MALAYSIA & THAILAND: CIVIL SOCIETY AND ETHNIC CONFLICT

COMMENTARY ARCHIVES, 5 Feb 2010

Daniel Semcesen , Pierre Nikolov – Centre Tricontinental

The importance of civil society for advancing peace efforts and outcomes generated increased and wide interest after the Cold war. During this era the number of armed intra-state and violent ethnic conflicts also increased dramatically. In Southeast Asia only Malaysia has avoided intra-state conflict and recurring ethnic violence. Thailand constitutes a typical regional case with prolonged and recurring intra-state and ethnic conflicts. The aim of this study therefore was to contrast and explain the role of civil society in relation to ethnic conflict in Thailand and Malaysia. A comparative case analysis was applied across four analytical dimensions: space, structure, values, impact. Our study demonstrated that coercive regimes have suppressed civil society and communities remain intra-ethnic in both countries. Although civil society is weakened in both cases inter-ethnic government policies have secured ethnic peace over five decades in Malaysia, whereas the absence of similar policies has prolonged ethnic violence in Thailand.

In the aftermath of the Cold war armed inter-state conflicts decreased globally, while armed intra-state conflicts increased dramatically. During the 1990s more than ninety percent of all existing armed conflicts were classified as civil wars (Paris, 2004: 1). With the eruption of ethnic wars in Europe, Asia and Africa the role of ethnicity was also singled out as a central factor for armed conflict in the post Cold war era (Joireman, 2003: 1). In light of these developments the international community and a wide spectrum of research fields turned their attention towards intra-state conflict resolution and management. With the fall of communism and a number of other coinciding changes, such as the emergence of new democracies, increased global interaction in a growingly insecure world, and a significant increase of NGOs globally, focus was widely turned towards the role of civil society as an important element or partner in intra-state peace building processes (Edwards, 2004: 2). In short, numerous politicians, scholars and practitioners around the world anticipated that civil society would be of central importance for the initiation and sustainability of peace processes. As a concept civil society can be depicted as a societal sphere positioned between the individual and the state wherein non-governmental and non-profit activities and values of civility are practiced (Belloni, 2001: 168). As civil society widely was endorsed as a vital sphere for democratization processes, the rule of law, and the respect for human rights it was thereby anticipated that ethnically divided societies would achieve sustainable peace though civil society (Belloni, 2001: 163).

During history the importance and characteristics of civil society have been examined and disputed by numerous Western philosophers and social scientists. The importance of civil society in societies outside the Western world however has not generated similar quantities of research (Edwards, 2004: 10). Asia is the most populous continent on the planet, and most civil wars in Asia are found in Southeast Asia (Möller , DeRouen, Bercovitch, Wallensteen, 2007: 376). With the development of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) the probability of armed conflicts between the nations in the region was significantly reduced (Rüland, 2005: 546). Similar progress has not been achieved regarding intra-state conflict resolution (Vatikiotis, 2006: 29), as civil wars in Southeast Asia tend to be prolonged and re-emergent (Möller et al, 2007: 376). A recent example concerns the re-emergence and intensification of the internal conflict in Southern Thailand. Between January 2004 and July 2007 more than 2400 people lost their lives in this conflict, and more than four thousand people were injured (HRW, 2007: 5). Shootings occur daily, and bomb attacks and beheadings take place weekly (Melvin, 2007: 5-6). In neighbouring Malaysia such intra-state conflicts have never erupted. Malaysia has instead managed to avoid prolonged and re-emerging violent ethnic conflicts (Reynal-Querol, 2002: 29-30). In this study our aim therefore was to comparatively elucidate and explain the role of civil society in relation to ethnic conflict in Thailand and Malaysia.

PLEASE CONTINUE READING THIS PAPER IN THE ORIGINAL PDF.

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 5 Feb 2010.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: MALAYSIA & THAILAND: CIVIL SOCIETY AND ETHNIC CONFLICT, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Comments are closed.