Malaysia's Social Contract - Exposing The Myth Behind The Slogan
By Mavis Puthucheary
Since the 1980s the term "social contract" has come to supersede the term "inter-ethnic bargain" that was previously used by historians to describe the agreement between the leaders of the founding parties in the Alliance. This original bargain was not spelled out in any clear and precise way so it is not clear what the contract actually entailed. All we have is the Constitution which itself is ambiguous and has been amended nurmerous times. The emergence of the term "social contract" in the public discourse has given rise to a renewal of the debate on what was actually agreed upon at the time of Independence. As we cannot determine in any fixed way what was the content of the original bargain, we are better off trying to understand the debate surrounding the re-formulation of the bargain in terms of a "social contract".
Central to the narrative of the inter-ethnic bargain is the power-sharing arrangement in which the leaders of the political parties of the Alliance government set out the rules for the sharing of the nation. Nation-building was based on the theme of the making and sharing of nation among its multi-ethnic citizens within a framework which entails the maintenance of the special position of the Malays. It was clear that at the heart of the debate was the issue of power-sharing between the two main ethnic groups, Malays and non-Malays, within a democratic framework. As the Alliance coalition, and later its successor, the Barisan Nasional coalition, won all the national elections, the question of how power was to be shared devolved around the balance of power between the parties in the ruling coalition.
In the first ten years after Independence, the balance of power between the two main parties, UMNO and the MCA, was more or less equal. After 1969, however the balance of power within the ruling coalition shifted significantly in favour of UMNO and the political system itself became less democratic. Although both parties fared badly in the 1969 elections, UMNO leaders who had secured control of the government, concentrated their efforts on regaining Malay support while still maintaining the power-sharing structure. With the introduction of the New Economic Policy and the extension of Malay privileges especially in the fields of education and employment, UMNO regained its popularity among the Malays and consequently assumed a dominant position in the ruling coalition.
However over the years new problems arose. First, as the resources of the state expanded, opportunities to become rich through access to these resources resulted in greater competition for positions in all parties in the BN, especially UMNO. Faced with severe challenges from within the party, the top UMNO leadership sought to unify the party under its leadership by the notion of a social contract in which Malay dominance was enshrined. It is significant that whenever the notion of social contract is brought up in the context of Malay dominance, its timing coincides with the eve of the UMNO general assembly elections. One may be tempted to speculate the UMNO leadership may even have introduced the notion of "Ketuanan Melayu" with the intention of incurring the expected hue and cry from the non-Malays so that it can then rally the Malays around their leadership!
Second, as Malay society becomes more complex, largely as a consequence of the successes of the NEP, the race-based politics of the BN structure is becoming less tenable. As Malays have become more socially divided (along issues of class, Islamic ideology, region, etc) UMNO finds itself having to compete with other political parties for the support of the Malay electorate. By promoting the idea of a social contract while foreclosing any open discussion which would clarify precisely what this contract entails, UMNO leaders hope to get the best of both worlds - they can shift their stand between the constitutional "social contract" and the Ketuanan Melayu "social contract" depending on the circumstances. The ambiguity of the notion of the social contract is therefore productive for UMNO. It is easy to gain non-Malay support for a social contract that is couched in the language of the inter-ethnic bargain.
In addition to the crucial distinction between the constitutional "social contract" and the Ketuanan Melayu "social contract" is the distinction between the generally received idea of the social contract as enunciated by the western philosophers and Abdullah Ahmad's peculiar Malaysian appropriation of the term. By appropriating what was a philosophical notion of the individual giving up some of his "natural" rights to the state, it was hoped to transform what was in effect nothing more than a partisan agreement to the level of a "national consensus" that is binding for all time. Most of all once this idea is accepted, the UMNO-dominated political system would be in a position to decide the substance of this social contract. If this is UMNO's position, then it is clear that the "social contract" is nothing more than part of UMNO's strategy to demonstrate its claim to being the sole champion on Malay interests.
Such a system has adverse consequences for the democratization process. We should not feel bound to deal supposedly made in the past and which we have no knowledge of its contents. Ironically, the social contract was developed in the west by liberal-minded thinkers to challenge the authoritarian rule of absolute monarchs. Those who promote the idea of a social contract in Malaysia, however, want to see a political system in which secret deals are struck by the ruling elite in an environment where the scope and level of political participation is severely limited.
In such a situation it is unwise to recognize the legitimacy of the social contract as it is applied in the Malaysian context. In the Philippines, it has been found that the domination of the ruling elite is secured by its ability to effectively use the very principle and ideals of the dominated and then interpret these principles in its own interest. Allusions of the past which have been generally accepted as the single unifying force that contributed to the building of the nation function to disseminate signs that can be apprehended in different ways. In the same way, by using the idiom of the inter-ethnic bargain, which was in effect a partisan agreement, and giving it the status of a national consensus, UMNO's agenda of Malay dominance is secured within the formal structure of multiracialism.
The UMNO version of the social contract would allow for Malay interests as defined by UMNO ("Ketuanan Melayu") to be given greater emphasis. For this reason the consensus that is required is limited to the idea without allowing any open discussion. Any call for debate on its contents is viewed as a challenge to the existing political system.
In the search for solutions to dismantling the "social contract" we should be concerned about the impact it is likely to have on race relations in Malaysia. In the current political scenario there are three political parties that claim to protect and advance Malay/Muslim interests - UMNO, PAS and PKR.
Although not mutually exclusive, these parties adopt three different positions. UMNO's stand is that Malay interests (as defined in terms of Malay dominance) are best safeguarded in a multi-ethnic coalition where UMNO is the sole representative of the Malay community. PAS attempts to unite the Malays through their religion, claiming that in an Islamic-based political system of universal values of social justice and fairness would be automatically delivered. In contrast the PKR takes a non-racial approach to politics claiming that Malay interests would be advanced only through policies and programmes specifically targeted at assisting the poorest sections of the society while at the same time making sure that they have the capabilities to compete with the other races on equal terms. The challenge facing the PKR leadership is how to develop broad principles of social justice, equal citizenship rights and a system of rewarding people based on meritocracy while at the same time having to deal with criticisms of selling out Malay rights.
If the Malay version of the social contract gains wider acceptance among the Malays, PKR may be under considerable pressure to abandon its more inclusive approach to politics and pander exclusively to Malay chauvinism and that would mean the end of PKR's claim to multiracialism. Therefore it is important for the PKR to strike a balance between the non-compromising "Malaysian Malaysia" position of the DAP on the one hand, and the extreme positions of "Ketuanan Melayu" as enunciated in UMNO's re-formulation of the social contract or the "Islamic State" of PAS on the other.
Mavis Puthucheary was formerly associate professor in the Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya. Since retiring, she has continued to research and write about politics in Malaysia, particularly on the issue of the 'social contract'. In 2005, she edited a book with Norani Othman on Elections and Politics in Malaysia.