Enhancing governance, empowering citizens.
Ethnolinguistic fractionalization has a negative impact on governance. Political scientists argue that in an ethnically diverse society, officials have a tendency to restrict political freedom and protect “their own” by redistributing national wealth to their own group. Thus ethnically diverse countries tend to be more corrupt.
An abundance of natural resources in a country is also associated with weak governance. Governments that are able to extract revenues from natural resources would be less dependent on their citizenry for tax revenues. Independence from tax revenues would give governments an upper hand since the citizens have 'reduced' capability to demand accountability and transparency – the citizens do not have a strong bargaining power since the government do not depend on them for revenues / resources.
(See Al-Marhubi (2004) for a brief discussion)
Evidence? Compare the so-called Western countries – who are less ethnically diverse and have less natural resources – with the so-called Third World, in which many Muslim countries belong to. The Third World is more ethnically diverse and has an abundance of natural resources. The evidence is obvious. Most (not all) governments in the West are more transparent, more accountable and they take their citizens more seriously. The same cannot be said about Muslim countries, Malaysia included.
Does that mean we should be working towards the reduction of ethnolinguistic differences by creating one nation with one identity (ie: the end of multiculturalism)? And a higher tax regime? The former would reduce the sense of belonging to a particular 'group', and therefore significantly reducing corrupted cronyism, and the latter would increase citizens’ bargaining power.
Should I be saying "Hail Bangsa Malaysia” and "Please come this way, higher-tax regime"?
posted by PROVOLUTION at 7/23/2005 01:49:00 pm
6 Comments:
What a surprising coincidence! Just minutes before your entry I was reading a book which deals precisely on this point but more thoroughly (i.e. the link between natural resources and good governance). It's The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria (yes, the Newsweek International editor) (Norton, 2004). In Chapter 2, "Blessed are The Poor", Zakaria argues that natural resources are generally controlled by the State. Accordingly, it has singularly undertaken the task of wealth creation and national development. The business class, entrepreneurs and professionals, in short, the bourgeoisie become highly dependent on the State, weakening their economic independence and naturally, political autonomy.
The interesting point, however, is that Malaysia (along with Chile and the United States), belongs to the “exceptions” which are “resource rich yet have developed economically and politically”. But ironically I don’t see the evidence of bourgeoisie independence here in Malaysia. Admittedly, the fiercest opponents of the ruling class have been the middle-class and student activists, but the vast majority of the business community still linger in their daydreaming fantasies of being awarded government contracts, projects, tenders and of course, APs. Little interest is being exhibited on more transparency and good governance.
It follows therefore that a higher tax would serve nothing more than to fortify an already powerful, seemingly omnipotent State. The people’s supposed right to demand more will be seen as childish idealism.
You raised some interesting points. I am not sure about the statement that Malaysia has "developed economically and politically". Economically, perhaps yes if compared to the immediate surrounding countries. But politically?
The business community, particularly the Malay business community, suffers from testicular deficit because they know they can benefit from the "group" mentality. Perhaps the call for a "Bangsa Malaysia" is not so bad after all?
But whether a Bangsa Malaysia would actually solve the problem, I am not sure. It would be interesting to do an experiment. But how do you conduct such a big, nationwide social experiment?
This "Bangsa Malaysia" concept is not the only alternative to our failed (semi-)multiculturalist experiment.
Despite what we've been told over and over these past decades, Malaysia is not made up of groups (ethnic, religious, class or otherwise) defined top-down by the state: she is made up of individuals who hold varying degrees of loyalty or association with any number of groups which exist in civil society independent of the state. Nor should we be trying to obliterate our wealth of cultures by propagating an all-encompassing "Bangsa Malaysia" (what exactly does this mean? In any case, government should not tell what Malaysians what "Bangsa Malaysia" should be - it has to grow organically from the bottom, at the lowest common denominator - a commitment to liberty (read our Proclamation of Independence!), for instance).
The way to solve the problem of ethnolinguistic (or any other) fractionalisation is to allow Malaysians to associate with whatever ethnic or cultural identities they see fit, and prevent the state from granting any individual preferential treatment on the basis of how they have chosen (or inherited) their identities.
By severing reliance of any group on the state, we not only eradicate the problem of state-sanctioned discrimination ("group loyalty"), but the problem of unfair exploitation of natural resources as well: the state will not feel obliged to act in the interests of any particular group, and entrepreneurs will feel that they will be treated more on their skills and experience. All the usual free market arguments kick in at this juncture: the resulting competition drives productivity and the government will be able to rake in the same revenue with a lower tax rate and all the rest of it. A win-win situation - but a bigger win for citizens who will be able to demand greater accountability and transparency.
(The idea that a higher tax regime will increase citizens' bargaining power is an odd formulation. Perhaps in the short-term; but I am more inclined to think that it will intensify animosity between the taxed and the taxers, and allow government to grow ever more authoritarian or naturalise its citizens into believing that high taxes are necessary to achieve "social justice" requiring the creation of inefficient bureaucracies or the subsidy of second-rate public goods.)
Admittedly, many Malaysians automatically assume that our governments are going to be authoritarian by default, and so businesses are content to stay on the leash of the state. The trick will be to convince them that things can be even better for them in free market conditions, where there is more transparency and less (rather than "good") governance, and where they don't need "friends" to be successful.
I think Malaysia has passed the stage where nation-building is something that the state needs to do for us. We are fully capable of doing it ourselves. We can start by calling for an end to the crippling welfare state that manifests itself in affirmative action.
'
I agree with you totally about affirmative action. It has no place in modern society, especially so when it is run the way Malaysia does it.
But I would go even further than that. I would say that there should be no preferential treatment to *anyone*. This would, inadvertently, mean that there should be not be preferential treatment to people for any reason, be it race, religion and especially family lineage. Then we would really be properly competing.
It is also unfortunate that, at the moment, I am convinced the Malays would lose in the race. The laws of natural selection would play an important role if there were to be a properly free market. Those who are weak would be weeded out. The Malays are relatively weak at this moment in time, and would not survive if feudalistic affirmative action were not in place.
The playing field is not yet level. Are we ready for some proper competition?
Yes, I emphatically agree; however I should be clear that I mean no affirmative action bestowed *by the state* - individuals should still be able to choose how to bestow their skills or possessions (as much as their respect or love) with each other, with mutual agreement, however they see fit.
(Re: "family lineage", I will say that the state should not compel anyone to have any special respect or deference to anyone based on their lineage; but of course people should be able to do so if they choose. Also, people of certain lineages granted positions by the state based on their lineage pledge an oath to the state and people (i.e. a contract) with regard to their constitutional duties (which should be to protect citizens from authoritarian government). And there should be a mechanism to punish breaches of this contract.)
While I am all for the post-haste realisation by Malays to end preferential treatment, I am not suggesting a sudden switch to a free market. Rather, a phasing out could be done over a period of years so that in time, house discounts, minimum quotas in education etc. diminish to zero. What is of paramount importance is the promise that the playing field will be level, one day.
'
Your comment re "family lineage" seems like you are trying to defend monarchy by using libertarian arguments. I don't think it would work. But too long to write the arguments in this space.
As to the phasing out of bumiputare-ism and the promotion of a proper free market, this may be something for your Ibn Khaldun Society idea. Howzat?
Post a Comment
<< Home