Comparative Political Studies

http://cps.sagepub.com

Book Review: Means, G. P. (2009). Political Islam in Southeast

Asia. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner
Jennifer L. Epley
Comparative Political Studies 2010; 43; 538
DOI: 10.1177/0010414009354061

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://cps.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Comparative Political Studies can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://cps.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://cps.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN on March 15, 2010

538 Comparative Political Studies 43(4)

is especially important in this respect, as the reasons underlying the phenom-

enon of “bad neighborhoods” are poorly understood. This book will be of
interest to scholars of conflicts as well as those interested in transnational
movements and interstate cooperation.

References
Adelman, H. (1998). Why refugee warriors are threats. Journal of Conflict Studies,
18, 49-69.
Cunningham, D. (2006). Veto players and civil war duration. American Journal of
Political Science, 50, 875-892.
Gleditsch, K., Salehyan, I., & Schultz, K. (2007, February). The “civil peace”:
Exploring the relationship between civil and international conflict. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago.
Hegre, H., & Sambanis, N. (2006). Sensitivity analysis of empirical results on civil
war onset. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50, 508-535.
Lake, D., & Rothchild, D. (1998). The international spread of ethnic conflict: Fear,
diffusion, and escalation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stedman, J., & Tanner, F. (2003). Refugee manipulation: War, politics, and the abuse
of human suffering. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Means, G. P. (2009). Political Islam in Southeast Asia.

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Reviewed by: Jennifer L. Epley, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

DOI:10.1177/0010414009354061

Since 1998, after the fall of Suharto, Indonesia has held several peaceful and
orderly legislative and presidential elections, the latest of which were con-
ducted in April and July 2009. The elections demonstrated the country’s com-
mitment to develop its democracy and the durable role of religion in politics.
Though Muslim political parties recently received less than 30% of the vote
share and the presidential election lacked a high-profile Islamic candidate,
political Islam is not necessarily on the decline. Religious rhetoric, symbol-
ism, and practice are still part and parcel of passing the general religious lit-
mus test and specifically courting the Islamic vote. Although the elections
show that Islam and democracy can be “compatible,” the July 17, 2009,
bombings at the J. W. Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta—suspected

Downloaded from http://cps.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN on March 15, 2010

Book Reviews 539

to be the work of Muslim extremists—are a painful reminder of the poten-

tially negative consequences of political Islam. These and other current events
highlight the need for rigorous research regarding the relationship between
Islam and politics. Gordon P. Means’s timely book, Political Islam in
Southeast Asia, meets this need and is an essential read for scholars and prac-
titioners interested in understanding the historical and contemporary com-
plexities of political Islam.
The book contains several interwoven research questions: How did Islam
come to the region of Southeast Asia? How did it adapt and change in
different cultural, economic, and political environments, particularly under
colonial rule? What was the role of Islam in the process of decolonization?
How have governments in the postcolonial era interacted with Islam? What
are the present-day challenges that Islam faces and generates? Means
answers these questions by carefully tracing the origins and evolution of
Islam through the use of the historical method, drawing on a rich array of
resources. His comprehensive bibliography includes works by area studies
specialists, historians, political scientists, policy makers, NGOs, research
organizations, and journalists from within the region and outside Southeast
Asia. The diverse collection of texts not only grounds Means’s research but
also functions as a great professional service for those interested in delving
more deeply into certain subjects.
According to Means, Islam is a religion as well as a political, social,
cultural, and ideological force (p. 1). Islam’s ancient roots are in Mecca and
Medina, but it spread to Southeast Asia in the 14th century by way of Arab
and Indian Muslim traders and missionaries. The conversion process was
not a destabilizing one as new converts adapted the rituals and obligations
of Islam to fit with their traditional beliefs and social structures (p. 22). This
“Southeast Asian Synthesis” provided a sense of unity from a shared religion
as well as enhanced diversity as Islam developed many different (and at times
competing) characteristics within the region. Interestingly, Means ties this
synthesis to the “Medieval Synthesis” from the first Islamic empires, which
acknowledged ideal Islamic goals but made modifications to pragmatically
address issues of governance and social organization (p. 18). Although the core
of Islam has largely gone unchanged, it has experienced religious and cultural
innovations over time and in different locales.
Under colonial rule, the countries of Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands,
Great Britain, and later the United States pursued unique policies toward
Islam that later shaped the trajectory of political Islam (p. 31). The
Portuguese restrained and fractured the Muslim trading system, thereby
encouraging Malays to mobilize around Islamic principles to protect their

Downloaded from http://cps.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN on March 15, 2010

540 Comparative Political Studies 43(4)

culture and resources. The Spanish created a Christian majority state, thus
creating grievances and hostilities in the southern Philippines. The Dutch
were relatively tolerant and supportive of Islam so long as there were no
threats to their authority and economic power. A few local rulers resisted
Dutch rule, and Islamist opposition in Minangkabau and Aceh in particular
involved lengthy and costly wars. The British promoted the privileged status
of Malays in the colonial system and superimposed the definition of Malay
and Muslim. The United States pursued policies of integration, assimilation,
and “modernization” (e.g., transmigration programs), which served to
further alienate Filipino Muslims. Depending on the context and their needs,
the various colonial authorities accommodated, co-opted, or suppressed
Islam for elites and the masses.
Over time, Islam facilitated an ideology of resistance and tradition of
political militancy toward the colonial powers. Islam competed with the
ideologies of nationalism and communism to shape the politics of
decolonization, however, leading Means to characterize the Indonesia case as
“independence without consensus” and the Malaysian one as “challenged by
ethnicity.” Independence did not ensure clarity or stability even after the
1960s and 1970s, when governments took steps to defeat communism.
Secular nationalism and political Islam continued to be at odds with one
another. In attempts to consolidate and secure their power, political leaders
such as Suharto and Mahathir attempted to “manage” Islam by defining
orthodoxy, limiting so-called deviant sects, and supporting certain religious
institutions. Governments engaged in further actions to deflect, defeat, or
co-opt Islam during the late 1970s and early 1980s in the face of Islamic
resurgent movements (dakwah), which were influenced by political events
and ideologies from the Middle East. Governments have also had to contend
with separatism and rebellion. Three of the longest lasting conflicts—Moro
separatism in the Philippines, Pattani Malay separatism in Thailand, and Aceh
separatism in Indonesia—have involved many human, economic, and political
costs. Means writes, “Through all these historical periods, there have been
contests over the control of Islam because rulers and aspiring power seekers
realized that Islam established a basis for political power” (p. 364).
The present-day challenges that Islam faces and generates include
balancing democracy and religion in multireligious, multiethnic societies
(e.g., the application of Sharia law, handling diverse interpretations of Islam,
and treatment of non-Muslims); anticipating and combating radicalism,
violence, and terrorism; and adapting or competing in a globalized world with
a variety of push–pull tendencies at the local, national, and international
levels. Politicians, policy makers, organizations, and laypersons have yet to

Downloaded from http://cps.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN on March 15, 2010

Book Reviews 541

resolve all of these matters. Ultimately, Means believes that answers will
come from ordinary Muslims and how they combine their faith with the
realities of their everyday lives. Democracy can foster this process by
allowing individuals the freedom to make decisions for themselves and to
select their leaders (p. 388).
Means makes a clear and compelling case for the enduring and pivotal
role of Islam in political life in multiple countries in Southeast Asia. He
demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the ways in which Islam can
act as a force and also be acted on. Means recognizes that religion can be a
tool for politics and politics a tool for religion. He is sensitive to the variation
of political Islam within and between countries yet does not lose sight of the
shared beliefs, practices, and experiences of Muslims from different
backgrounds. The use of numerous valid and reliable resources provides
ample evidence for Means’s observations and arguments.
Political Islam in Southeast Asia is an important contribution to the field
of political science because it provides generous descriptive data for a
specific region as well as the subfield of religion and politics. The book is
analytically useful because it identifies the past major internal and external
forces and developments of political Islam and connects them to contemporary
political phenomena. Finally, the book points to critical historical,
institutional, and public policy questions requiring further exploration and
research.
Future editions of this book or related projects may include some clarifying
notes to assist discussions and debates on religion and politics in Southeast
Asia. First, it would be useful to readers for the concept of “political Islam”
to be defined early and in more detail. Is it meant to be a generic term that
encompasses certain or all political components of the religion? Is it primarily
a reference to the combination of religion and state? Is it a term that
emphasizes political ideology rather than religion or theology? Is political
Islam a religious or sociopolitical movement of some kind? Perhaps the sheer
diversity of Southeast Asia and the varied histories that are emphasized in the
book prevent an all-inclusive, one-size-fits-all definition, however.
Second, should we be concerned about historical determinism? That is, are
politics in Southeast Asia somehow historically predetermined by the unique
origins and evolution of Islam in the region? Will the legacy of past colonial
policies in particular continue to pose challenges for the historical progression
of Islam? Are there religious or nonreligious factors that promote or prohibit
an inevitable tendency toward conflict?
Third, is there something innately distinct about Islam or Islam in
Southeast Asia that its dynamics and experiences cannot be found or

Downloaded from http://cps.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN on March 15, 2010

542 Comparative Political Studies 43(4)

replicated in other religions or regions? Can we speak of a “political

Christianity” or “political Judaism” in the same way as we do of “political
Islam,” for instance? Such cross-religious and cross-national or -regional
comparisons would be useful for researchers studying similar topics and
governments tasked with creating and implementing institutions and policies
that minimize, deter, and resolve religiopolitical disputes.
Though these questions linger after reading Political Islam in Southeast
Asia, Means’s solid historical research is recommended to area specialists
and political scientists investigating religion, democratization, development,
security, or any combination thereof.

Rector, C. (2008). Federations:The Political Dynamics

of Cooperation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Reviewed by: John W. Hulsey, Indiana University, Bloomington

DOI:10.1177/0010414009354063

In Federations, Chad Rector seeks to explain states’ choices to join federa-

tions to achieve common goals with other states. He argues that states create
federations to overcome mistrust and commitment problems that cannot be
overcome using other forms of cooperation, such as international organiza-
tions. Rector’s theory posits that federations form when states benefit from
cooperation, but cooperation requires unequal levels of relationship-specific
investments (p. 61). In developing his theory, he extracts six specific and
observable implications of the theory that link his theory to the emergence
and nonemergence of federations, states’ preferences regarding federa-
tion given their relative levels of relationship-specific investment, strategies
used by states in federation negotiations, and state behavior regarding fed-
eral institutions (p. 62). The result is a parsimonious and logical theory with
easy-to-follow implications that Rector then examines in his case studies.
Rector challenges existing explanations that focus on efficiency gains
in the provision of certain public goods (e.g., security) resulting from
economies of scale by pointing out that those efficiency gains can frequently
be achieved through other forms of cooperation, such as international
organizations, that are more efficient than federations (p. 8). Existing
explanations are hampered by a focus on the dichotomous choice between
self-sufficiency and federation, although the real-life set of types of

Downloaded from http://cps.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN on March 15, 2010