Kajian Malaysia, Vol. 29, No.

1, 2011, 91109

THE LIMITS OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN DEMOCRATISING

THE STATE: THE MALAYSIAN CASE

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang
Email: azeemf@usm.my
A vibrant and active civil society is often said to be a necessary but not
sufficient condition for the consolidation of democracy. It is well known
that civil society in the Western context, at least from the libertarian
perspective, was born out of a struggle between the bourgeois and the
feudal lord. Hegel, for example, posited that individuals in civil society
would pursue their self-interest within the framework of mutually
recognised rights and obligations regulated by public authority.
However, the liberal perspective on civil society argues that civil society
must be freed from the clutches of the state if it is to be a potent force for
democratisation. Here, we argue that the emergence of civil society in a
post-colonial and multi-ethnic society is highly dependent on the state
and that civil society in a multi-ethnic society can also act as a
polarising force.
Keywords: civil society, democracy, democratisation
Civil society occupies a special position in democratic theory. It is
simultaneously considered an autonomous public sphere where citizens
deliberate and exchange ideas and, more importantly, the reservoir of
that ''stock of social capital'' that is necessary to oil the wheels of
democracy. Although civil society has been trumpeted as a prerequisite
for democracy, the social conditions necessary for its development are
less certain. This uncertainty may arise from the fact that intermediate
associations exist in all societies. However, scholars agree that
democracies seem to give more leeway for such associations to function,
whereas authoritarian states attempt to co-opt or even curb the
mushrooming of secondary associations, which are seen as a threat.
Scholars often assume that a successful transition from authoritarianism
to democracy will take place in which civil society is not only robust but
Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2011

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

also in opposition to the state. However, these assumptions fail to take

two factors into consideration: the limits placed on civil society by the
state and the fact that not all civil society actors are fighting for
democracy. In other words, civil society cannot by itself spark the
overthrow of an authoritarian system and replace it with a democratic
one.
The theoretical underpinnings for the above claim are as follows: first,
the development of civil society is context-specific; second, the
transition from authoritarianism to democracy involves many variables,
among which civil society may not be the most significant. To play a
vital role in democratisation, civil society must work with political
society. Two crucial elements of political society are political parties
and political leaders, both of which can act to strengthen or weaken the
democratic or authoritarian potential of a given configuration of civil
society. We should also bear in mind that the state might tolerate
business associations, trade unions, and other benign groups while
restricting the movements of pro-democracy associations. Put
differently, the question of the balance of power between pro-democratic
associations and other civil society actors has to be considered when
assessing the role of civil society in democratic consolidation. Some
civil society organisations (CSOs) might find it useful to observe the
rules of the game to gain access to those holding the levers of power,
whereas others might adopt a confrontational approach.
The final assumption is that most of the virtues ascribed to civil society
by neo-Tocquevillean theories, like the school of democracy, are
exaggerated. In an ethnically diverse society, where differences often
play themselves out in competition as well as in collaboration with
diverse interests and agendas, there is the possibility of direct conflict
between groups that have incompatible goals, leading to polarisation in
highly ethno centric societies and impeding the development of values
that are conducive to democracy. These arguments suggest that the link
between civil society and democratisation is tenuous at best. I argue that
civil society does not exist in a vacuum and that it needs some form of a
guarantee such as the protection of fundamental liberties to act as a
conduit for democratisation.

92

Civil Society and the State

In making these claims, I hope to highlight two points. First, the state,
which has a monopoly of legitimate violence in a society, is a
precondition for all other activities in modern civilisation. As such, most
non-Western societies attempting to construct modern states may not
have the necessary institutions or historical legacies to support the
development of a vibrant civil society. Second, the idea that
associational life is always the source of democratic activism, which can
act as a buffer against the arbitrary state, is riddled with ambiguity
because associations that are narrow in scope, chauvinistic in content,
stereotypical in form, and constructed around homogenising impulses
tend to impede democratic consolidation.
These arguments emerge from an in-depth analysis of political
development in Malaysia, a regime that defies easy categorisation. Most
analysts of Malaysian politics would agree that Malaysia has not only all
the trappings of a democracy but also some authoritarian features.
Although some scholars are of the opinion that ''state and civil society
are in transition'' (Verma, 2002), democratic consolidation may not be
one of the outcomes. The Malaysian regime has also shown resilience in
crisis situations, and the political elites have remained cohesive.
Nevertheless, CSOs ''have played a key role in exploring and espousing
political, social and economic reforms, in the process sustaining a
nucleus of committed activists'' (Weiss and Saliha, 2003: 42). According
to Weiss and Saliha (2003):
Civil society in Malaysia does not fit the theoretical ideal of
democratic, grassroots-oriented, politically transformative
organisations for building social capital and keeping the
government in line. Too few of them are truly independent,
self-financing, and racially and linguistically inclusive
(Weiss and Saliha, 2003: 43).
Although we should be careful of making generalisations based on a
single case study, the Malaysian experience demonstrates the difficulty
of assigning civil society a positive role in democratisation. In light of
these developments, it is fair to use the Malaysian case as an example to
test whether the above-mentioned claims can be applied in countries that
exhibit similar characteristics. Moreover, although the 2008 general
93

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

elections have been touted as a ''political tsunami'', the political

alignment within Pakatan Rakyat1 is still very much within the
consociational democratic model. This inevitably reinforces the existing
social cleavages along ethnic lines. The thinning of Malay political
power and the opening of political space during Abdullah Badawi's
administration (20032009) have invariably stunted the creation of a
''common conceptual map'' that is crucial for developing a vibrant civil
society. This is aptly demonstrated by the demands and counterdemands made by CSOs, both of which are still couched in nonnegotiable ethnic terms. For example, CSOs such as Perkasa and Dong
Zhong have accentuated the existing, conflicting subcultures, and the
spillover effect has erupted into the political arena. This does not bode
well for eliminating discriminatory practices and developing equality of
conditions, both of which are crucial requisites in the development of a
civil society. Najib Razak's administration has re-adopted the
developmental model while maintaining authoritarian controls. Because
adherents of communitarian perspective often view their political
demands as a matter of group survival and as non-negotiable, Najib
Razak's 1Malaysia slogan is in conceptual disarray and is by no means a
panacea for nation building. On the contrary, the development of civil
society and democratic processes require negotiation, conciliation, and
compromise.
In what follows, I briefly discuss the concept of civil society. I then
discuss the political context of civil society organisations in Malaysia in
greater detail. An analysis of the role of Malaysian civil society in
mediating issues of democracy and the challenges that they face follow
this discussion.

WHAT IS CIVIL SOCIETY?

The discourse on democracy devotes considerable attention to the
concept of civil society, particularly to its relationship to the state. As a
parallel to the neo-liberal theory of democracy, which stresses that
economic liberalisation is the condition and guarantee of democracy, it
is argued that civil society thrives better if separated from the state.
According to this perspective, the liberation of civil society from the
clutches of the state is the major condition for democratisation. But how
94

Civil Society and the State

valid is this perspective? In this section, I attempt to define civil society

and argue against its analytical divorce from the state. One working
definition is that, in the most abstract sense, civil society can be
conceived of as an aggregate of institutions, the members of which are
engaged primarily in a complex of non-state activitieseconomic and
cultural production, voluntary associations, and household lifeand
that, in this way, preserve and transform their identity by exercising all
sorts of pressures or controls upon state institutions (Keane, 1988: 14).
Civil society would include such organisations as professional
associations, student bodies, independent communication media,
chambers of commerce, trade unions, and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) of one variety or another. However, the origins
and use of the concept of civil society span several centuries, with the
concept featuring significantly in the writings of Hegel (1999), Marx
(1970), and Gramsci (1971). Whereas the concept was synonymous with
the ''commonwealth'' or ''political society'' in English political thought in
the 16th and 17th centuries, it underwent some modification when Hegel
created a distinction between the state and civil society. Marx
transformed Hegel's distinction between the state and civil society by
denying the universality of the state and insisting that the state expressed
the peculiarities of civil society and its class relations (Wood, 1987: 61).
Gramsci (1971) appropriated the concept of civil society to define the
terrain of a new kind of struggle, which extended the contest against
capitalism from its economic foundations to its cultural and ideological
roots in everyday life.
Neo-liberal theories of democracy argue that civil society plays a critical
role against the statism of various shades, but primarily against the
statism associated with a prominent role of the state in economic
activity. Indeed, civil society has been likened to a conceptual
portmanteau that indiscriminately lumps together everything from
households to voluntary associations to the economic system of
capitalism. It has been argued that, in Eastern Europe, the concept has
been simultaneously used in the defence of political rights and in the
restoration of capitalism. Although the separation of the state and civil
society in the West gave rise to new forms of freedom and equality, it
also created new modes of domination and coercion. One way of
95

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

characterising the specificity of civil society as a particular form in the

modern worldthe particular historical conditions that made possible
the distinction between state and civil societyis that it constituted a
new form of social power, in which many coercive functions that once
belonged to the state were relocated in the private sphere, in private
property, in class exploitation, and in market imperatives. It was this
privatisation of public power that created the historically novel realm of
civil society.
If civil society institutions are not inherently democratic, is it not valid
to insist on their analytical separation from the state, as in the neo-liberal
discourse. Without the protective, redistributive and conflict-mediating
functions of the state, struggles to transform civil society become
''ghettoised, divided, and stagnant, or will spawn their own new forms of
inequality and unfreedom'' (Keane, 1988: 15). Further, civil society does
not act independently from the statethere is interpenetration of the
two. According to Beckman (1992), in order for the notion of civil
society to make sense, it must involve some structuring of relations that
distinguish it from society itselfthe relationship to the state provides
this structuring principle. Civil society is situated in the rules and
transactions that connect state and society. For example, chambers of
commerce organise and represent business interests in a public arena as
defined primarily by relations to the state via legislation, tax, and license
provisions. Thus, the construction of civil society is centred on rules and
regulates relations between competing interests in society; the protection
of the state is sought in the pursuit of productive and reproductive life.
The enforced separation between the state and civil society in the neoliberal mould is therefore conceptually untenable.
The tension between stressing the independence to civil society and
according primacy to the state exists in Malaysia. Although it has been
argued that the transition to a viable democracy can be greatly facilitated
by the prior existence of civil society, civil society may not always usher
in a democratic transitionthe state may put up an effective fight and
hang on to the reins of power (Kamrava, 2000: 193). Scholars focusing
on third-world politics have argued that viable democracy necessitates
civil society, but civil society in itself does not necessarily mean
democratisation. As Kamrava (2000) points out, to have democratic
consequences, CSOs must democratise themselves and the larger social
96

Civil Society and the State

and political environments within which they operate. Nevertheless,

Western scholars, such as Larry Diamond argue that civil society plays a
key role in democratic transition and consolidation by ''providing the
basis for the limitation of state power, supplementing the role of parties
in stimulating political participation, increasing the political efficacy and
skill of democratic citizens, educating the masses in democracy,
structuring multiple channels, beyond the political party, for articulating,
aggregating, and representing interests, empowering the powerless to
advance their interests, generating a wide range of interests that may
cross-cut, and so mitigate the principle polarities of political conflict,
recruiting and training new political leaders, developing techniques for
conflict mediation and resolution, giving citizens respect for state and
positive engagement with it, and facilitating the spread of ideas essential
to the achievement of economic reform'' (Diamond, 1999: 239250).
I argue that Diamond's claim is overly optimistic and may not be
applicable to highly fragmented societies such as the Middle East,
Africa, and Southeast Asia. As Gupta (2001: 307) has noted, in contrast
to Western experience, in India the interest in civil society comes from
the state's inability to deliver the fruits of technology and modernisation
to the average citizenwhen civil society is thus separated from
citizenship, the state is no longer responsible for the well-being of its
citizens. Put simply, for civil society to be an effective tool of
democratisation, it must be politically relevant, and this relevance varies
depending on the socio-economic setting. Civil society depends largely
on well-developed social networks and a society with a high level of
ethnic diversity. These can translate into clan- or kinship-based
relationships which are inimical to democracy.

THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN

MALAYSIA
To determine the types of associations that are conducive to the
consolidation of democracy, it is instructive to look at a regime where
democracy has yet to consolidate, which is described as ''neither
authoritarian nor democratic'' and as a ''semi-democracy''. The
Malaysian regime, which has often been characterised as a ''half-way
97

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

house'', is a hybrid polity. It is democratic because elections (free but not

necessarily fair) have been held regularly since the country gained its
independence in 1957, but it is also authoritarian because of a host of
repressive laws, such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), which permits
the detention without trial of individuals who the state feels are a threat
to national security. More often than not, opposition politicians have
been incarcerated by the incumbent government, which felt that they
were out to undermine ''national security''. Nevertheless, as Crouch
(1996: 11435) has noted, ''the government has been careful to respond
to the expectations of a large part of the societybecause competitive
elections have continued to be held''.
To its credit, the Malaysian regime has successfully managed ethnic
relations in a pluralist society, which, if not properly handled, could lead
to instability. It has also managed the economy rather successfully as
well. The aforementioned factors, coupled with the emergence of the
new political culture of developmentalism, have ensured that democratic
consolidation has remained elusive in Malaysia. According to Loh
(2002: 21):
This new political culture valorises rapid economic growth, the
resultant consumerist habits, and the political stability offered by
Barisan Nasional (BN) or National Front rule even when
authoritarian means are resorted to. Since no party has ever
governed Malaysia, many ordinary Malaysian cannot imagine
that political stability can be maintained in multi-ethnic Malaysia
without BN rule. A ''self-policing'' system in support of BN rule
which is believed to be essential for maintaining political
stability, which then attracts foreign direct investments (FDIs)
and allows economic growth to occur, and ultimately for the
enjoyment of higher standards of living and consumption, has
kicked in.
Loh (2002) might give the impression that there is almost a consensus
among Malaysians that BN rule is the only viable form of government
and that this new political culture pervades all Malaysians. However, it
is important to highlight that this consensus is more prevalent among the
middle class. In addition, the Malaysian middle class is by no means
homogenous. The dominance of the new political culture of
98

Civil Society and the State

developmentalism among the middle class could be attributed to the fact

that the Malaysian middle class has historically been supportive of the
state, as demonstrated by the election results (Abdul Rahman, 2001: 80).
Nevertheless, since the late 1960s, a small segment of the middle class
has begun to demand a more participatory approach to decisionmakingarticulating their grievances in the language of democracy and
democratisation.
Because Malaysia inherited a well-developed civil service from the
British and experienced robust economic growth, the state has pursued a
developmentalist strategy that effectively blocked CSOs from providing
direct services to the masses since independence. For instance,
Malaysian CSOs have seldom been involved in relieving the immediate
suffering of the poor and in meeting their short-term visible needs with
the hope that the poor may get themselves back onto their feet to escape
poverty. Instead, appendages of the dominant party in the ruling
coalitionthe United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)
provided assistance to the rural poor and peasants. This may be because
UMNO relies heavily on rural Malay voters for its electoral supremacy,
and one way to win the crucial Malay votes in the rural areas is to be
seen as the ''protector'' of the Malays. The party has managed to do this
by virtue of its dominance in the ruling coalition, which made it possible
for it to dispense various forms of patronage through several
mechanisms, such as local village councils. Therefore, we can deduce
that associational life of the political/social welfare type is not
predominant among the Malays, as most of their needs have been
attended to by the state. This is not to imply that the pattern of
associational life is static among the Malays. More specifically,
associational life in the Malay community is organised around religious,
as opposed to civic or political, ends. This partly explains the
attractiveness of Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party)
as a viable alternative to UMNO in the Malay belt states.
In non-Malay communities, associational life of the ''bonding'' kind is
rather vibrant. For example, associational life is vibrant in Chinese
community, a phenomenon that is not unique to Malaysia but is a typical
feature of immigrant Chinese communities everywhere. The Chinese are
most active in Huay Kuan and Kongsi groups, based on regional
99

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

association and kinship, followed by Miao or temple organisations.

These associations are primarily concerned with health and welfare and
are formed because of concern about inadequate public facilities
(Douglas and Pedersen, 1973: 71). It has been noted that Chinese
associations and guilds provide a shadow government with authority that
competes with the political leadership of English-speaking Chinese in
the federal and state assemblies (Douglas and Pedersen, 1973: 72). The
existence of this network of interdependent associations could be
considered as a form of ''bonding'' social capital for the immigrant
communities because it reinforces a self-contained community life and
the traditional framework. These associations maintain relationships
among the otherwise fragmented Chinese community using ancestral
establishments with common surnames that perpetuate ancestor worship,
celebrate the traditional festivals, and care for ancestral graves.
As Kaneko (2002: 180) notes, each of these associations offers
numerous ''semi-public'' services, ranging from helping members find
jobs to managing schools. The Indian community's involvement in
associational life is also vibrant. Because the Indians were brought in by
the British to work in the rubber estates, they were and are active union
members. Caste organisations were also popular among early
immigrants, and trade organisations and guilds have continued to exert
some influence, separating the Indian trading community from labour
interests (Douglas and Pedersen, 1973: 73). We see a similar pattern
emerging among the non-Malay communities: associational life is an
important component of their social structure. Voluntary associations
help these immigrants adapt to their new homeland, and these
associations have subsequently kept cultural and religious practices
alive. Within the Chinese community, some of these associations have
developed into pressure groups that seek to protect Chinese cultural and
educational rights.
As the Malaysian regime has a mixture of both authoritarian and
democratic characteristics, associational autonomy is not its forte.
Associational activities are heavily regulated by the state. The Societies
Act of 1966 (revised in 1983) defines the relationship between the state
and civil society. Any organisation that has seven or more persons,
whether it is a business or a social organisation, is required to register
with the state. The Registrar of Society (ROS) is responsible for
100

Civil Society and the State

monitoring the activities of voluntary associations and is empowered to

accept or reject any application to form new associations. In an attempt
to exert greater control over civil society, the state moved to amend the
Societies Act in 1981 to classify non-governmental organisations into
one of two categories''political'' and ''friendly''. As Saravanamuttu
(1992: 51) notes had it passed, this amendment would have effectively
prevented a large number of urban based societies and associations from
performing their legitimate role of lobbying or otherwise influencing
government policy. This proposed amendment was rejected after a
secretariat headed by Islamic Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM)
mobilised 115 CSOs, which resulted in a review of the amendment, after
which the government dropped the offending section. However, this
victory was short-lived. The state then decided to amend the Official
Secrets Acts (OSA) to include mandatory jail sentence for journalists
and others who revealed materials obtained from government sources.
This amendment was passed despite heated protest from the National
Union of Journalists and other key civil society actors. Civil society in
Malaysia therefore operates under the ''watchful eye'' of the state and can
be characterised as being ''encapsulated'' (Jesudason, 1995: 335).

THE CHALLENGES FACED BY CIVIL SOCIETY IN

MALAYSIA
The previous section has attempted to show that civil society in
Malaysia is characterised by what Barber (1999) has called
communitarian organisations. This phenomenon is known to be the
outcome of the British divide and rule policy, and this need not be
discussed here. What is of significance is that this colonial social
structure has been reinforced by the state even after independence in
1957. As such, these communitarian organisations have continued to
play a pivotal role in representing the interests of their respective
communities, but their exclusivity and hierarchical structure have
somewhat impeded the formation of cross-cutting civic organisations
that promote equality and openness. For example, a recent study that
was conducted to ascertain the extent of collaboration among Malaysian
CSOs shows that collaborations are difficult to find.2 This could be due
to the fact that the defining civil society actor in Malaysia is the
101

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

clansman''tied to community by birth, blood, and bathos'' (Barber,

1999: 15). Table 1 shows that the overwhelming majority of registered
CSOs in Malaysia are communitarian groups.
Table 1: Categories of Civil Society Organisation in Malaysia
National

State

Total

Religious

7, 203

1,400

8,603

Social welfare

5,629

1,533

7,162

Social/recreational

6,158

567

6,725

Women

372

1,142

1,514

Culture

1,716

1,428

3,144

Mutual benefit

2,121

2,129

Trade

3,360

767

4,127

Sport

3,226

379

3,605

Youth

3,157

6,421

9,578

Educational

367

171

538

Political

46

51,129

51,175

515

1,619

Employment

1, 104

General

7,100

2,247

9,347

Total

41,559

67,707

109,266

Source: New Straits Times, 2007

While the liberal perspective on civil society stresses that society can be
compartmentalised into two distinct spheres, the public and the private,
it has done so primarily by treating human beings as homo economicus
and, hence, as rights-bearing consumers (Barber, 1999:16). The
communitarian perspective, on the other hand, aims to respond to this
deficiency by providing human beings attachment to their ''ascriptive''
identity. In Malaysia's multi-ethnic society, communitarian
organisations reshape people's ascriptive identifies by attempting to
recreate a memory of and identification with the communal past. As
shown in the previous section, this is quite prevalent among immigrant
groups. In addition, the dominance of Malay culture and politics in
Malaysia has left other communal groups clamouring to protect their
identity. Put differently, non-Malay communitarian groups are
struggling against a perceived threat of a cultural takeover from the
102

Civil Society and the State

state. Like the liberal perspective on civil society, the communitarian

strand also envisages society as having two spheresthe public and the
private.
The fragmented nature of Malaysian society has invariably made nationbuilding a difficult task, as different communal groups have challenged
the ''official'' version of the cultural symbols that represent the
Malaysian nation. Civil society in Malaysia can therefore be said to be
beset by a great deal of ''mistrust''. Inasmuch as civil society requires the
systemisation of rights and the recognition of individual worth,
competing notions about what ought to be the cultural and political
symbols of the Malaysian nation have obstructed the development of a
common sense of purpose among the disparate groups in Malaysia. This
is compounded by deeply held beliefs about the purpose of politics
among the various ethnic groups in Malaysia. As Barber (1999: 16)
notes, the communitarian perspective is dangerous because it tends not
only to polarise and monopolise all public spaces but also to subordinate
the state and its institutions to a larger community. Even though
Malaysia is thought to be the embodiment of a cultural heterogeneity
success story, the nation-building project is in fact an abject failure. The
absence of a common conceptual map in the Malaysian case has created
an ''us'' versus ''them'' mentality among its heterogeneous inhabitants that
inevitably fails to create a common point of reference, which is crucial
in the development of civil society. In sharp contrast to what nationalism
had given the Europeans, the fragmented nature of Malaysian society
has failed to give birth to a collectivity that is based on a common point
of reference. As such, citizenship remains a hollow concept in Malaysia.
The struggle between the Malays and the non-Malays over citizenship
and the special rights given to the former have created an antagonistic
form of political interaction, which is also an impediment in the
development of civil society in Malaysia. In my opinion, neoTocquevillean scholars such as Putnam (2000) have overstated the
importance of associational life not only in strengthening democracy but
also in the development of civil society. A thriving civil society that is
coloured by communitarian concerns serves to fragment rather than
unite.

103

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

Over the years, the high levels of communitarian organisation in

Malaysia have created a situation in which individual interest have been
formulated in non-negotiable ethnic terms. Neo-Tocquevillean theorists'
stress the importance of voluntary associations in bridging cleavages and
bringing people together. However, they have failed to observe how, in
many post-colonial societies, such as Malaysia, associative practices fail
to play this briding role. Where cooperation exists, it is among
''clansmen'' pursuing different goals. In Malaysia, the granting of
citizenship to immigrant groups immediately after independence served
to corrode a sense of civility among the highly differentiated social
groupings. Although the Malay community was given special privileges,
the quid pro quo arrangementcitizenship in exchange for special
privilegeshas proven to be problematic. Citizenship entails rights and
entitlements, whereas the institution of special privileges serves to create
a sense of discrimination and inequality. Therefore, the influx of hitherto
docile immigrant groups into politics has served to solidify an ethnic
politics that is sub-national in character. More importantly, the separate
identity adopted by the different ethnic groups in Malaysia tends to
enhance loyalty to traditional communities.
The advent of cross-cutting, issue-specific civil society organisations in
Malaysia is by no means a panacea for the development of a common
conceptual map in multi-ethnic Malaysia. In the Malaysian context, it is
crucial to note that issue-specific organisations, including organisations
focused on human rights, consumer issues, the environment, women's
rights, and heritage, have historically developed as part of the middleclass concern about and action in response to political authoritarianism
and undemocratic development since the 1970s. Although the initial
condition of the development of civil society, as envisaged by Hegel
(1999), requires mutually recognised rights and obligations regulated by
public authority, the continuous politicisation of ethnic issues in
Malaysia has thwarted the development of a common point of reference.
As in other postcolonial societies, democracy was transplanted to
Malaysia before the systemisation of rights and citizens' adaptation to
the existence of multiplicity of independent and often contradictory
associations. Unlike in the United States or Great Britain, Malaysian
associationalism did not lead directly to responsible citizenship, much
less to liberal democratic values.
104

Civil Society and the State

CONCLUSION
Although much of the literature on civil society argues that civil society
and democratisation go hand-in-hand, pointing to the growing number of
CSOs as proof of ongoing democratisation, not all CSOs actively
promote democratisation. Malaysian CSOs come in a confusing array of
manifestationsfrom academic and professional groups to grassroots
groups, business-oriented groups, charity organisations, and, most of all,
ethnic and religious groups. In the Malaysian context, many CSOs have
conscientiously avoided political activities, choosing to concentrate on
running specific activities for their members or on delivering social
welfare services in line with a more traditional conception of charity,
which is essentially palliative and not discursively critical. More
importantly, ethnic-based political parties and their attendant effects
have impeded the development of inter-ethnic CSOs that transcend
ethnic issues. Ultimately, the prospects for democratisation lie with the
highest power in government, the Prime Minister. The trend of power to
concentrate ''upwards'' means that the leadership will ultimately decide
whether or not to make genuine attempts to improve accountability and
democratic participation. Without such concessions, civil society and
CSOs cannot participate more actively and freely. Concrete concessions
must include the reform of unnecessarily restrictive legislation,
including the Societies Act and the ISA, which have been used
repeatedly to penalise CSOs, often in an arbitrary fashion. Without such
concessions, civil society cannot realistically be expected to deliver what
is hoped of it.

NOTES
1.

Pakatan Rakyat is a coalition of three political parties, namely Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Democratic Action Party
(DAP). It has managed not only to deny Barisan Nasional its 2/3 majority in
Parliament but also to take control of the strategic states of Selangor and Penang. It
is also in control of Kedah and Kelantan.

2.

Interview with Professor Elizabeth O' Sullivan, 25 July 2009. The author is a coresearcher in a study headed by Professor O' Sullivan that is attempting to ascertain
the extent of collaboration among Malaysian NGOs. Professor O' Sullivan is a
Professor of Political Science at North Carolina State University.
105

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

REFERENCES
Abdul Rahman Embong. 2001. Beyond the crisis: The paradox of the
Malaysian middle class. In Southeast Asian middle classes:
Prospects for social change and democratization, ed. Abdul
Rahman Embong. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Almond, G. A. and S. Verba. 1963. The civic culture: Political attitudes
and democracy in five nations. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company.
Barber, B. R. 1999. Clansmen, consumers, and citizens: Three takes on
civil society. In Civil society, democracy, and civic renewal, ed. R.
K. Fullinwider. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Beckman, B. 1992. Empowerment of repression: The world bank and
the politics of African adjustment. In Authoritarianism, democracy
and adjustment, eds. P. Gibbon, L. Sachikonye and N. Blade.
Uppsala: Some Institute for Advance Study (SIAS).
Bourdieu, P. 1986. The forms of capital. In Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education, ed. J. Richardson. New
York: Greenwood Press.
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital.
American Journal of Sociology 94: S95S120.
Crouch, H. 1996. Government and society in Malaysia. St Leonards,
New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.
Diamond, L. 1999. Developing democracy: Toward consolidation.
Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Douglas, S. A. and P. Pedersen. 1973. Blood, believer, and brother: The
development of voluntary associations in Malaysia. Athens, Ohio:
Center for International Studies Ohio University.

106

Civil Society and the State

Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of

prosperity. New York: The Free Press.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. Ed. and trans.
Q. Hoare and G. Nowell. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Gupta, D. 1997. Civil society in the Indian context: Letting the state off
the hook. Contemporary Sociology 26(3): 605607.
Gupta, K. 2001. Civil Society: An inquiry into the usefulness of an
historical term. British Journal of Sociology, 44(3).
Gutmann, A. and D. Thomson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy?
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1999. The oldest systematic programme of German
idealism. In The early writings of the German romantics, ed. F. C.
Beiser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jesudason, J. V. 1995. Statist democracy and the limits to civil society in
Malaysia. Journal of Commonwealth and Contemporary Politics
33(3): 335356.
Kamrava, M. 2000. Politics and society in the developing world. London
and New York: Routledge.
Kaneko, Y. 2002. Malaysia: Dual structure in the stateNGO
relationship. In The state and NGOs: Perspective from Asia, ed. S.
Shigetomi. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Keane, J. 1988. Democracy and civil society. London and New York:
Verso.
Knack, S. 2000. Trust associational life and economic performance.
Paper presented at HRDC-OECD International Symposium on The
Contribution of Investment in Human and Social Capital to
Sustained Economic Growth and Well-Being, Washington D.C. 25
March.
107

Azeem Fazwan Ahmad Farouk

Lin, N. 2001. Social capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Loh, K. W. 2002. Developmentalism and the limits of democratic
discourse. In Democracy in Malaysia: Discourses and practices,
eds. K. W. Loh and B. T. Khoo. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.
Marx, K. and F. Engels. 1970. The German ideology. London: Lawrence
and Wishart.
Minkoff, D. C. 2001. Producing social capital: National social
movements and civil society. In Beyond tocqueville: Civil society
and the social capital debate in comparative perspective, eds. B.
Edwards, M. W. Foley and M. Diani. Hanover and London:
University Press of New England.
New Straits Times. 26 September 2007.
Paxton, P. 2002. Social capital and democracy: An interdependent
relationship. American Sociological Review 67: 254277.
Portes, A. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and application in modern
sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 124.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.

______. 1995. Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of

social capital in America. PS: Political Science & Politics
December: 664683.
Putnam, R. D., R. Leonardi and R. Y. Nanetti. 1993. Making democracy
work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Saravanamuttu, J. 2001. Malaysian civil societyAwakenings? In
Risking Malaysia: Culture, politics and identity, eds. Maznah
Mohamad and S. K. Wong. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia.

108

Civil Society and the State

Sobel, J. 2002. Can we trust social capital? Journal of Economic

Literature 40 (1): 139154.
Stolle, D. 2003. The sources of social capital. In Generating social
capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective,
eds. M. Hooghe and D. Stolle. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tocqueville, A. D. 1960. Democracy in America. Trans. H. Reeve. New
York: Schocken Books.
Verma, V. 2002. Malaysia: State and civil society in transition. New
York: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Weiss, M. and Saliha Hassan, eds. 2003. Social movement in Malaysia:
From moral communities to NGOs. London: Routledge.
Wood, B. 1987. Roots of trade unions weakness in post-independence
Zimbabwe. South African Labor Bulletin 12(67): 4792.

109