“Ethnic groups are constructed social forms as opposed to organic entities that developed naturally over time. However, because human beings are tribal by nature, their primary loyalties lie with their perceived community – be it in ethnic group, tribe, or nation – for which they are very often willing to fight and die” and … the vast majority of violent conflicts in the last fifty years has taken place at the sub-state level. (Erin K Jenne “Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment:” 2007)
Nowhere has this been more true than in the ethnic cauldron that is former Yugoslavia. As result, novel governance mechanisms have had to be introduced in many places. For example, in Macedonia, where Macedonians are 64.2% of the population and Albanians only 25%, the latter have, inter alia, constitutional veto rights over laws affecting their culture, education, personal documentation, use of symbols, local self-government, local elections, local finance, boundaries of municipalities, etc. I will however here consider the Malaysian, Northern Irish and Fijian experiences with shared governance, because of Malaysia’s long experience and our familiarity with what has happened in Northern Ireland and Fiji.
Malaysia
Malaysia (formerly Malaya) is a federal constitutional monarchy with a population of about 27.7 million, consisting of about 50.4% Malays, 23.7% Chinese, 11% indigenous people, 7.1% Indians with others 7.8%. The country has a per capita income of US$14,700 (PPP).
It has a bicameral parliament and the prime minister is the leader who commands the support of the majority of members in the lower house. The National Front BN coalition (formerly the Alliance Party), consisting of about a dozen political parties with their bases in the various ethnic groups, has been in office since the 1950s. The People’s Alliance consisting of about four parties and the Independent Party are at present in opposition.
Malaysia was plagued by ethnic violence in the 1950s until peace-making efforts resulted in a shared governance arrangement. As Gerald Maryanov wrote “The dominating socio-political characteristic of Malayan life is…the so-called ‘plural society.’ There is no doubt that communal labels are the most effective political symbols in Malaya; there is little that occurs in Malayan political life that escapes the usual explicit, sometime implicit, communal identification.” (‘Political Parties in Mainland Malaya;’ Journal of East Asian History, 1967)
Shared governance bargaining takes place within the BN party structure. The vast majority of BN seats are held by its three largest race-based parties representing the ethnic Malay, the Chinese and the Indian constituencies. Within this framework there is “affirmative action” for ethnic Malays which, among other things, requires that they control 30% of the economy. On the negative side, it has been claimed that the power sharing arrangement helps to maintain the sectarian nature of the society and the dominance and maintenance of the special privileges of the ethnic Malays.
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland has a population of about 1.7 million, of which 53% are Protestant and 44% Catholics, and few of us have not heard of the sectarian violence that has afflicted that country as a result of the Irish Republican Army’s (IRA) struggle for a united Ireland in the face of British and Unionist (in the sense of union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain) opposition.
After years of sectarian violence and various efforts at a political solution, the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 established a power sharing arrangement, which included a 108 member Northern Ireland Assembly elected by proportional representation and a Northern Ireland Executive consisting of 11 members. The voting procedure gave both Protestant and Catholic groups certain veto rights in the Assembly. The Executive was to be headed by a Unionist and include 5 other Unionist members. The Republican side received the deputy leadership and 3 other seats and the independent Northern Ireland Alliance received 1 seat. To make the allocation more acceptable to the Republican side, they were also given 2 junior Executive seats and the Unionist and the Alliance received 1 each. There was thus to be a fifteen member coalition cabinet in which the majority Unionists could be outvoted by a coalition of the Republicans and the Northern Ireland Alliance.
This arrangement broke down on a number of occasions but in 2005 the IRA announced that it had relinquished violence and would pursue its aims exclusively by political means and in 2007 a four party power-sharing government was sworn in, with the late radical Unionist leader Ian Paisley as leader of the Executive (the current incumbent is Peter Robinson) and Martin McGuinness, a former commander of the IRA, as deputy leader.
Fiji
Fiji is an archetypal bi-communal society and like Guyana, has been unable over the years to come to grips with its reality. The quarrel is between ethnic Fijians and Indian emigrants and the former’s determination that the Indians should not gain political power because of their numerical strength. Since independence in 1970 there have been many attempts at shared governance and coups and counter coups. The last military coup in 2006 ended the democratic experiment and Fiji has been under military rule since then. However, the constitution of 1997 was considered progressive and has some features worthy of consideration.
One of its non-justiciable principles stated that “the equitable sharing of political power amongst all communities in Fiji is matched by an equitable sharing of economic and commercial power to ensure that all communities fully benefit from the nation’s economic progress.” The House of Representatives was to be elected from different rolls of voters registered as Fijians, who were to elect 23 members; Indians 19 members, Roumans 1 member, and others 3 members. The Cabinet was to fairly represent the parties in the House of Representatives, in proportion to their seats and had to contain all parties whose membership comprised at least 10% of the total membership of the House.
Conclusion
The Malaysian approach is viewed as successful by some. In 2005, US Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes claimed that “The BN’s formula of power-sharing, which has guaranteed peace and stability in Malaysia for decades, could serve as useful experience for the Iraqi government ( Xinhua: 2005) The Northern Ireland experience is too short to allow meaningful comment but what all these examples show us is that shared governance takes various forms and that the contention that they generally do not and cannot work is false. It has not only worked but brought prosperity to those with sufficient insight and wisdom to make it work. And in those places such as Sri Lanka, Fiji and, until recently, Northern Ireland, where it has been needed but the necessary perspicacity to do something to establish it has been absent, the result has been alienation, turmoil and bloodshed. henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
