Advertisement

Post-colonial Discourse on the State in Indonesia and Malaysia

Chapter
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

The fact that the Malaysian state has managed to maintain a relatively democratic regime, while an authoritarian regime came to power in Indonesia has never been the focus of historical and comparative analysis despite certain cultural, social, and historical affinities between these two countries. This work explains this difference in terms of contrasting class structures and alliances and also examines differences in political challenges to the Indonesian and Malaysian states from popular forces.

Keywords

Civil Society Liberal Democracy Authoritarian Regime Opposition Parti Colonial State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Fred Riggs, Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity, Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1960;Google Scholar
  2. John L. S. Girling, The Bureaucratic Polity in Modernizing Societies: Similarities, Differences, and Prospects in the ASEAN Region, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1986;Google Scholar
  3. Guillermo O’Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism, 2nd edn, Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies, 1979;Google Scholar
  4. Arief Budiman, ‘The Emergence of the Bureaucratic-Capitalist State in Indonesia,’ in Lim Teck Ghee, ed., Reflections on Development in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1988, pp. 110–28.Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    Guillermo O’Donnell, ‘Delegative Democracy’, Journal of Democracy 5, 1, 1994, 55–69: p. 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 3.
    Raymond Aron, Democracy and Totalitarianism, London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1968, p. 83.Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    K. G. Tregonning, ‘The Failure of Economic Development and Political Democracy in Southeast Asia’, Asian Studies 5, 2, 1967, 323–31.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    NSTP, Elections in Malaysia: Facts and Figures, Kuala Lumpur: NSTP Research and Informations Services, 1994; Ahmad Fawzi Mohd Basri, ‘Pilihan Raya Umum 1995: Mandat Baru Menjelang 2000’, Dewan Masyarakat May 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    Diane K. Mauzy, ‘Malaysia in 1987: Decline of the “Malay Way”’ Asian Survey 28, 2, 1988, 213–22: p. 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 7.
    For a brief account on Mahathir and the judiciary see K. S. Nathan, ‘Malaysia in 1988: The Politics of Survival’, Asian Survey 29, 2, 1989, 129–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 8.
    James V. Jesudason, ‘Statist Democracy and the Limits to Civil Society in Malaysia’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 33, 3, 1995, 335–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 10.
    Goh Cheng Teik, ‘Why Indonesia’s Attempt at Democracy in the Mid-1950s Failed’, Modern Asian Studies 6, 2, 1972, 225–44: pp. 225–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 11.
    Ulf Sundhaussen, ‘Indonesia: Past and Present Encounters with Democracy,’ in Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, eds., Volume 3, Democracy in Developing Countries: Asia, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers; London: Adamantine Press, Ltd., 1989 Countries, pp. 423–74: p. 431.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    For a review of the party system see Daniel Dhakidae, ‘Partai Politik dan Sistem Kepartaian di Indonesia’, Prisma 10, 12, 1981, 3–23.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. van Dijk, ‘The Indonesian General Elections 1971–92,’ Indonesia Circle 58, 1992, 48–66.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    R. William Liddle, ‘Indonesia in 1987: The New Order at the Height of its Power,’ Asian Survey 28, 2, 1988, 180–91: p. 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 22.
    Ulf Sundhaussen, ‘The Military: Structure, Procedures, and Effects on Indonesian Society,’ in Karl D. Jackson & Lucian W. Pye, eds., Political Power and Communications in Indonesia, Berkeley, Los Angeles, & London: University of California Press, 1978, pp. 45–81, p. 51.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    Robert C. Johansen, ‘Military Policies and the State System as Impediments to Democracy,’ Political Studies 40, special issue, 1992, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 24.
    For some general works see Samuel P. Huntington, ‘Will More Countries Become Democratic’, Political Science Quarterly 99, 2, 1984, 193–218;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991;Google Scholar
  21. Huntington, ‘Democracy’s Third Wave’, Journal of Democracy 2, 2, 1991, 12–34;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huntington, ‘How Countties Democratize’, Political Science Quarterly 106, 4, 1991–2, 579–616;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chan Heng Chee, ‘Democracy: Evolution and Implementation — An Asian Perspective’, in Robert Bartley, Chan Heng Chee, Samuel P. Huntington and Shijuro Ogata, Democracy and Capitalism: Asian and American Perspectives, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993, pp. 1–26;Google Scholar
  24. James Cotton, ‘The Limits to Liberalization in Industrializing Asia: Three Views of the State’, Pacific Affairs 64, 3, 1991, 311–27;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grzegorz Ekiert, ‘Democratization Processes in East Central Europe: A Theoretical Reconsideration’, British Journal of Political Science 21, 3, 1991, 285–313;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Diane Ethier, ed., Democratic Transition and Consolidation in Southern Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990;Google Scholar
  27. Ethier, ‘Democratic Consolidation in Southern Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia: Comparative Perspectives’, Journal of Developing Societies 7, 1991, 195–217;Google Scholar
  28. Edward Friedman, ed., The Politics of Democratization: Generalising East Asian Experiences, Boulder: Westview, 1994;Google Scholar
  29. Kanishka Jayasuriya, ‘Political Economy of Democratisation in East Asia’, Asian Perspective 18, 2, 1994, 141–80;Google Scholar
  30. Stephanie Lawson, ‘Conceptual Issues in the Comparative Study of Regime Change and Democratization’, Comparative Politics 25, 2, 1993, 183–205;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James Petras, ‘State, Regime and the Democratization Muddle’, Journal of Contemporary Asia 19, 1, 1989, 26–33;Google Scholar
  32. Doh Chull Shin, ‘On the Third Wave of Democratization: A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research’, World Politics 47, 1994, 135–70;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Francisco C. Weffort, ‘What is a “New Democracy”’, International Social Science Journal 136, 1993, 245–56.Google Scholar
  34. 25.
    James V. Jesudason, ‘The Limits to Civil Society and Democracy in Malaysia.’ Paper presented at a conference on Transition to Democracy, organized by the Friederich-Naumann Stiftung, Phuket 28 May — 1 June 1993;Google Scholar
  35. Johan Saravanamuttu, ‘The State and Democratisation: Reflections on the Malaysian Case.’ Paper presented at the Joint Annual Convention of the British International Studies Association and the International Studies Association, London, 28 March – 1 April 1989.Google Scholar
  36. 26.
    See, for example, Chandra Muzaffar, Freedom in Fetters: An Analysis of the State of Democracy in Malaysia, Penang: Aliran, 1984;Google Scholar
  37. Johan Saravanamuttu, ‘Authoritarian Statism and Strategies for Democratisation: Malaysia in the 1980s,’ in Peter Limqueco, ed., Partisan Scholarship: Essays in Honour of Renato Constantino, Manila & Wollongong: Journal of Contemporary Asia Publishers, 1989, pp. 223–51.Google Scholar
  38. 27.
    Ian Chalmers, ‘Indonesia 1990: Democratization and Social Forces,’ Southeast Asian Affairs 1991, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 107–21; Chua Beng Huat, ‘Looking for Democratization in Post-Soeharto Indonesia’, Contemporary Southeast Asia 15, 2, 1993, 131–60;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. J. Soedjati Djiwandono, ‘Democratic Experiment in Indonesia: Between Achievements and Expectations,’ Indonesian Quarterly 15, 4, 1987, 661–9;Google Scholar
  40. Djiwandono, ‘Indonesia in 1988: Progress in Democratic Experiment?’ Indonesian Quarterly 17, 4, 1989, 335–49;Google Scholar
  41. Max Lane, ‘“Openness”, Political Discontent and Succession in Indonesia: Political Developments in Indonesia 1989–91’, Australia-Asia Papers no 56, Centre for the Study of Australia-Asia Relations, Division of Asian and International Studies, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld, 1991; Riwanto Tirtosudarmo, ‘Indonesia 1991: Quest for Democracy in a Turbulent Year,’ Southeast Asian Affairs 1992, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 123–39;Google Scholar
  42. 28.
    Amir Santoso, ‘Democracy and Parliament: Future Agenda,’ Indonesian Quarterly 20, 1, 1992, 84–93;Google Scholar
  43. R. Eep Saefullah Fatah, ‘Dwi Fungsi ABRI dan Demokratisasi: Retrospeksi dan Prospeksi Peranan Politik Militer di Masa Orde Baru,’ Cendekia Muda 1, 1, 1993, 5–20;Google Scholar
  44. Kartjono, ‘Demokratisasi di Tingkat “Grassroots”: Peranan Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat,’ Prisma 17, 6, 1988, 28–40;Google Scholar
  45. 94.
    David Reeve, ‘Sukarnoism and Indonesia’s “Functional Group” State — Part One: Developing “Indonesian Democracy”,’ Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs 12, 2, 1978, 43–;Google Scholar
  46. Reeve, ‘Sukarnoism and Indonesia’s “Functional Group” State — Part Two: Implementing “Indonesian Democracy”,’ Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs 13, 1, 1979, 52–115;Google Scholar
  47. Olle Tornquist, Struggle for Democracy — A New Option in Indonesia?, Uppsala: The AKUT series no. 33, University of Uppsala, 1984, ch. 2.Google Scholar
  48. 29.
    For general works encompassing a wide range of theoretical perspectives see Syed Farid Alatas, ‘Theoretical Perspectives on the Role of State Elites in Southeast Asian Development’, Contemporary Southeast Asia 14, 4, 1993, 368–95;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Richard P. Appelbaum & Jeffry Henderson, eds, States and Development in the Asian Pacific Rim, Newbury Park: Sage, 1992;Google Scholar
  50. Fred Block, ‘The Roles of the State in the Economy’, in Neil J. Smelser & Richard Swedberg, eds, The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 691–710;Google Scholar
  51. Richard H. Brown & William T. Lin, eds, Modernization in East Asia: Political, Economic and Social Perspectives, Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992;Google Scholar
  52. William L. Canak, ‘The Peripheral State Debate: State Capitalist and Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regimes in Latin America’, Latin American Research Review 19, 1, 1984, 3–36;Google Scholar
  53. James Cotton, ‘The State in the Asian NICs’, Asian Perspective 18, 1, 1994, 39–56;Google Scholar
  54. Frederic C. Deyo, ed., The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987;Google Scholar
  55. Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer & Theda Skocpol, eds, Bringing the State Back In, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985;Google Scholar
  56. Ziya Onis, ‘The Logic of the Developmental State’, Comparative Politics 24, 1, 1991, 109–26;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robert Wade, Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990;Google Scholar
  58. Ding-xin Zhao & John A. Hall, ‘State Power and Patterns of Late Development: Resolving the Crisis of the Sociology of Development’, Sociology 28, 1, 1994, 211–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 30.
    On the regulation of the economy and direct involvement in capital accumulation in Indonesia see M. Bosch, ‘Rol van de Staat in Indonesies Industrialisaties: Huidige Industriepolitiek Vol Tegenstrijdigheden,’ Indonesia Feiten en Meningen 11, 5, 1986, 24–30;Google Scholar
  60. Olle Tornquist, ‘Rent Capitalism, State, and Democracy: A Theoretical Proposition,’ in Arief Budiman, ed., State and Civil Society in Indonesia, Clayton, Vic.: Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, 1990, pp. 29–49;Google Scholar
  61. Bruce Glassburner, ‘Political Economy and the Soeharto Regime,’ Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 14, 3, 1978, 24–51;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Andrew Macintyre, Business and Politics in Indonesia, Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990;Google Scholar
  63. Yahya Muhaimin, Bisnis dan Politik: Kebijaksanaan Ekonomi Indonesia 1950–1980, Jakarta: LP3ES, 1990;Google Scholar
  64. Richard Robison, Indonesia: The Rise of Capital, Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1986;Google Scholar
  65. Robison, ‘Towards a Class Analysis of the Indonesian Military Bureaucratic State,’ Indonesia 25, 1978, 17–39;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Robison, ‘Culture, Politics, and Economy in the Political History of the New Order,’ Indonesia 31, 1981, 1–29;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hans van der Veen, ‘Staats Obstakel voor Industrialisering,’ Indonesia Feiten en Meningen 11, 5, 1986, 8–9.Google Scholar
  68. On the same in Malaysia see Fatimah Halim, ‘Capital, Labour and the State: The West Malaysian Case,’ Journal of Contemporary Asia 12, 3, 1982, 259–80;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Fatimah Halim, ‘The State in West Malaysia,’ Race and Class 24, 1, 1982, 33–45;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Edmund Terence Gomez, Politics in Business: UMNO’s Corporate Investments, Kuala Lumpur: Forum, 1990;Google Scholar
  71. Halim Salleh, ‘State Capitalism in Malaysian Agriculture’, Journal of Contemporary Asia 21, 3, 1991, 327–43;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. James V. Jesudason, Ethnicity and the Economy: The State, Chinese Business, and Multinationals in Malaysia, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1989;Google Scholar
  73. Johan Saravanamuttu, ‘The State, Authoritarianism and Industrialization: Reflections on the Malaysian Case,’ Kajian Malaysia 5, 2, 1987, 43–75;Google Scholar
  74. Jomo Kwame Sundaram, A Question of Class: Capital, the State, and Uneven Development in Malaya, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1986;Google Scholar
  75. Lim Mah Hui, ‘Contradictions in the Development of Malay Capital: State, Accumulation and Legitimation,’ in John G. Taylor & Andrew Turton, eds, Sociology of Developing Societies: Southeast Asia, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988, pp. 19–32;Google Scholar
  76. Lim Mah Hui & William Canak, ‘The Political Economy of State Policies in Malaysia,’ Journal of Contemporary Asia 11, 2, 1981, 208–24;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mohamad Abdad Mohamad Zain, ‘Ekonomi Politik Kabinet: Satu Peralihan Kelas di Kalangan Elit Kuasa dan Hala Himpunan Lebihan di Malaysia Kini,’ Kajian Malaysia 7, 1/2, 1989, 38–57;Google Scholar
  78. Loong Wong, ‘The State and Organised Labour in West Malaysia, 1967–1980’, Journal of Contemporary Asia 23, 2, 1993, 214–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 31.
    Syed Hussein Alatas, Corruption: Its Nature, Causes and Functions, Aldershot: Avebury, 1990;Google Scholar
  80. A Hamzah, Korupsi dalam Pengelolaan Proyek Pembangunan, Jakarta: Penerbit Akademika Pressindo, 1985;Google Scholar
  81. Hamzah, Korupsi di Indonesia: Masalah dan Pemecahannya, Jakarta: Gramedia, 1991;Google Scholar
  82. L. V. Carirño, Bureaucratic Corruption in Asia: Causes, Consequences and Controls, Quezon City: JMC Press & Manila: College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines, 1986;Google Scholar
  83. Nor Azizan Idris, ‘Nepotisme dalam Politik Malaysia,’ Ilmu Masyarakat 20, 1991, 16–43.Google Scholar
  84. 32.
    Arend Lijphart, ‘Consociational Democracy’, World Politics 21, 2, 1969, 207–25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Anek Laothamatas, Business Associations and the New political Economy of Thailand: From Bureaucratic Polity to Liberal Corporatism, Boulder: Westview, 1992;Google Scholar
  86. Beng-Huat Chua, Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore, London: Routledge, 1995.Google Scholar
  87. 33.
    Atilio Boron, ‘New Forms of Capitalist State in Latin America: An Exploration’, Race and Class 20, 3, 1979, 263–76;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Robin Luckham, ‘Militarism: Force, Class and International Conflict’, IDS Bulletin 9, 1, 1978, 19–32;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. James Petras, ‘State Capitalism and the Third World’, Development and Change 8, 1, 1977, 1–17;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Petras, ‘The “Peripheral State”: Continuity and Change in the International Division of Labour’, Journal of Contemporary Asia 12, 4, 1982, 415–31;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. W. Ziemann & M. Lanzendorfer, ‘The State in Peripheral Societies’, in Ralph Miliband & John Saville, eds, The Socialist Register, London: Merlin Press, 1977, pp. 143–77.Google Scholar
  92. 35.
    O’Donnell, Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism; O’Donnell, ‘Reflection on the Patterns of Change in the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian State’, Latin American Research Review 13, 1, 1978, 3–38.Google Scholar
  93. 36.
    Hamza Alavi, ‘The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh’, New Left Review 74, 1972, 59–81;Google Scholar
  94. Colin Leys, ‘The “Overdeveloped” Post-Colonial State: A Re-Evaluation’, Review of African Political Economy 5, 1976, 40–8;Google Scholar
  95. John Saul, ‘The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Tanzania’, in Saul, The State and Revolution in Eastern Africa, New York & London: Monthly Review Press, 1979, pp. 167–99;Google Scholar
  96. S. Andreski, Parasitism and Subversion: The Case of Latin America, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966;Google Scholar
  97. Andreski, ‘Kleptocracy as a System of Government in Africa’, in Arnold J. Heidenheimer, ed., Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis, New York: Reinhart & Winston, 1970, pp. 346–57.Google Scholar
  98. 37.
    Alflan, Masalah dan Prospek Pembangunan Politik di Indonesia: Kumpulan Karangan, Jakarta: Gramedia, 1990, chap 21;Google Scholar
  99. Miriam Budiardjo, Dasar Dasar Ilmu Politik, Jakarta: Gramedia, 1992, pp. 73–6;Google Scholar
  100. R. William Liddle, ‘The Politics of Ekonomi Pancasila: Some Reflections on a Recent Debate’, Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 18, 1, 1982, 96–101;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Mashuri, ‘Pancasila Democracy’, Indonesian Quarterly 5, 4, 1977, 32–43;Google Scholar
  102. M. Taopan, Demokrasi Pancasila: Analisa Konsepsional Aplikatif, np: Sinar Grafika, 1989.Google Scholar
  103. 38.
    Benedict R. O’G. Anderson, ‘Old State, New Society: Indonesia’s New Order in Comparative Historical Perspective’, Journal of Asian Studies 42, 3, 1983, 477–96;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Benedict Anderson & Audrey Kahin, eds., Interpreting Indonesian Politics: Thirteen Contributions to the Debate, Ithaca, NY: Cornell Modern Indonesia Project, Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University, 1982;Google Scholar
  105. Arief Budiman, ‘The Emergence of the Bureaucratic Capitalist State in Indonesia,’ in Lim Teck Ghee, ed., Reflections on Development in Southeast Asia, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1988, pp. 110–28;Google Scholar
  106. Farchan Bulkin, ‘Negara, Masyarakat dan Ekonomi’, Prisma 8, 1984, 3–17;Google Scholar
  107. Heri Akhmadi, ‘Military-Bureaucratic Political Machinery in Indonesia,’ New Asian Visions 5, 1, 1988, 64–73;Google Scholar
  108. Alec Gordon, ‘Imaginary Histories and the Real Thing: A Critique of Anderson and Benda on the “Autonomous State” in Indonesia’, Journal of Contemporary Asia 23, 4, 1993, 444–65;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Vedi R. Hadiz, ‘Politik, Budaya, dan Perubahan Sosial: Sebuah Rekonstruksi dan Kritik Terhadap Pemikiran Ben Anderson’, Prisma 18, 2, 1989, 29–49;Google Scholar
  110. John A. MacDougall, ‘Patterns of Military Control in the Indonesian Higher Central Bureaucracy,’ Indonesia 33, 1982, 89–121;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Aswab Mahasin, ‘State, People, and Problems of Legitimacy’, Prisma: The Indonesian Indicator, 34, 1984, 3–12;Google Scholar
  112. Richard Robison, ‘Authoritarian States, Capital-Owning Classes, and the Politics of Newly Industrializing Countries: The Case of Indonesia’, World Politics 41, 1, 1988, 52–74;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Marvin L. Rogers, ‘Depoliticization of Indonesia’s Political Parties: Attaining Military Stability’, Armed Forces and Society 14, 2, 1988, 247–72;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. S. M. Amin, Indonesia di Bawah Rezim Demokrasi Terpimpin, Jakarta: Bulan Bintang, 1967;Google Scholar
  115. Fridus Steylen, ‘Bureaukratie Verlamt Emancipatie,’ Indonesia Feiten en Meningen 11, 5, 1986, 20–1;Google Scholar
  116. Hans van der Veen, ‘Militarisering en Bureaukratisering Versterken Totalitair Karakter Indonesische Natie,’ Indonesia Feiten en Meningen 11, 5, 1986, 16–18.Google Scholar
  117. 39.
    Afan Gaffar, Javanese Voters: A Case Study of Election Under a Hegemonic Party System, Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 1992, pp. 37–8.Google Scholar
  118. 40.
    Karl von Vorys, Democracy Without Consensus: Communalism and Political Stability in Malaysia, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975, pp. 4, 122ff.Google Scholar
  119. 41.
    As far as I know, the term quasi-democracy was first used in Frank C. Darling, The Westernization of Asia: A Comparative Political Analysis, Boston: G. K. Hall & Co. & Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1979, p. 259. The term has also been used by Zakaria Haji Ahmad in ‘Malaysia: Quasi Democracy in a Divided Society,’ in Larry Diamond, Juan J. Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, eds, Volume 3, Democracy in Developing Countries, pp. 347–81: p. 349.Google Scholar
  120. Other works which refer to the modified or hybrid nature of Malaysian democracy are S. S. Bedlington, Malaysia and Singapore: The Building of New States, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978;Google Scholar
  121. Gordon P. Means, Malaysian Politics, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976;Google Scholar
  122. R. S. Milne & D. K. Mauzy, Politics and Government in Malaysia, Singapore: Federal Publications, 1977.Google Scholar
  123. 42.
    Hua Wu Yin. Class and Communalism in Malaysia: Politics in a Dependent State, London: Zed Books, 1983, pp. 2, 108.Google Scholar
  124. 43.
    Harold Crouch, ‘Authoritarian Trends, the UMNO Split and the Limits to State Power,’ in Joel Kahn & Francis Loh, eds, Fragmented Vision: Culture and Politics in Contemporary Malaysia, Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1992, pp. 21–43: 26–7.Google Scholar
  125. See also Simon Tan, ‘The Rise of State Authoritarianism in Malaysia’, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 22, 3, 1990, 32–42: p. 42, where the term benign authoritarianism is used.Google Scholar
  126. 44.
    Harold Crouch, ‘Malaysia: Neither Authoritarian Nor Democratic,’ in Kevin Hewison, Richard Robison, & Garry Rodan, ed., Southeast Asia in the 1990s: Authoritarianism, Democracy and Capitalism, St. Leonard, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 1993, pp. 135–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Syed Farid Alatas 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyNational University of SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations