A Malaysian perspective on Middle East upheavals

INTERVIEW The upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa, which are still unfolding, seem to have been sending out very mixed or even confusing lessons to other parts of the world.

Recently, Malaysiakini interviewed Dr Johan Saravanamutu on some of the dimensions that concern Malaysia.

Dr Saravanamutu (left), a former Dean of the School of Social Science at the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) in Penang, is now a Visiting Senior Research Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in Singapore.

His latest and widely acclaimed book Malaysia's Foreign Policy: The First Fifty Year - Alignment, Neutralism, Islamism (Petaling Jaya, SIRD, 2010) was launched recently at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

Malaysiakini: When the uprisings succeeded peacefully in Tunisia and Egypt, the world hailed them as models for democratisation. Now, there are also violent stalemates in Libya, Yemen and Bahrain. What lessons should and can Malaysians learn from these mixed cases for our own political reform and progress?

Dr Saravanamutu: There is one major broad lesson to be learnt from the still unfolding revolutionary political developments in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), namely, that political systems must ultimately reflect the popular will.

Put differently, the events whether of successful regime change or stalled ones reflect the imperative for democratic systems that are also coupled with capability for sustained and decent livelihood of citizens.

At the bottom line, all societies need systems of government which are not only legitimate and ultimately accountable to citizens, systems that provide economic well-being and social security.

The MENA uprisings are a huge contemporary statement that such political systems are lacking in the Arab world.

Furthermore, mere adherence to cultural and religious traditions without fulfillment of self-actualization needs do not satisfy the condition for genuine democracy.

Arab citizens have now stood up in the thousands if not in the millions to demand such democracies of their governments.

Why are some Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa progressive while others are conservative or even reactionary? As far as political inclinations are concerned, what are similarities and differences between Malaysia's Muslim society and those in the Middle East and North Africa?

It would be difficult to really get into the details of each of the MENA countries, their complexities and particularities to answer the question of why some situations have become progressive and some have remained reactionary.

Here we are talking not just of Muslims or Muslim societies but more so of the political regimes which are in place. I'd rather think of regimes as progressive or reactionary rather than people.

I think the notion that ‘people get the government they deserve' is patently false because people are rarely given a chance for real political choices.

A major point to make about the revolutionary developments in the Middle East is that they are not driven by narrow sectarian interests.

Indeed, even strong religious movements, like the Muslim Brotherhood; have been in the background not in the foreground of this Arab revolution.

Turning to Malaysia, again some similarities do pertain. For too long now, we have been burdened by the idea that Muslims are driven only by narrow sectarian and ethnic interests.

Our ethnically fashioned political system has reinforced this trend but with the Reformasi Movement of the late 1990s, Malaysian Muslims, much like their Arab counterparts now, also demonstrated in numbers against a repressive and corrupt regime.

Perhaps, Malaysia may not have reached the critical mass then but the March 2008 general election shows clearly that a quieter sort of revolution is continuing in Malaysia.

Unfortunately, Malaysia's institutionalization of ethnic politics stalls a genuine regime change.

This said, Malaysian Muslims are now almost equally divided politically between what you have termed as "progressive" and "reactionary" when one looks at changing character of electoral politics.

In particular, there are now two clear choices for Muslims in Malaysia's two-coalition system, one led by the Pakatan Rakyat, which is mostly progressive, and one led by the Barisan Nasional, which is the status quo and largely reactionary.

In your assessment, how would the upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa impact, politically or ideationally, on the Malaysian society, especially among Muslims in the short-, medium- and long-run?

I have no doubt that ideationally and politically the Arab revolution would affect Malaysia's own development of ‘political' Islam in a positive direction.

In the recent Sarawak state election, the domination of politics by one party and one person has been likened to similar situations in the MENA countries.

PAS made important inroads in at least one constituency in Sarawak when it was not a force to be reckoned with in the past there.

PKR's Muslim leaders also found great resonance with Muslim crowds at political rallies. However, the situation has not reached the tipping point except among urban communities in Sarawak.

In the Peninsula, the situation could be rather different. One could foresee that both the PKR and PAS could now draw on the developments in the Middle East to persuade and convince Muslims that regime change is not only necessary but ultimately salutary or beneficial for the country.

Clearly, there is a divergence of strategic interests between Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies on one hand and Iran, Iraq and the Shi'ite communities in the region on the other.

In your observation, how do decision-makers of Malaysia's foreign policy cope with the bipolar tension? Is Malaysia's position or approach balanced or equidistant? If not, what should Malaysia do to recalibrate?

The doctrinal religious differences between and within the various MENA countries, in particular between Sunni and Shi'ite communities, are no doubt a problem that would continue to hound the Muslim world as they have for centuries.

In point of fact, this should not really be a strategic question although the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s, which saw about two million fatalities is indicative of the strategic implications of this deep schism in Muslim world.

In my view, that war was a sectarian conflict writ large and the current Arab revolution may just be able to ultimately address this by instituting political systems which are not sectarian but politically neutral.

Differing doctrinal practices could certainly co-exist within such legally neutral non-sectarian political systems.

As we can see, the current uprisings directed against corrupt regimes and dictatorships are initiated by both the Sunni and Shi'ite communities.

Malaysia's foreign policy towards the Arab world and MENA in general should definitely be premised on equidistance and a balanced approach, i.e. treating all Muslim societies in equal fashion and certainly not equivocating between Sunni or Shi'ite majority states in terms of actual policy.

So far, on this score, Malaysia has been exemplary. It chaired the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) without problems.

However, there is now egregious regime change in the Arab world. How would the OIC handle these changes?

Malaysia should definitely have policies supportive of the democratization of Arab regimes wherever that process is advancing.

The safest and logical policy stance in this current situation of fluidity would be to follow an UN-calibrated approach, support peaceful democratic change, oppose violent regime reactions against citizens and accord recognition to the emergent democracies of the region.

In general, what foreign policy adjustment would be made by Malaysia vis-à-vis the historic or unprecedented changes in the Middle East and North Africa?

It may be too early to fully re-calibrate our foreign policy vis-à-vis the whole region, and as noted above, the emergence of stable democratic regimes should receive Malaysia's endorsement.

Malaysia's policy of nonalignment has served it well in the past years and that policy should remain the basis of relations with major powers like United States and Europe who are active in the region.

With respect to NATO, a Western alliance, now involved in Libya, Malaysia should take the view that this is a contingent measure demanded by the situation and one that is sanctioned by the UN and therefore deserving of its support.

At no time in a post-regime change situation should NATO remain active in Libya or in the region.

In your observation so far, how do the majority of Muslims in Malaysia see the West's political involvement or even military intervention in the upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa?

While I cannot really speak on behalf of a majority of Muslims in Malaysia, suffice it to say that no one seems to be objecting to the kind of military intervention that is introduced to defend citizens and innocent people from being attacked or killed by their own so-called governments.

Clearly these governments by committing such acts have lost their legitimacy. Unlike the military intervention in Iraq during the George W Bush Administration, the current Western intervention is approved by the Security Council of the United Nations.

It won't be just Muslims, but I believe the vast majority of peoples in the world are supportive of the use of legitimate military force under extraordinary conditions which aim to remove the scourge of politically bankrupt regimes which are causing direct harm to their own citizens.

JAMES WONG WING ON is a former member of Parliament (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily. He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. While in Sin Chew, he and a team of journalists won the top awards of the Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) for 1998 and 1999.