FOUR NEW TEXTS ON CHINESE POLITICS ARE REVIEWED. THE AUTHORS OF THESE NEW TEXTS ARE HAROLD HINTON, LUCIAN PYE, JOHN BYRAN STARR, AND JAMES TOWNSEND. THE ASSESSMENT OF THESE WORKS SUGGEST THAT CHINESE POLITICS STUDIES MUST STOP BEING ISOLATED FROM THE BROADER CONCERNS OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. THESE WORKS BEGIN TO ACCOMPLISH THIS BY THE APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGIES BOWROWED FROM COMPARATIVE POLITICS.
During the past 20 years, the politics of the Chinese in Malaya has been a subject of international interest.The Malayan Communist Party has been predominantly Chinese; it was Chinese politics in Singapore (briefly part of Malaysia) which produced the phenomenon of Lee Kuan Yew; and the Kuala Lumpur riots of May 1969 are widely thought to have been efforts to stem a Chinese challenge to Malay supremacy. The Chinese in West Malaysia, especially when taken together with those in Singapore, have earned the attention of governments, journalists and scholars alike. They form the largest concentration of Chinese outside of Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong; their economic life is among the most sophisticated in Asia; their social and cultural life probably the most complex that Chinese anywhere have ever known; and, above all, their political life has been more open and exposed than that of any other kind of Chinese. This last, their political life, has been difficult to evaluate for a number of reasons. The main reason is that two contradictory views about them have long prevailed: that the Chinese are non-political and that the Chinese are political in a secretive and inscrutable way. These views are based on a concept of politics in the democratic tradition and are either anachronistic or misleading. Chinese, Malay and colonial political systems have been, in varying degrees, authoritarian, and Chinese political life must be seen in that context except in the period 1957–69.
"The Introduction sets out the theoretical and empirical concerns of the book: Institutionalization is defined as a decision-making rule that allows power to pass from one leader to another. Institutionalization is, by definition, a set of rules that constrain the personalization of power. Leninism, as a mobilizing system, provides no such rule, and the repeated consolidation of power and the accompanying tendency to build personal networks prevent the system from institutionalizing. It should be noted that the elaboration of intra-party rules does not mean that such rules extend to the core leadership; rather they are rules that bind others. Finally, Leninism as a specific form of organization, is different from the broader term 'authoritarianism.' Inherent in the concept is the notion that Leninism develops through phases. Leninism under reform is subject to certain pathologies that weaken it"--
