Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T16:24:55.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Government and the ‘Plural Society’*: Some General Observations.1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

K. J. Ratnam
Get access

Extract

The nature of constitutional government in any society must strongly be dependent on whether the people to be governed are relatively homogeneous or belong to different communal groups with differing interests.

In a relatively homogeneous society, constitutional provisions usually reflect certain generally accepted values while at the same time giving sufficient scope for efficiency in administration. Admittedly the degree to which the values reflected are in fact ‘generally acceptable’ may be open to dispute; but agreement with, and opposition to, constitutional provisions in such a society are not generally the outcome of rigidly compartmentalized attitudes. Consequently, it is possible to rely on what is often called ‘popular opinion’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , October 1961 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A Paper submitted to the International Conference of South-East Asian Historians, Singapore, Jan. 1961.

1.

It should be pointed out that the constitutional problems created by social plurality cannot be adequately dealt with in a paper of this nature and length. It is, however, hoped that the few generalizations attempted here would lead to more thought, and perhaps to some discussion, on the subject. Even the term ‘plural society’ (or, for that matter, the very concept of it) may be discussed in some detail.

References

2. The Constitution of Burma perhaps provides the best example of this.

3. This tendency usually becomes exaggerated when economic roles also follow communal lines. Malaya is a good example.

4. Communal groups always seem to maintain a state of ‘organization’, even if physically scattered.

5. “Ceylon Tamils” here excludes the Indian immigrants who are also mostly Tamils, but who are not regarded as Ceylon citizens.

6. Burma again provides a good example. While the minority groups are more interested in whether or not there are adequate safeguards to guarantee the maintenance of their own special identities, the Burmans, on the other hand, have made no secret of their desire to dominate the entire society, politically and culturally.

7. “Assimilation” depends on two main factors: the willingness of minorities to lose their special identity; and the willingness of majority groups to accept others into their fold. “Accommodation”, as used here, refers to situations where each community in a society, while seeking to preserve its own special characteristics, is willing to respect those of others.

It should be added that when members of minority groups are coerced into abandoning their individuality for the supposed benefit of the state, “assimilation” can constitute one of the ‘hostile’ policies adopted by the dominant group.

8. The history of race relations in South Africa provides several examples of both discriminatory legislation and legislative reprisals.

9. This, however, should not be taken to mean that a totally unified political community comes into being during the pre-independence period. In multicommunal societies which become independent, a full transfer of power (from the colonial government to the new state) seldom if ever takes place without being accompanied by grave doubts as to whether the power that is to be devolved will in fact be properly shared. These doubts, often ‘shelved’ in the interests of national unity during the immediate pre-independence period, usually create a wide variety of problems once independence is achieved. Nigeria provides a very recent example.

10. Mackenzie, W. J. M., “Representation in Plural Societies”, Political Studies, Vol. II (1954), p. 63.Google Scholar

11. See footnote 9, above.

12. To some extent, it may be said that Malaya's electoral system has been successful up to the present because it does not follow any communal directives.

13. It would, however, be misleading to suggest that language alone has been responsible for this ‘linguistic regionalism’. Some of the minority linguistic groups — particularly the Bengalis and the Tamils — have their own distinctive traditions and cultural histories. Since the major linguistic groups are territorially concentrated, the language issue has also become a convenient and effective expression of more general cultural and social differences.

14. It may be suggested that in countries (e.g. the Federation of Malaya) where no community has a clear numerical and economic superiority over the others, it is more accurate to speak of a ‘communal problem’ rather than a ‘minority problem’.

15. A fairly adequate explanation of the distinction between ‘community’ and ‘society’ is given in the U.N. publication: Definition and Classification of Minorities (U.N. XIV, 1953). It states:

(a) “Communities are groups based upon unifying and spontaneous (as opposed to artificial or planned) factors essentially beyond the control of the members of the group (such as blood, culture, proximity, etc.).…The components of a community are united by affinity rather than by their voluntary decision to establish such a group” (p. 4.)

(b) “Society.…on the other hand, is established by the deliberate or voluntary action of its members who associate themselves for the purpose of undertaking certain activities. A ‘society’ is an organization of social beings for the pursuit of a common interest.” (p. 4).