Content area
Full Text
IN JANUARY 1993, the Malaysian parliament stripped the Malay rulers of their legal immunity.(1) Meanwhile, UMNO Baru, the backbone of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, withdrew all privileges not provided for under the constitution and considered removing the "royal" prefix from the titles of state institutions. These actions appeared to be in response to public outcry over royal transgression of the law. Yet, the campaign against royalty is all the more interesting given the fact that most of the rulers had close personal ties with the UMNO leadership and had helped entrench the latter's dominance over the Malaysian political process. Why then did the UMNO elites move against the sultans when they had all along tolerated royal "misdemeanors"?
This article will argue that the declining relevance of feudal institutions in UMNO Baru's strategy of political dominance and its elites' perception of the rulers as potential contenders for executive power culminated in the revision of the position of the rulers in Malaysian politics. However, the process of redefinition itself was constrained by other factors that were beyond the control of the ruling regime.
THE ROYAL IMPERATIVE
To understand the recent constitutional crisis, it is important to review, however briefly, the role of the rulers in Malay society. Pre-colonial Malay society was organized along a patrimonial model comprising the bangsawan (aristocracy) and the rakyat (masses). Within the bangsawan operated another dyad between the raja (ruler) and the orang besar (territorial chieftains). Although stratification limited social interaction between the two groups, the three dyads were inextricably linked by power relationships. Generally, the chiefs interacted with the masses. As patrons, they provided protection and order in their districts in return for financial and manpower resources. The relationship was largely "instrumental" in nature, for dissatisfaction with the patron could result in the clients transferring their allegiance to another patron.(2) The chiefs were themselves dependent on the rulers for the legitimacy of office. Conversely, the rulers were dependent on the chiefs for the distribution of patronage which helped keep the system stable and enhanced their status in society.
Although some chiefs were very powerful and had at times gone against royal authority, it was nevertheless in their interest to maintain a system from which they benefited immensely. Hence the promotion of...