South Africa and Malaysia’s Cultural Activists’ Narratives
2. Conceptualizing ‘Community’ and ‘Non-State Actors’
The term ‘community’ has been considered as an imprecise and ubiquitous one by social scientists such as Rabinowitz (2001: 2387-2389) and Jacobs (2001: 2383) pointed out that the term is ‘open to wide interpretation’ (also cf. Milner 1972: 174-180); despite their problems in offering a suitable definition, they have appropriated Tonnes’
sociological model that helps to explain the term. Tonnes distinguished between two types of communities; the first is what he described as gemeinschaft and the second as gesellschaft. In the case of the former, it simply refers to a community that expresses feelings and the latter refers to associations that make up the community. Tonnes himself preferred to view community as the greater and more important entity than society; he argued that society is in essence made up of communities.
Community is thus the very foundation upon which society is based or created. The community is ‘… usually associated with an array of positive connotations such as solidarity, familiarity, unity of purpose, interest and identity’ (Rabinowitz 2001: 2387).
Social scientists have, however, generally accepted the idea that it may be defined as a
‘type of collectivity or social unit’ or a type of social relations or sentiments.’ By collectivity is meant that the group shares a defined physical space or geographical area, and shares common traits or has a sense of belonging; and that it maintains social ties and that their interaction with one another shapes them into a distinct social entity such an ethnic or religious community. These descriptions remind one of Ibn Khaldun, the North African scholar of whom much had been said in Chapter Three, who advocated the notion of ‘asabiyyah (group feeling/solidarity [cf. Rosenthal 1987: 566]).
Nonetheless Azarya (1996) pointed out that the term ‘community’ is a ‘type of social unit’ or ‘a type of social relations or sentiments,’ which shares physical geographical space and common traits such as a sense of belonging that brings about interaction that shapes it further into a distinct social entity, namely a religious community. From amongst the different minority religious communities in South Africa, the Muslim
community stands out as one of the more significant ones; various aspects of their significance have been dealt with in works by I.D. Du Plessis (1972), Bradlow & Cairns (1979), Davids (1980) and Tayob (1999). And in the case of Malaysia, the Malays – who are invariably accepted as Muslims according to the definition (cf. Barnard 2004; Kahn 2006) - form the largest religious community in that country.
In this chapter the interest is to look at representatives from these two communities. In general, when addressing the South African Muslim community or the Malaysian
‘Malay’ community, it can be cogently argued that they fit into Rabinowitz and others’
constructed and explained definition. For example, the South African Muslim community shares a physical geographical area and is made up of a variety of socio-linguistic and ethnic groups. And these different groups, inter alia, socialize with one another in the business arena, participate together in religious functions such as the celebration of the birth of the prophet, and involve themselves with one another in select sporting codes such as cricket. And whilst many of this community’s members are associated with their respective ethno-linguistic identity groups – taking into account Burgess’ (2002) critical thoughts - such as the ‘Cape Malays’ whose forebears hailed from parts of South Asia and Southeast Asia or Somali speakers who came to South Africa as refugees or Gujerati speakers whose forebears came as economic migrants from South Asia, they see themselves as part and parcel of the South African Muslim community. Arguments to describe and discuss the composition of the Malays in Malaysia can be constructed along similar lines (cf. Milner 1998; Barnard 2004; Kahn 2006).
Since these communities have been growing steadily in their respective states, representatives in each of them have been active in NGOs or community based organizations (CBOs) that tried to promote inter-cultural and religious relations with co- believers either within their own communities or with diasporic communities that share similar religio-cultural traits. Despite the debates regarding the exact origins of South Africa’s ‘Cape Malays’, representatives of these communities who have visited and toured Malaysia and Indonesia have observed similarities in physical features, religious practices, and cultural patterns of behaviour (cf. Haron 2005: 60-61). And since this has
been the case, these representatives have worked via CBOs or NGOs to connect these communities through religio-cultural structures. This was indeed what the stories of Mr.
Ismail Petersen and Tan Sri Ismail Hussein reveal. In fact, these CBOs and NGOs have empowered the communities with the knowledge that they were able to accumulate about their respective communities and the opportunities that came along in the process of connecting and bonding through partnerships at the people-to-people’s level.
Both communities via these representatives have become conscious of the positive value that this type of relationship brought about over the past few years, and they also became - to some degree - aware of what it can bring to bear on their respective countries’ foreign policies and IR agendas. Since the position of NSAs such as these representatives has become an important and indeed a respectable role within in international relations, it is perhaps appropriate to briefly address the theoretical status of these representatives.
Josselin and Wallace (2001: 1) noted that the state actors and NSAs form ‘broad opposing categories’ and that the latter group has learnt to exploit the space between the multilateral institutions in order to exercise their rights and pursue their interests in the socio-cultural and religious arena. These two scholars thus went on to define NSAs as individuals who are: autonomous from central government funding and control and emanate from civil society, operate and participate in networks which extend across borders of two or more states engaging in transnational relations that link socio-religion, cultural, economic and political ties (ibid 3-4). In the light of their observations, it can safely be concluded that both Ismail Petersen and Ismail Hussein have been acting autonomously without state support to pursue their socio-cultural activities within their respective communities as well as with groups in Southern Africa and Southeast Asia respectively. The transnational relationships that they have forged and have been engaged in over the many years are manifestations of trends across the globe throughout the era of globalization (cf. Kennedy & Rondometof 2002: 12).
And their cultural contributions have forced some states to acknowledge that these NSAs have made unique and indeed valuable contributions in international relations;
contributions that have generally been ignored and overlooked in the past. As a result of
adopting a positive attitude towards the activities of these individuals and groups, the state actors have created the necessary space and opportunities for NSAs in the IR arena.
This recognition and acceptance of the NSAs’ significant position in the IR arena concretizes the suggestions that had been made by both Mahathir and Mbeki regarding the importance of cultural relations between and among communities in the South.
Whilst this is indeed a positive move, the state actors such as the presidents and prime ministers of states should encourage their foreign policy practitioners and IR specialists to take cognisance of the significant position that NSAs hold within the IR sector. As a matter of fact, the respective Departments of Foreign Affairs in South Africa and Malaysia should create the space and perhaps a port-folio within its structures to assist with the promotion and support of these cultural connections through mutual cooperation rather than the imposition of rules and regulations from those located in the ‘upstairs section’ onto those who are live in the ‘downstairs section’ (to use Vale’s 1997 metaphor). If this should come about then it will fulfil one of the goals enshrined in NAASP and that is to allow for and recognize and respect ‘people-to-people’s interaction.’ Let me record and analyze the role that some NSAs played in forging cross- ocean ties and the ‘people-to-peoples ties’.
Figure 5.1
IR Actors
MAIN ACTORS MAIN ACTORS
State Actors:
Government/Cabinet/
President/Ministers/INGO State Actors:
Government/Cabinet/
President/Ministers/INGO
Non-State Actors:
TNC, NGO, CBO NSA - Individuals Non-State Actors:
TNC, NGO, CBO NSA - Individuals
3. Cultural Citizenship in the Diaspora: The Experiences of Hajjah Rabi’ah