Ethno-Federalism and Political Modernization in Malaysia
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2022-12-2-11-21
Abstract
The subject of the article is the ability of ethno-federalism to effectively respond to the challenges of modernization. The authors refer to the case of Malaysia, one of the Asian countries that are relatively successful in practicing the principles of ethno-federalism in state administration. The scope of this work is to find out the adaptive capabilities of the Malaysian model of ethno-federalism to changing conditions and the intensity of political processes. We show the general institutional, historical, ethnopolitical, and social reasons for the inertial resistance to the growing tendencies to change the existing system of relations between the Federation center and the regions. We paid significant attention to the fundamental connection of the regime characteristics with the limitation of federalist practices, the stability of interethnic relations, and confessional consensus. We concluded that ethno-federalism in Malaysia has become a factor in maintaining political stability in the country and an obstacle to the avalanche-like process of liberalization of domestic policy.
About the Authors
E. E. Kochetkov
Russian University of Transport (MIIT)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Politology), Associate Professor of History
Moscow
V. Tomić
University of East Sarajevo
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
D. Sc. (Economic sciences), Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Energy Engineering, Faculty of Production and Management Trebinje
The Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina
E. V. Bestaeva
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Political Sciences), Associate Professor, Department of Politology
Moscow
References
1. Mochalov A.N. Constitutional and legal instruments for managing ethnic diversity in multinational federations. Bulletin of the Tyumen State University. Socio-economic and legal research. 2018;4(3);136–151. (In Russ.).
2. Deiwiks C., Cederman L.-E., Gleditsch, K.S. Inequality and conflict in federations. Journal of Peace Research. 2012;49(2):289–304.
3. Burgess M. Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge; 2006. 357 p.
4. Prazauskas A.A. Ethno-nationalism, multinational state and globalization processes. Polis. 1997;(2):95–105. (In Russ.).
5. Farukshin M. Kh. Institutional bases of ethnic federations. Polis. 2017;(2):103–117. (In Russ.).
6. Horowitz D. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkley: University of California Press; 1985. 707 p.
7. Goptareva I. B. Political analysis of the concept of federalism. Orenburg: Southern Urals; 2002. 240 p. (In Russ.).
8. Riker W.H. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston; Toronto: Little, Brown and Company; 1964. 169 p.
9. Leiphart A. Democracy in multi-component societies: a comparative study. Transl. from English. Moscow: Aspect Press; 1997. 287 p. (In Russ.).
10. Crouch H. Government and Society in Malaysia. N.Y.: Cornell University Press; 1996. 266 p.
11. Baranov A.V. Federalism in the Islamic World. Human. Community. Management. 2004;(3–4):112–123. (In Russ.).
12. Smolyakov V.A., Zakharova T.I. Malaysia: political system and political process in a multicultural society. Social and human sciences in the Far East. 2016;1(49):102–112. (In Russ.).
13. Efimova L.M. and others. Electoral processes in the countries of Southeast Asia in the XXI century. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS; 2016. 316 p. (In Russ.).
14. Ulyanova I.V. On the political influence of the Chinese diaspora in Malaysia. Society and State in China. 2016;46(1):371–376. (In Russ.).
15. Rodriguez A.M., ed. Recent history of Asian and African countries (XX century). Part 2. Moscow: Vlados; 2001. 320 p. (In Russ.).
16. Devyatov R.S. The role of state cultural policy in the formation of a single nation (on the example of Malaysia). Ethnosociety and international culture. 2017;12(114):152–162. (In Russ.).
17. Osman M., Nawab M., Rashaad A. Sarawak State Elections 2016: Revisiting Federalism in Malaysia. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs. 2017;36(1):29–50.
18. Tsukanov S. S. Modern atypical forms of state government. Theory and practice of social development. 2016;(5):89–90. (In Russ.).
19. Pushkarev S.V. On the causes of the emergence of atypical forms of government. Modern law. 2011;(7):17–20. (In Russ.).
20. Patapan H., Wanna J., Weller P.M. Westminster Legacies: Democracy and Responsible Government in Asia and the Pacific. Sydney: UNSW Press; 2005. 276 p.
21. Smorgunov L.V. Modern Comparative Politics. Moscow: ROSSPEN; 2002. 472 p. (In Russ.).
22. Tilman R.O. The Centralization Theme in Malaysian Federal-State Relations, 1957–75. Institute for Southeast Asian Studies (Singapore), Occasional Paper. 1976;(39):6–34.
23. Case W. Semi-democracy and minimalist federalism in Malaysia. Federalism in Asia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2009.
24. Poroshin A.V. The role of the dominant party in the regulation of ethnic conflicts: the case of Malaysia. Political Science. 2016;(1):176–185. (In Russ.).
25. Tajudin A.A.A., Yusoff M.A. Intellectual Discourse. 2021;28(2):649–673.
26. Chua E. H.B. Federalism and indigenous peoples in Sarawak: The Malaysian federal court’s judgments in Sandah (no 1) and (no 2). Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. 2020:341–357.
27. Sartori J. Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. Parties and Elections: Reader. Part 1. Moscow: INION; 2004. (In Russ.).
28. Mironyuk M.G. Modern Federalism: A Comparative Analysis. Moscow; 2008. 279 p. (In Russ.).
29. Hicken A. Political engineering and party regulation in Southeast Asia. Political parties in conflict-prone societies: Regulation, engineering and democratic development. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2008.
30. Horowitz D.L. Democracy in divided societies. Journal of Democracy. 1993;4(4):18–38.
31. Grishina A.M. The dominant party in Malaysia during the period of regime transformation. Bulletin of the Perm University. Political science. 2015;1(29):84–92. (In Russ.).
32. Reid A. Imperial alchemy: Nationalism and political identity in Southeast Asia. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press; 2010. 248 p.
33. Greene K.F. The Political Economy of Authoritarian Single Party Dominance. Comparative Political Studies. 2010;43(7):807–834.
34. Crouch H. Authoritarian trends, the UMNO split and the limits to state power. Sydney: Asian Studies Association of Australia in association with Allen & Unwin; 1992.
35. Chin J. Malaysia: The Barisan National Supremacy. NY: Chatham House Publ.; 2002.
36. Slater D. State Power and Staying Power: Infrastructural Mechanisms and Authoritarian Durability. Journal of International Affairs. 2011;(3):15–29.
37. Denisov S.A. Soft authoritarianism: conditions and means of its maintenance. Political Conceptology: A Journal of Metadisciplinary Research. 2016;(1):209–219. (In Russ.).
38. Efimova L.M. Federation of Malaysia — successes and difficulties. URL: https://mgimo.ru/about/news/experts/federatsiya-malayziya-uspekhi-i-trudnosti. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Kochetkov E.E., Tomić V., Bestaeva E.V. Ethno-Federalism and Political Modernization in Malaysia. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2022;12(2):11-21. https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2022-12-2-11-21
Views:
727
Email this article 