Organizer and Chair: Sumit Ganguly, CUNY, Hunter College
Chair: Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr., University of Texas, Austin
Discussant: Barbara Crossette, New York Times; Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr.,
University of Texas, Austin
This interarea panel will examine how four governments in Asia have developed and implemented policies pertaining to ethnic pluralism. The panel will explicitly focus on governmental policies in the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Sri Lanka. All four authors will attempt to answer the following general questions: Does the country in question have a coherent strategy for dealing with ethnic problems, or does it improvise in an adhoc fashion? Does it have specific policies explicitly targeted at ethnic problems, or does it have general policies that have varied effects on ethnic groups and inter-group relations? What are the distinctive features of the decision-making processes that produce government policies with respect to ethnic groups and ethnic relations? How have policies evolved in these areas over time?
More specifically, the papers will examine legal and constitutional frameworks, including policies on citizenship and provisions for regional autonomy; policies with respect to political participation and representation, policies dealing with economic development and opportunities; language policies; educational and social welfare policies; and human rights policies.
The State and Ethnic Policies in Malaysia
Sumit Ganguly, CUNY, Hunter College
Since the riots of May 13, 1969, apart from a handful of sporadic incidents in the late 1980s, Malaysia has successfully maintained ethnic peace. Its ability to maintain ethnic peace presents an interesting puzzle. In the wake of the 1969 riots, the Malaysian government adopted one of the world's most ambitious affirmative action programs for the majority community. Known as the bumiputra ("son of the soil") policy, it has systematically discriminated against the Chinese and the Indian (predominantly Tamil) populations of Malaysia. Despite these policies of overt economic discrimination, neither of the two minority communities have resorted to extra-constitutional means to express their dissatisfaction with the existing order. This paper will argue that two factors explain Malaysia's fragile ethnic peace. First, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO)-dominated governments pursued policies which generated extraordinarily high levels of economic growth. Consequently, while the benefits of such growth were unevenly distributed, all ethnic groups stood to gain. Second, while preserving some elements of a democratic state (for example, moderately free and regular elections) various regimes have resorted to creeping authoritarianism. Various restraints on free expression, personal rights and civil liberties have prevented ethnic "entrepreneurs" from exploiting existing ethnic differences and resentments. Furthermore, these restraints have also enabled various governments to fend off more extreme Malay demands, particularly from radical Islamists.
Malaysia has, thus far, succeeded in maintaining ethnic peace. However, certain structural weaknesses within the country may disturb ethnic harmony in the future. Most importantly, its ability to sustain its present levels of economic growth are increasingly coming under question. In the midst of an extended economic downturn it remains to be seen if authoritarian policies alone can successfully cope with demands based on ethnic lines.
Ethnic Politics and Policies in the People's Republic of China
June Teufel Dreyer, University of Miami
Under Mao Zedong, policies toward ethnic minorities alternated between accommodation to and assimilation of minorities' languages, traditions, and other characteristics. Whether they were accommodative or assimilative, however, policies had the effect of creating strong ties between central party and government institutions and areas inhabited by ethnic minorities. Beijing's writ was heard, and generally obeyed, even in the remote areas in which many of China's minorities live. Channels of mobility for minorities were those created by party and government. Fluency in Mandarin was recognized as crucial to one's ability to rise within those channels. And the economies of minority areas were firmly linked with that of China proper. Despite the proximity of several minority nationality areas to foreign countries, external contacts with, and influence from, abroad was minimized, often to the point of being effectively eliminated.
Deng Xiaoping reversed many of these policies. In an effort to rapidly modernize China, he decentralized economic power and replaced Mao Zedong's redistributive policies with measures that channeled investment into areas where the multiplier effect would be greatest. Almost invariably these areas were on China's coast. The new policies worked: the economies of these areas boomed. However, they left inland provinces, and in particular areas inhabited by ethnic minorities, far behind. In order to redress this imbalance and assuage feelings that they were being exploited by the majority Han group, minorities were permitted to trade across borders. Tourism from abroad was also encouraged. Foreign contacts brought foreign influence and created new channels through which minorities could express their grievances. They also created new economic linkages which diluted the dependence of minority areas on Han China. Centrifugal forces in minorities areas were further encouraged by a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism as well as ethnic nationalist forces unleashed by the disintegration of the Soviet empire. These centrifugal forces are strongest in the case of Tibetans, several minorities who adhere to the Muslim faith, and Mongols.
While the central government has been able to suppress manifestations of discontent, it has not been able to prevent their regular recurrence. It is not clear what policies might be successful in dealing with these grievances. A return to the assimilationist policies of the past would surely provoke more rebellion. Granting more autonomy could have the effect of encouraging demands for still more freedom from Beijing's control.
State Policies and the Ethnic Crisis in Sri Lanka
Amita Shastri, San Francisco State University
Sri Lanka was for a long time an anomalous case amongst the developing nations for having a vibrant democracy even at very low levels of economic development. Yet, the paradox of Sri Lanka's development has been that ethnic relations on the island deteriorated to the point of civil war by the eighties, and that the Sri Lankan armed forces are currently faced with one of the world's most highly motivated and tightly organized insurgent movements. This paper will examine the Sri Lankan case from an explicitly policy-oriented perspective with a view to determining which policies helped or hindered in the exacerbation of ethnic differences. Besides the shortcomings in various policies, it is my argument that one of the major problems in the Sri Lankan case has been a lack of statesmanship and vision by its politicians to look beyond short-term power considerations in favor of the laying down of norms for the long-term collective good of the society.
Ethnic Policies and Politics in Indonesia
R. William Liddle, Ohio State University
Cultural, religious, and racial loyalties are important sources of conflict in Indonesia. On several occasions they have threatened political stability and territorial integrity. Government policies toward ethnic differences and conflicts have been characterized by both continuities and discontinuities. There has been continuity in commitment to a conception of supra-ethnic nationality as the basic principle of political community. Specific policies toward language, education, artistic culture, and religion have flowed from this commitment.
There have also been sharp discontinuities, both in policymaking procedures and in substantive policies. The liberal democratic regime of the 1950s was based on open representation of ethnic and other demands. Important policies included decentralization of authority to the regions and tolerance of Sino-Indonesian cultural expression. The guided Democracy government of the early 1960s began a process of centralization of policy making and repression of ethnic demands. The New Order of President Suharto (1966-present) is highly centralized in Jakarta and in the executive. To obtain ethnic peace, Suharto has mixed coercion of opposition groups, exchange of goods and services for political support, and normative persuasion based on an ideology of development. Sino-Indonesians have been favored economically, but excluded politically and culturally.
Will the New Order formula for ethnic peace remain viable after Suharto? There are three main threats, themselves the product of New Order policies and politics. Lower and working class indigenous Indonesians are increasingly hostile to Sino-Indonesian domination of the modern economy. Regional discontent in Sumatra, Kalimantan, Irian and elsewhere is being fanned by uneven growth patterns, immigration of Javanese and other groups, mining and logging operations run by outsiders, overly centralized government and absence of democratic participation. Religious discontent, once confined to modernist Muslims, has been growing among Christian and other non-Muslim minorities. These tensions are exacerbated by developments in communications technology, which permit information about new ethnic conflicts to be transmitted instantly to once remote regions.
Government Policies and Ethnic Relations in Asia and the Pacific: Generalizations
and Recommendation
Michael E. Brown, Harvard University
Drawing on case studies of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, China, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, and the Federated States of Micronesia, this paper seeks to develop a set of generalizations about government efforts to deal with ethnic issues in Asia and the Pacific. Drawing on this analytic foundation, it goes on to develop corresponding policy recommendations. This paper focuses on both specific policy areas-such as language policy, education policy, economic policy, and policies with respect to cultural integrity and autonomy-and broad problems related to the development and implementation of government policy.