Foreign Affairs has an article on ethnonationalism and in my opinion, how it is the most stable form of nationalism. It focuses on European experience but it is relevant to Malaysian politics. This is surely something the adherents of Bangsa Malaysia, or liberal nationalists whom despise ethnonationalism, may want to read.
It is especially pertinent when chatters in the background seem to suggest that race-based politics is coming to an end in Malaysia. As much as I would like to believe that, I feel “protest votes” describes the result of the last election better. So, there is still future for race-based politics in Malaysia. The issues surrounding the appointment of Menteri Besar in Perak, the deputies in Perak and Selangor and the appointment of members of states’ Executive Committee definitely highlights the relevance of race in politics.
Back to the article:
In short, ethnonationalism has played a more profound and lasting role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to reoccur elsewhere. Increased urbanization, literacy, and political mobilization; differences in the fertility rates and economic performance of various ethnic groups; and immigration will challenge the internal structure of states as well as their borders. Whether politically correct or not, ethnonationalism will continue to shape the world in the twenty-first century. [Us and Them. Jerry Z. Muller. Foreign Affairs. March 2008]
What I find most disconcerting is the suggestion that separation, may be the the best answer to communal conflicts.
Partition may thus be the most humane lasting solution to such intense communal conflicts. It inevitably creates new flows of refugees, but at least it deals with the problem at issue. The challenge for the international community in such cases is to separate communities in the most humane manner possible: by aiding in transport, assuring citizenship rights in the new homeland, and providing financial aid for resettlement and economic absorption. The bill for all of this will be huge, but it will rarely be greater than the material costs of interjecting and maintaining a foreign military presence large enough to pacify the rival ethnic combatants or the moral cost of doing nothing. [Us and Them. Jerry Z. Muller. Foreign Affairs. March 2008]
3 replies on “[1604] Of us and them”
the observation has a lot of truth considering that homogeneous nations tend to fare better. the balkans for instance continues to be riven by ethnic and religious strife dating back to centuries. everything fell apart with ussr. then u have the neverending conflicts in the middle-east, africa, etc – sigh.
looking at malaysia, it is going to be tough; and the recent election gains while encouraging may not push us far enough towards a malaysian malaysia (see bridget welsh’s interview in malaysiatoday). my stand is, a secular nation that respects diversity is the best bet. but is there the political will to stay secular, or will the majority insists otherwise?
No, it does not explicitly refer to Iraq. The cases are mostly European-based. You could read the article for free at the link provided in the entry.
I don’t buy Foreign Affairs and thus do not know the context of the “partition” passage, but it seems to be referencing the situation in Iraq. They may thus be speaking of nations in which there already exists a clear geographical delineation of ethnicities, in which partition or devolution of powers would be a lot more feasible.
cheers