The Prevalence of Ethnic and Identity Politics in Southeast Asia - Research Paper Example

? Green critique Option Two 2. How would you account for and explain the prevalence of ethnic and identity politics in Southeast Asia? Where have identity politics been most divisive or contentious in Southeast Asia? Where have they been less contentious? How would you account for the success or failure of multicultural politics in Southeast Asia? Do ethnic wars affect development in the constituent countries? Most of Southeast Asia consists of many ethnic groups in each nation. For the interest of their identity groups, major ethnic groups seize the economic and political power of their country. In the past, many countries in Southeast Asia were affected by Marxism and thus were governed in the concept of communism. Combined with the communism and nationalism, the identity politics have been extensively eroded. During the lat decade there has been considerable change in the way politics is done in South East Asia. Civil rights groups have appeared and they strive to ensure that the rights of the citizens are not infringed by anyone. However, despite the progress some countries such as Vietnam remain communistic with the citizens being denied their political rights. Communities are supposed to live in harmony and live in absolute peace (Robert D. Kaplan 1994). This therefore means that all people should strive to live mutually with one another without any source of conflict. Southeast Asia people have been known to be inclined to tribalistic approaches of life and politics. However, this trend is changing in other parts of Southeast Asia while in others it continues to remain a problem. In this study we are going to examine the cause for ethnic and identity politics in Southeast Asia and where this politics have been most divisive. We shall also look at the effects that ethnic wars have on development. The prevalence of ethnic and identity problems in Southeast Asia can be attributed to the different and many ethnic communities in many of the countries in South East Asia. Different ethnic communities often have different and diverse cultures and consequently social norms (Monica Duffy Toft 2003) One ethnic grouping may view the other as breaking social norms whereas it is not in the moral conduct of the accused grouping (Peter Wallensteen and Margareta Sollenberg 1995). This thus, leads to the grouping seeing the next one as Immoral and lacking proper behavior. During elections one grouping may opt not to vote for a certain candidate because according to them and their community he/she is not morally upright. Thus, this leads to prevalence of ethnic and identity problems in the constituent country. Another reason as to why there is a large prevalence of ethnic conflicts in Southeast Asia is because of traditions and belief that power was originally theirs (Robert D. Kaplan 1994). The large and dominant communities have the notion that leadership is their and that minority communities are not supposed to rule. This, notion often brings out conflict if two or more dominant ethnic groupings have the same mindset. The ethnic communities thus, vote as a block not necessarily for their candidate but to prevent their opponent from getting to the seat. This often leads to inter- ethnic clashes if the candidate voted for y the majority tribe does not ascend to power. Various countries form tribal functions because of repressive regimes. The following example will illustrate the notion of repressive regimes. At this time and age it is shocking to find out that Vietnam severely limits civil and political rights in order to maintain the one-party rule that is seen as essential to hold the country together (Peter Wallensteen and Margareta Sollenberg 1995). The Government owns the media in pretext of ensuring that sensitive information that could tear the country apart is not accessed by the citizens. But, despite the setbacks Vietnam has lately been coming up with many civil rights groups. But if study is done to the people who form these civil rights groups, they are found to be from different tribes with those in the ruling class. This therefore, serves as an example of how repressive regimes culture ethnic conflicts. In Southeast Asia, most of the region’s violent and nonviolent confrontations have some ethnic confrontations. These confrontations are often exacerbated by the clashed of cultural allegiance from such the different religious, racial, or language differences. In reality, ethnic tensions and conflicts often occur more in economic or political power rivalries than in cultural differences. The ethnic tensions build up to unimaginable levels with the various ethnic communities even ready to go to war with each other. In this study, w are going to focus mainly on Indonesia and Singapore and compare and contrast their view on development of their countries. Does ethnic rivalry hinder the level of development in a country? By using these two case studies the answer will be revealed. The two will also be used as examples of places in Southeast Asia where there has been divisive and contentious politics. Indonesia is one of Southeast Asia countries that have experienced civil unrest due to contentious identity politics. The country has over 300 ethnic groups. Inequality between ethnic groups causes religion conflicts in areas such Maluku. The outbreak of violence was a direct outgrowth between religious groups. It began with a small incident that degenerated into a large-scale ethnic war. In January 1999, sudden violence broke out between Christians and Muslims in Indonesia’s provinces of Maluku. Thousands of people were killed in this violence over the following years. The conflict was a consequence of New Order policies that disrupted the balance of forces between the two communities. Christians in general were well represented in the New Order regime. They in Maluku were well positioned to play a stronger role than Muslims. However, with the integration into Indonesia, a greater role for Muslims would predictable occurs. Religious identity played a strong role in the competition for positions in Maluku. The Muslims wanted a share of the cake in government offices and thus were reluctant to take the small positions that they were offered. Christians were worried about the Islamization trend and a loss of their dominance so they became more defensive. The allocation of government position could be particularly conflictual. Muslims began to take the position of governments. The Christians sensing that their right was being taken away developed a tangible hatred for the Muslims. The Muslims on the other hand, thought that they were religion wise superior and thus, were entitled to leadership. Therefore, the allocation of government positions was being interpreted within perceiving Islamization of Indonesia. The result was an intensification of the political value to both religious communities of gaining positions in top levels of the bureaucracy. During most of 2001 and 2002, the fighting in Maluku was considerably reduced but the tensions still remained. In addition, the war had a traumatic effect on children. The devastating effects threatened to plunge down the moral fabric that the society that the society was made. In addition, the Christians and muslins drained their money into he war, which would have otherwise be invested. Farms were burned down and thus, a famine occurred, the war thus had disastrous effects on the development of Maluku and Indonesia as a whole. With the tribal clashes or religious clashes as most of the scholars refer it to, the development of Maluku came to a standstill. The infrastructure in Maluku was destroyed completely and after the civil unrest they had to start again. The tensions in the Area could not allow adequate development to take place. The two religions were always in constant suspicion of each other. With the constant suspicion, development could not take place as the two religions were to be in agreement because they were in the same government. With this view in place, it can be said that Indonesia faced major challenges in realizing development after the civil unrest. They had pressing humanitarian concerns. The changes in demographics were unimaginable because Christians never wanted again to live with Muslims in case of an outbreak of another war (Mahmood Mamdani 2001). The war interrupted education and is it is known world over, education is one of the pillars for sustainable development to take place. On the other hand, Singapore is one of countries that has had stability in the South east Asia. Singapore population is composed of three quarter of Chinese and a quarter of Malayans and Indians. Chinese is basically the main language spoken in the household while English is used for administration and business purposes. Similar to other societies in Southeast Asia, the internal conflicts are highly complex. However, Singapore stands under the concept that is need to reconcile latent conflicts between various religious and language communities with different perceptions. Singapore has an agenda wrought by history. The manifestation of these conflicts is the controversy over the political concept of “bumiputera.” This concept is the attempt to create an “imagined community.” Singaporeans were immensely affected in the 1960s by inter-communalism. The remarkable and quite distinct successful work in preventing major eruptions of cultural violence is that they have employed quire distinct strategies of intercultural conflict management. Singapore has promoted a policy of “citizenship” and thus, a spirit of cultural pluralism, which aimed explicitly at the promotion of a culturally neutral concept of citizenship and the exclusion of cultural domains from the political realm (Peter Wallensteen and Margareta Sollenberg 1995). Singapore’s policy of multi-culturalism was to a large extent and over a long period a policy of state-promoted secularism and the privatization of religion and language. Singapore successfully managed to separate religion from the state and therefore to a large extent prevented any inter- religion conflict. Therefore, it can be said that the government of Singapore nurtured the thought of nationalism therefore eroding tribalism in the minds of its citizens. This was imperative as the citizens of Singapore viewed themselves not of tribal origins but of Singaporean origin. This therefore, reduced the cases of inter-cultural conflicts in Singapore. As their multi-culturalism policy can be described as a mix of legal instruments, monetary incentive schemes and the exertion of influence through the education system that borrows elements of Chinese culture both subtly (Bruce Gilley 2004). In Singapore the People’s Action Party has assumed the role of mediator between the cultural communities. It can be argued that a continuation of two factors explains the success of peaceful management of cultural conflicts under the conditions of a plural society. The promotion of a Singaporean identity based on “shared values” allows less scope for autonomous civilian societies, individual cultural self-determination, and values that lie outside what the state permits and regulates. In Singapore, for the government, generating a strong sense of national recognition is seen as important for enhancing the citizens’ loyalty to the state. This is crucial for the ruling elite, whose legitimacy is based largely on economic performance and effective governance. However many Singaporeans think that the role of democracy enshrined in the constitution and the national oath become a cornerstone of Singaporeans’ understanding of what the nation should be like. They continue to believe that they can achieve a strong national identity that supports the political regime without significantly liberalizing the political system. Also they have adopted a much more liberal notion of democracy. Singapore ensured that certain structural shifts that come with tie did not affect the efficiency of its fiscal policy. It kept up in pace and tried as much as possible to keep the inter religion conflicts at check. It also had a participatory democracy that was its main asset to have a prerequisite for long lasting peace (Bruce Gilley 2004). The Fiscal policy of the Singapore was in no way compromised. The banks were well funded and when the inter religion conflicts were high, the government stimulated methods to stop immediately the conflicts so as not to affect the overall balance in the country. Thus, with these measures in hand Singapore’s development has been on the rise. The country’s works in Unison to meet predetermined objectives. Development in the country grew tremendously, this because the workers in the labor industry worked together in unison despite their different religions. The stability, therefore, enabled maximum utilization of the available resources for maximum economic interest. The citizens felt well represented in the government and thus, were satisfied. The government also preached peace among the Multi- ethnic communities and even offered workshops for peace and peaceful co-existence among the citizens. Although; seemingly a small gesture went a long way in to addressing the issue of multi ethnicity and different religions. The Government also stimulated the workers to work harder by emphasizing patriotism; the many ethnic communities therefore, did not view those selves as belonging to a certain community but citizens of Singapore. Singapore’s main style which it used to prevent ethnic clashes was the idea of education and knowledge. Singapore invested a lot in informing the masses about dangers of Inter- cultural conflicts. When tensions ran high, peace messages were broadcasted over national television and the purpose of remaining as one country (Bruce Gilley 2004). This helped a lot those in Singapore who saw themselves as tribal functions rather than citizens of Singapore. Information is said to be power and with Singaporeans knowing the effects of inter-cultural conflicts it was imperative that they prevent it as much as they could. They had seen the effects of inter-cultural effects in countries such as Rwanda and thus, could in no way allow their ‘beloved’ country to go to such levels. Therefore, from the two case studies above it can be concluded that Indonesia is an example where decisive politics have broken the country and therefore, decreased the level of development. On the other hand, Singapore is an example of a country that has effectively managed to contain ethnic politics and therefore, increase its development. It is in this light, then that we may conclude that peace nurtures development. Indonesia due to lack of peace did not achieve development worth mentioning as compared to Singapore who achieved tangible development. Compared with the rest of Asia, Southeast Asia countries have more cultural conflicts. At the same time, however, it is important to note that in Southeast Asia there is no trend of further culturalization of conflicts in recent years. Southeast Asia is particular have a large potential for internal conflicts over cultural and identity. However, the multicultural politics in Southeast Asia seems going close to success. The struggle between diverse cultures and ethnic issues approach to reasonable solutions such as Singapore. The ethnic diversity of the region and its societies offers both challenges and chances for peaceful conflict solution strategies based on understanding. In conclusion, it can be said that in Southeast Asia the prevalence of ethnic unrest is high as compared to other areas; this is because of traditions, beliefs of supremacy and general tribalistic approaches to life. It can also be said that Indonesia is a perfect example of what inter- religion or inter- ethnic conflicts can result to. Before the war Indonesia was in the same economic status as Singapore but after the war, all that changed. Singapore became a powerhouse in economics whereas Indonesia lagged behind. In this light, then, it is appropriate to say that Singapore is an example of a success story in multicultural politics. On the other hand, Indonesia can be said to be an example of a failed story of multi cultural politics. References Bruce Gilley (2004) Against the concept of ethnic conflict, Third World Quarterly 25(6), pp. 1155-1166 Http://countrystudies.us/singapore/15.html Http://www.asienkunde.de/content/zeitschrift_asien/archiv/pdf/110_2_croissant_trinn.pdf Http://www.focussingapore.com/information-singapore/ethnic-groups-in-singapore.html Lotta Harbom and Peter Wallensteen (2005) Armed conflict and its international dimensions, 1946–2004, Journal of Peace Research 42(5), pp. 623-635 Mahmood Mamdani (2001) When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Measuring systemic peace, Center for Systemic Peace, 30 October 2006, accessed 8, December, 2011 Monica Duffy Toft (2003) The Geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Peter Wallensteen and Margareta Sollenberg (1995) After the Cold War: Emerging patterns of armed conflict 1989-94, Journal of Peace Research 32(3), pp. 345-360 Robert D. Kaplan (1994) The coming anarchy, The Atlantic Monthly 273(2), pp. 44-76 Samuel P. Huntington (1993) The clash of civilizations?, Foreign Affairs 72(3), pp. 22-49 Read More