. In Chapter 7, Alatas concludes his argument by drawing us to the implication of his theory with other theories such as the peripheral Caribbean and Africa states studied by Thomas and the semi-peripheral Latin American countries studied by O'Donnell. He also provides us with possible future political developments in Indonesia and Malaysia based on his theory, showing us how the three internal factors have changed and how these changes are going to affect the future political developments. Language and style. The author is very well organize and focus in his presentation. This can be see by the systematic organization of chapter in this book starting with introduction to Malaysia and Indonesia political structure and the historical and social background in the early chapters to facilitate his explanation of post-colonial state form in his later chapters. Apart from the good organization of chapters, he also consistently reminds the reader of his theoretical explanation by emphasizing on the three internal factors in the ending of every chapter. In addition, an introduction to what he is going to discuss at the beginning of every chapter also help readers to oriented themselves during their reading. Targeted Audience. This book is very suitable for both students and lecturers interested in doing any research on post-colonial state forms and internal political development of Malaysi
|
|
|
|
