The Perversion of Patriotism – KSINSIGHTS AUG 2024
Published on 12 Aug 2024
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”
Charles De Gaulle
With Malaysia set to chair ASEAN in 2025, the example that needs to be set is more than tangible; it has to be exemplary. Through the tricky and chaos-inducing moments that have happened in South East Asian history, Malaysia has been largely seen and gone unscathed. We are nothing short of lucky; pillared in times of uncertainty and surrounded by violence and confusion that their neighbours had to unfortunately experience or are experiencing.
From the beginning of its conception, Malaysia has always been a country with a throng of citizens from different ethnic backgrounds, languages, and cultures. That is what makes Malaysia so unique; the blend of Malay, Chinese, and Indian is consistently part of Malaysia’s identity.
Since gaining independence in 1957, Malaysia has had moments of harmony and pockets of insurgency and separation. Consequently, with the departure of Singapore in 1965, more lines were drawn in the sand as to what was actually Malaysian identity and who benefited from it.
There are secular, distinct, and very slim examples of nationalistic fervor that are in favor of sovereignty: using democratic traditional values of freedom, tolerance, equity, and individual rights – nationalism is not typically seen in a positive light and it is integral to know the difference of where it is applied, and in what context. There are two main types of nationalism that have created the backbone of groups, foundations, and even societies, having their roots in either ethnic nationalism or civic nationalism. Both have their place, but there are obvious consequences to one more than the other; ethnic nationalism in particular can become aggressive and radical very fast, mainly coinciding with expansionist nationalism in their midst.
Political terms are fluid and flexible meaning that they change. Nationalism can be hard to define, as the term has changed languidly over the years; different parties have used it for different reasons, and the way it is looked at in people’s individual context regarding their own memories and experiences. However, looking at it historically does not pertain to the conversation anymore; we as a people must look at the word and the connotations associated with it. The ideology is now ridden with points of exclusionary language and isolating themes that don’t reflect the idea of true and bred nationalism that was the cornerstone of much of Western democracy
Nationalism is exclusive. It makes way for one group and one group only, to ride the helm of an identity that is created in superiority to another. The interest of one or one secular, specific group sits at the top, whilst their ideology of what they believe in trickles down to the hierarchy. It includes an opposition that helms the idea that what they believe in, is a threat to their own principles of what should be considered in their society.
A problematic frame in nature but a common one that we see quite consistently. It does not do us any good to point and laugh at others when the principalities of the structure exist in our backyard.
On the other hand, patriotism is a devotion to one’s country. There are different examples of what these mean but the principle of both stays the same; nationalism is a defining factor when it comes to tradition, language, and sometimes history and religion. It shares a commonality that is expressed through those things on an individual basis, not thinking of everyone and everything as a whole. This differs from patriotism which is loyalty and love to one’s country, regardless of those factors because the basis for those things, only matters to an individual or individual idea. That includes race, ethnicity, and socio-economic standing. Patriotism encompasses devotion to the country as a whole – including all the people who live within it. Nationalism refers to devotion to only one group of people over all others.
My point is not to talk at length about the way that patriotism can evolve or the different types of nationalism, it is to talk about the origins of nationalism in this country, and how that word isn’t worthy of a society that has much pride in who they are and wants to launch itself into rapid globalization. There is a disconnect because of how loosely the word is used, especially when it comes to just describing groups of people with similarities. It is, unfortunately, more complicated than that togetherness that is based on individualistic thinking to speak for the masses.
When it comes to Malaysia’s case, there are two capacities that we need to understand. First, it is defined that Malay nationalism is a branch of nationalism, not the same as patriotism. If a movement only champions an individual’s idea of what an entire collective should be, then it does not come from a place of fairness. It is one way of doing things, regardless of what others think about that idea, at the expense of those people to implement what they think is just and fair. Although we share an identity through language, culture, history, and sometimes religion, we do not completely have the same experiences that encompass each specific thing. We have to look at identity; race, ethnicity, community, and socio-economic backgrounds; things that offer a very different perspective even though the former has been established as a commonality. We have a different experience than within our history when we intersect the two that determine actions, outcomes, and causes. We are then not defined or associated with something that only a few agree on, we are defined by how all these factors made the country what it is and how everybody’s experience needs to count.
Second, we need to take a step back into history and look at Malaysia’s colonial roots. The beginning of Malaysia’s conception was a need for sovereignty and independence, away from the 167 years of British rule. Through that, the British adopted their plan called The British Forward Moment that included the four Federated Malay States, five less regulated Unfederated Malay States, and the directly ruled settlements of Penang, Singapore, and Malacca. Riddled with inconveniences, the first steps to Malay nationalism were conditioned within the rulings of the elite and the alliances it brought forth for the British when it came to keeping a level of “peace” within their colony.
The system that the British had set up only catapulted a more severe divide using an “othering” method that had fear at its forefront to rally and suppress. This a departure from policy that singled out and had given favor to the elites instead of the working class, and was met with understandably, bitter backlash. In the aftermath of WW2, with the constant uprising of other colonies within the empire, Britain, like any other empire that wanted to prolong its hierarchy, only thought about what would be best for them. With how much it had lost during WW2, they wanted to implement sham ideals that then used the tin and rubber industries to help with their own reconstruction. Instead of the decision to peddle a united front and more inclusive appeal to all the factions, races, ethnicities, and religions in the country, it was fueled by their desire to exploit industries of the past and warrant the one thing that spoke to them the most: power.
No one could have foreseen what those ideals could have done for the future at that time, nor was it relevant. Malaysia was a brand new country that had to implement its own foundations in a world that was still recovering from one war and being sent into another. The wave of nationalism that came out of a desperation to form an identity so they wouldn’t get left behind is understandable, but that does not mean it was right. Through innocent ignorance, the claws of colonialism convinced the elites that they could further prosper on crumbling ideologies that were set in motion by their predecessors. That shaky foundation introduced a crumbling hierarchy and a harsh reality began to bloom as it exposed a reality of economic strife, social struggle, and political marginalization befalling many Malaysians.
There are many arguments for how nationalism in the beginning was needed; to protect culture, traditions, and language, but we are far past the pedagogies of the past and need to look towards the future to solidify us in place as not only a progressive country, but a fair country to all who have been here and come here further. Malay nationalism did not come from the welfare of a religion that was predestined to become a minority, it came from the combover of colonial thinking that only wanted to pedestal a more lucrative deal so that it could b enefit the British empire. It had nothing to do with the independence that so many fought for in the face of adversity, it had everything to do with the British’s ode to power, and how in the aftermath of WW2 and their colonies vying for sovereignty, what they could do to hold onto that authority for as long as possible.
A more historical definition of nationalism is not prevalent in Malaysia currently; Malaysia is not experiencing an all-out conflict that is level to where there needs to be a militant form of nationalism as people’s way of being is being violated. However, this does not dissuade from the conversation of the ethnic and nationalistic tendencies that this country was founded upon, nor the way that definition has changed over time and what it has created. Unfortunately, there has been a steady influx of nationalism, but not in a sense where in the past it has been encouraged as a form of colonial liberation. It exists as a point of discrimination that cannot be excused by the lens of contemporary history and the definition that has come before.
Malaysia was founded and liberated on the principle that Malays needed to be protected – excluding the compounding factors of the inclination of rulers, coloniality, and individualistic party understandings.
Although Malaysia has achieved points of harmony, it is harmful to assume that they do not participate or allow fragrant displays of nationalism committed by people belonging to the majority, steeped into false levels of fear and miscomprehension about a situation that does not call for it.
Patriotism does not just take the form of an individual thought or process, it is the duty that we have to our nation and the good or bad that are placed within it. Patriotism is a love for one’s country, not just serving in the government or military, but through teachers, doctors, artists, and farmers: people that contribute to society, out of love, to help and be part of their community and country. Simply saying “That is how we do it here” is not accurate, not enough, and also does not do anything in the long term when it comes to defining the country, what it stands for, and how we move forward together in a fair and just society.
Politicians can make narrative changes that are not steeped in such separation through our politics. Anti-nationalist attitudes often emphasize global cooperation, multiculturalism, and the reduction of nationalistic and xenophobic sentiments. We have to champion these goals to ensure that Malaysia does not fall into political disarray or civil unrest. Key policies to focus on are within education, our local economic regulations, and immigration policies. In particular, when we focus on Anti-Discrimination laws, there is a gap that is concerning between implementation and the written word. According to the
Even though the constitution states that anti-discrimination law is in the Federal Constitution under Article 8: that discrimination is prohibited based on religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender, there is still a gap that is now filled with patchy framework to continue and justify discrimination. Writing a law is one thing, but the stipulations in place have to exist to make implementation part of the present and not an ideal. When “the majority of Malaysians (64%) reported having experienced some form of discrimination in the past 12 months.” it doesn’t seem like the law has taken implementation as seriously as it should have. With backdoor weak reasoning that contributes to discrimination relating to “socio-economic status (38%), age (33%) and ethnicity (32%).” Statistics like these are worrying, especially knowing and understanding Malaysia’s history when it comes to nationalism and how it still has roots in the country at present. Although there is no affirmative way of knowing if these statistics directly link to negative nationalistic attitudes, it still does not have a place in society as it show different perspectives and identities that are not based on unity. Strengthening anti-discrimination laws to protect minorities, and marginalized communities from xenophobia and nationalism-driven policies, should be at the forefront of our thinking when we want to do away with any behavior that may influence these numbers.
As Malaysia starts to go into a world that encourages international cooperation, global education, and true diplomacy, it will get harder to navigate such waters if we continue like this. We cannot champion one thing whilst doing another; as the position of the ASEAN chair in 2025 looms closer, telling our peers that Malaysia is inclusive and a melting pot with many cultures and opportunities galore, cannot be supplemented with negative statistics in our own borders.
Nationalism does not do anyone any favors. We have to promote a new mindset; growth does not happen overnight – it happens through change, which may take weeks, months, or even years. Conversations, good-natured debates, and an intensive interest in knowing the difference between patriotism and nationalism stand at the forefront. The country deserves more, and we do as well.