malay became the unifying nationalist language of indonesia.
malay became the unifying nationalist language of indonesia.
what became the unifying nationalist language of indonesia?
malay
the indonesian language as the unifying language for indonesia is relatively open to accommodate influences from other indonesian ethnics' languages, most notably javanese as the majority ethnic group in indonesia, dutch as the previous coloniser, and english as the international language. as a result, indonesian has wider sources of loanwords, as compared to malay used in malaysia, singapore and brunei. it was suggested that the indonesian language is an artificial language made official in 1928. by artificial it means that indonesian was designed by academics rather than evolving naturally as most common languages have, to accommodate the political purpose of establishing an official unifying language of indonesia. by borrowing heavily from numerous other languages it expresses a natural linguistic evolution; in fact, it is as natural as the next language, as demonstrated in its exceptional capacity for absorbing foreign vocabulary. this disparate evolution of indonesian language led to a need for an institution that can facilitate co-ordination and co-operation in linguistic development among countries with malay language as their national language. the first instance of linguistic co-operation was in 1959 between malaya and indonesia, and this was further strengthened in 1972 when mbim (a short form for "majlis bahasa indonesia-malaysia" - language council of indonesia-malaysia) was formed. mbim later grew into mabbim ("majlis bahasa brunei-indonesia-malaysia" - language council of brunei-indonesia-malaysia) in 1985 with the inclusion of brunei as a member and singapore as a permanent observer. other important institution is dewan bahasa dan pustaka established in 1956. it is a government body responsible for co-ordinating the use of the malay language in malaysia and brunei.
history of the malay language
such notions of indigenous african fascism have generally been excluded, often explicitly, from political science typologies of fascism. as well as paxton roger griffin rejects the notion of fascism in africa (outside of south africa) in his book "the nature of fascism", arguing that african dictatorships do not seek the mass mobilisation of their populations necessary for a regime to be called fascist, whilst with national borders often arbitrarily set by colonial powers and tribal, religious and ethnic loyalties frequently much stronger than national identity unifying nationalist palingenetic myths could not be constructed by groups, another precondition for true fascism. for griffin a precondition for the rise of fascism is a breakdown in traditional society combined with an increasing liberalisation against the backdrop of socio-political instability, which also rules out post-colonial africa where such liberalisation did not take place until much more recently, with post-colonial regimes frequently transferring directly to dictatorships, wither actual or effective.
fascism in africa