This is my response to Rahim's question.
Which type or style of leadership best described the first Prime Minister of Malaysia? How does a style, as exemplified by a Prime Minister, encourages the people to participate actively in a planned programme for social and economic development? Are the prime minister’s personality, beliefs and values considered as strong role models for the entire people to emulate with?
Basically, these questions are inter-related and very much relevant in a way or another with the political culture and nature of leadership of the polity since the functioning of a political system cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of the influence of political culture. A fairly significant example of this is the ethnic issue in Malaysian politics. It is an undoubted fact that dominant values in Malaysia for instance have been largely determined by the Malay-Muslim polity and culture. Thus, as can be observed at present day, the political system in this country is heterogenous in terms of having many subcultures. This was partly due to the colonial’s strategic policy of exploiting the natural resources of Malaya by bringing in foreign workers to work in the mines and plantation estates. The fact, however, is indeed recognised and over the years, since independent, has become an uncommon feature in Malaysian polity. Today, it is considered as one of the most encouraging aspects of the Malaysian scene. It is said to be truly Malaysian in its outlook, having its roots in the country of malaysia and formed as a result of a synthesis of influences which are Malay, Chinese and Indian in their origin. As one observes, the result of this growth of a Malaysian culture can be seen in many aspects, most obviously including arts, literature etc., that is the outward expressions of a people’s feelings.
Ryan (1962:xi) stated it exceedingly well by saying that,“Such a culture will be the result of compromise, fusion and synthesis; not an easy process as the main communities in the country, the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians and the Borneo peoples differ greatly from ech other.”Culture is basically looked as made up of three major elements, i.e. (i) behaviour patterns (loyalty; individualistic; etc.); (ii) artifacts (man-made objects such as buildings, banners, pamphlets etc.); and (iii) belief systems (including religion, norms and taboos).Political culture, then, is defined as ‘the cluster of distinctive shared political values, attitudes, beliefs, and orientations’. Further, the cluster can be summed up as the mores and modes of thought as well as behaviour by which people live and and institutions are sustained. The mores are those elements of a culture which are considered vital for the survival of the society.It has been asserted that to understand political culture, an assessment must be made of the parameters and social thought within which politics has meaning, purpose and value.
In view of this, Leeds (1981: 194) suggests a two-way process, i.e. (i) the underlying political culture provides many of the key assumptions that govern political behaviour and the development of institutions; and (ii) in the reverse direction, the existing political system acts as a conditioning factor, influencing the boundaries in which the political culture esists. A person’s individual political beliefs, then are a response partly to his own personality and partly to the total socialising influence of the environment and over-all political culture.
Leeds reiterates further that such attitudes affect the kinds of demands made, the way they are expressed, and the responses of elites and the government. An example of this is provided by an observation made by Bowring (2004). In one of his articles, Bowring remarked how 2004 was the year that witnessed more Malays in Malaysia participated in a ‘reasonably free and fair national elections than will vote in the U.S. presdiential election in November.’He goes on to say that ‘of the four predominantly Malay nations, with a combined population of some 300 million, only the tiny rich oil sultanate of Brunei cannot pass as a democracy’.It is apparent, as Bowring had observed, that the three nations, i.e. Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Phillipines, are usually thought of in terms of either their religious differences – Muslim, Christian or a mix – or the different governance systems that have grown out of foreign rule – British, American, Dutch. However, as he observes more closely, Bowring notices that there is a shared common cultural heritage which predates the arrival of the West, of Christianity and of Islam.He states further that, “It is found in many social attitudes and behavioral norms and often transcends religious and national differences. There is also the basis of a shared language – before English, Malay was the lingua franca of Southeast Asia.”Although deemed to be inconclusive, it seems more or less clear, as Bowring had recently observed, that political culture does has a considerable part in stabilising a state’s political system and leadership. Accordingly, it is quite interesting to observe the differences in attitudes as Leeds and Finer (1970) have rightly pointed out so in their references to some political cultures in different countries. Both the writers indicate, in general, that attitudes and political culture are inseparable. The interlocking connection between attitude and political culture thus impact the political processes in one way or another. Leeds’s (1981) examples of differences in attitudes of Mexico citizens are often alienated from the policies of government but they are loyal to the system because of its identification with the emotive symbol of the Revolution. Britain, unlike West Germany, more emphasis is placed on informal personal bargaining and negotiation between government representatives and others via committees than on adherence to decisions made by an impersonal, institutionalised bureaucracy. United States. The culture is more egalitarian compared to Britain. People are more inclined to an attitude of ‘deference’ or passive acceptance to government policies. Classification of political cultureMature, or participatoryPeople are orientated positively towards most aspects of the political system, like in Britain, the United States, Norway and Sweden. The level of political culture, at this stage, is high when the political formulae by which rulers claim right to govern are generally accepted. The basic criteria then, are:1. degree of public approval for th eprocedures for transferring power from one government to the next; 2. degree of public recognition as to who or what comprises the sovereign authority; and 3. degree of public involvement in politics and in organisations such as churches, businesses, trade unions and political parties.
Subject
This type of political culture exists in countries where the citizen is expected to have a passive or obedient relationship to the system, as in dictatorships and under systems of authoritarian rule.Minimal, or parochial. Here the average individual hardly relates himself to politics and is unaware of its existence, as in traditional societies and parts of Latin America, Africa and Asia, especially in geographically remote areas. In some states, as Finer suggests, two or all of the above may be found. The Soviet Union, for instance, has been described as a participatory-subject political culture.
